Search

The article discusses the evolving understanding of rehabilitation, emphasizing the need for a broader perspective that includes psychology, sociology, and other behavioral sciences. It challenges the biomedical approach and advocates for the biopsychosocial model of wellness. It recommends for a reevaluation of rehabilitation dogma and a shift towards a person-centered approach.

Objective: To use secondary data from the Taking Charge after Stroke study to explore mechanisms for the positive effect of the Take Charge intervention on physical health, advanced activities of daily living and independence for people after acute stroke. Design: An open, parallel-group, randomised trial with two active and one control intervention and blinded outcome assessment. Setting: Community. Participants: Adults (n = 400) discharged to community, non-institutional living following acute stroke. Interventions: One, two, or zero sessions of the Take Charge intervention, a self-directed rehabilitation intervention which helps a person with stroke take charge of their own recovery. Measures: Twelve months after stroke: Mood (Patient Health Questionnaire-2, Mental Component Summary of the Short Form 36); 'ability to Take Charge' using a novel measure, the Autonomy-Mastery-Purpose-Connectedness (AMP-C) score; activation (Patient Activation Measure); body mass index (BMI), blood pressure (BP) and medication adherence (Medication Adherence Questionnaire). Results: Follow-up was near-complete (388/390 (99.5%)) of survivors at 12 months. Mean age (SD) was 72.0 (12.5) years. There were no significant differences in mood, activation, 'ability to Take Charge', medication adherence, BMI or BP by randomised group at 12 months. There was a significant positive association between baseline AMP-C scores and 12-month outcome for control participants (1.73 (95%CI 0.90 to 2.56)) but not for the Take Charge groups combined (0.34 (95%CI −0.17 to 0.85)). Conclusion: The mechanism by which Take Charge is effective remains uncertain. However, our findings support a hypothesis that baseline variability in motivation, mastery and connectedness may be modified by the Take Charge intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is no agreement about or understanding of what rehabilitation is; those who pay for it, those who provide it, and those who receive it all have different interpretations. Furthermore, within each group, there will be a variety of opinions. Definitions based on authority or on theory also vary and do not give a clear description of what someone buying, providing, or receiving rehabilitation can actually expect. Method: This editorial extracts information from systematic reviews that find rehabilitation to be effective, to discover the key features and to develop an empirical definition. Findings: The evidence shows that rehabilitation may benefit any person with a long-lasting disability, arising from any cause, may do so at any stage of the illness, at any age, and may be delivered in any setting. Effective rehabilitation depends on an expert multidisciplinary team, working within the biopsychosocial model of illness and working collaboratively towards agreed goals. The effective general interventions include exercise, practice of tasks, education of and self-management by the patient, and psychosocial support. In addition, a huge range of other interventions may be needed, making rehabilitation an extremely complex process; specific actions must be tailored to the needs, goals, and wishes of the individual patient, but the consequences of any action are unpredictable and may not even be those anticipated. Conclusion: Effective rehabilitation is a person-centred process, with treatment tailored to the individual patient's needs and, importantly, personalized monitoring of changes associated with intervention, with further changes in goals and actions if needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]