4.5 Editorial Material

Moving on. A farewell from the last Editor-in-Chief who says: 'Rehabilitation is a way of thinking, not a way of doing'

期刊

CLINICAL REHABILITATION
卷 37, 期 3, 页码 287-293

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/02692155221131248

关键词

Rehabilitation; research; publication

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article mainly introduces how the author, as the editor of Clinical Rehabilitation, supported and encouraged the publication of articles with evidence-based, conceptual and scientific basis on rehabilitation to answer the definition and features of rehabilitation. The author believes that the essential feature characterizing rehabilitation is its holistic, person-centered approach, and its focus on social integration.
What is rehabilitation? From 1994 to 2021, while I was privileged to be Editor of Clinical Rehabilitation, I explored this in editorials. I also encouraged and selected submissions that considered, in one way or another, the central features of rehabilitation. Why? Because when I started in rehabilitation, the general attitude among doctors and other healthcare professionals was that rehabilitation was pleasant but with no evidence of effectiveness. Further, they did not think a doctor had a role to play and did not think there was anything special for rehabilitation experts to know or have skills in. In this editorial, I discuss how, as editor, I used my position to support and encourage the publication of articles that produced evidence, considered the conceptual and scientific basis of rehabilitation, and ultimately answered the above question. I illustrate this with a few specific papers published in Clinical Rehabilitation. After 30 years, I have concluded that the essential feature characterising rehabilitation is its way of thinking about the patient's problems and how to solve them. Rehabilitation is holistic, person-centred, and concerned about social integration rather than disease or disability. Moreover, there is a mass of evidence showing it benefits patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据