4.4 Article

Process for developing rehabilitation practice recommendations for individuals with traumatic brain injury

期刊

BMC NEUROLOGY
卷 17, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12883-017-0828-z

关键词

Traumatic brain injury; Brain injury; Rehabilitation; Delphi; Clinical practice guideline; Evidence based medicine

资金

  1. National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR) [90DP0045-01-0]
  2. Ginger Murchison Foundation Traumatic Brain Injury Research Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Attempts at measuring quality of rehabilitation care are hampered by a gap in knowledge translation of evidence-based approaches and lack of consensus on best practices. However, adoption of evidence-based best practices is needed to minimize variations and improve quality of care. Therefore, the objective of this project was to describe a process for assessing the quality of evidence of clinical practices in traumatic brain injury (TBI) rehabilitative care. Methods: A multidisciplinary team of clinicians developed discipline-specific clinical questions using the Population, Intervention, Control, Outcome process. A systematic review of the literature was conducted for each question using Pubmed, CINAHL, PsychInfo, and Allied Health Evidence databases. Team members assessed the quality, level, and applicability of evidence utilizing a modified Oxford scale, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Methods Guide, and a modified version of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation scale. Results: Draft recommendations for best-practice were formulated and shared with a Delphi panel of clinical representatives and stakeholders to obtain consensus. Conclusion: Evidence-based practice guidelines are essential to improve the quality of TBI rehabilitation care. By using a modified quality of evidence assessment tool, we established a process to gain consensus on practice recommendations for individuals with TBI undergoing rehabilitation.

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

4.4
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