4.5 Article

DEVELOPMENT OF A FRAMEWORK IDENTIFYING DOMAINS AND ELEMENTS OF IMPORTANCE FOR ARTHRITIS REHABILITATION

Journal

JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION MEDICINE
Volume 44, Issue 5, Pages 406-413

Publisher

FOUNDATION REHABILITATION INFORMATION
DOI: 10.2340/16501977-0961

Keywords

arthritis; rehabilitation; framework; context; structure; process; outcome

Funding

  1. European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Rehabilitation is effective and beneficial for patients with arthritis. The lack of a common structure for describing the content of rehabilitation makes it difficult to compare, transfer and implement research evidence into clinical practice. Objective: To develop a framework comprising domains and elements of importance when describing arthritis rehabilitation. Methods: On the basis of a systematic literature search and review, the framework was developed through a 9-step development process, including 5 Delphi consensus rounds within the Scandinavian Team Arthritis Register - European Team Initiative for Care Research (STAR-ETIC) collaboration, a group of clinicians, researchers and patients from northern Europe. Results: Based on Donabedian's healthcare model, the International Classification of Function, Disability and Health, and a rehabilitation model by D. T. Wade, 4 domains (context, structure, process and outcome) were defined. Within each domain, the most important and relevant key elements for describing rehabilitation were selected. This framework contains 1 key element under context, 9 under structure, 3 under process, and 9 under outcome. Conclusion: The STAR-ETIC framework can be used to describe arthritis rehabilitation, by emphasizing key elements in 4 main domains. A common framework may facilitate comparisons of rehabilitation programmes across countries and different levels of care, and may improve the implementation of rehabilitation research in clinical practice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available