Designing studies and reviews to produce informative, trustworthy evidence about complex interventions in rehabilitation: a narrative review and commentary.

According to Cochrane Rehabilitation's recently published definition for research purposes, rehabilitation is inherently complex. Rehabilitation teams frequently implement multiple strategies concurrently, draw on input from a range of different health professionals, target multiple outcomes, and personalize therapeutic plans. The success of rehabilitation lies not only in the specific therapies employed, but also in how they are delivered, when they are delivered, and the capability and willingness of patients to engage in them. In 2021, the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) released the second major update of its framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions. This framework has direct relevance to the development and implementation of evidence-based practice in the field of rehabilitation. While previous iterations of this framework positioned complex interventions as anything that involved multiple components, multiple people, multiple settings, multiple targets of effect, and behavior change, this latest framework expanded on this concept of complexity to also include the characteristics and influence of the context in which interventions occur. The revised MRC-NIHR framework presents complex intervention research as comprising the following four inter-related and overlapping phases: 1) development or identification of the intervention; 2) feasibility; 3) evaluation; and 4) implementation, with different methods and tools required to address each of these phases. This paper provides an overview of the MRC-NIHR framework and its application to rehabilitation, with examples from past research. Rehabilitation researchers are encouraged to learn about the MRC-NIHR framework and its application. Funders of rehabilitation research are also encouraged to place greater emphasis on supporting studies that involve the right design to address key uncertainties in rehabilitation clinical practice. This will require investment into a broader range of types of research than simply individual-level randomized controlled trials. Rehabilitation research can both learn from and contribute to future iterations of the MRC-NIHR framework as it is an excellent environment for exploring complexity in clinical practice.

Improving the quality of evidence production in rehabilitation. Results of the 5th Cochrane Rehabilitation Methodological Meeting.

The paper introduces the Special Sections of the European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine dedicated to the 5th Methodological Meeting of Cochrane Rehabilitation. It introduces Cochrane Rehabilitation; its vision, mission and goals; discusses why the Methodological Meetings were created; and reports on their organisation and previous outcomes. The core content of this editorial is the 5th Methodological Meeting held in Milan in September 2023. The original title for this meeting was "The Rehabilitation Evidence Ecosystem: useful study designs." The focus of the Milan meeting was informed by the lessons learned by Cochrane Rehabilitation in the past few years, by the new rehabilitation definition for research purposes, by the collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO), and by the REH-COVER (Rehabilitation COVID-19 Evidence-Based Response) action. During the Meeting, participants discussed the current methodological evidence on the following: RCTs in rehabilitation coming from meta-epidemiological studies; observational study designs - specifically the IDEAL Framework (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term study) and its potential implementation in rehabilitation and the Target Trial Emulation framework: Single Case Experimental Designs; complex intervention studies: health services research studies, and studies using qualitative approaches. The Meeting culminated in the development of a first version of a "road map" to navigate the evidence production in rehabilitation according to the previous discussions. The Special Sections' papers present all topics discussed at the meeting, and a methodological paper about choosing the right research question, presenting final results and the "road map" for evidence production in rehabilitation.

Challenges in applying evidence-based practice in stroke rehabilitation: a qualitative description of health professional experience in low, middle, and high-income countries.

Purpose: Evidence-based practice (EBP) is considered central to ethical, effective service delivery in rehabilitation, and the implementation of the World Health Organisation's Rehabilitation Strategy 2030. This study aimed to explore and compare the experiences of health professionals regarding the application of EBP for stroke rehabilitation in each participant's region and country, which provided perspectives from low, middle, and high-income countries.Methods and materials: Interviews were conducted with 12 experienced rehabilitation professionals from 12 different countries (5 high-income, 2 upper-middle income, 3 lower-middle income, and 2 low-income countries) and interpreted using qualitative descriptive analysis.Results: Nine factors influencing evidence-based stroke rehabilitation were: 1) the complexity of rehabilitation research; 2) the (ir)relevance of research to local context; 3) lack of time for EBP; 4) minimal training in EBP; 5) changing health professional behaviours; 6) poor access to resources for developing EBP; 7) influence of culture, patients, and families; 8) language barriers; and 9) lack of access to research evidence. Economic constraints contributed to many challenges; but not all challenges related to the country's economic classification.Conclusion: A global approach is needed to share knowledge about EBP, especially scientific evidence and innovative thinking about its application to clinical practice. Implications for rehabilitationRehabilitation professional groups should contribute to a global network to improve informal knowledge sharing and training around evidence-based practice.Support for training in evidence-based practice and its application needs to be developed and accessible in all countries, including low and middle-income countries.It is imperative that policymakers prioritise practical, evidence-based solutions for rehabilitation research in low and middle-income countries that can be effectively implemented within local settings.There must be solutions and increased accessibility of journal articles for those working in low and middle-income countries including those whose first language is not English.

Prevention of Re-Hospitalization for Acute Exacerbations: Perspectives of People with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Qualitative Study.

Purpose: Current guidelines for prevention of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) reflect clinical understanding of the causes of exacerbations but with a limited recognition of person-specific contributing factors. As part of a randomized trial of a person-centered intervention aiming to promote self-determination, we describe personal perspectives of those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on what they saw as the causes and best ways to stay well and prevent rehospitalization after an AECOPD. Patients and Methods: Twelve participants (mean age 69.3 years, six female, six male; eight New Zealand European, two Maori, one Pacific, and one other) were interviewed about their experiences of staying well and out of hospital. Data were collected via individual semi-structured interviews one year following an index hospital admission for AECOPD and focused on the participants' views and experiences of their health condition, their beliefs about staying well, and the causes of and factors preventing further exacerbations and hospitalizations. Data were analyzed using constructivist grounded theory methods. Results: Three main themes were identified that described participants' views on what helped or hindered them to stay well and out of hospital: 1) Being Positive: The importance of having a positive mindset; 2) Being Proactive: Practical steps to reduce the risk of, and consequences from, episodes of AECOPD; and 3) Being in Control: Feeling in command of one's life and health. Each of these was affected by Being Connected: The influence of significant others, particularly close family. Conclusion: This research expands our understanding of how patients manage COPD and adds patient perspectives to current knowledge on how to prevent recurrent AECOPD. Programs which promote self-efficacy and positivity would be beneficial additions to AECOPD prevention strategies, as could the inclusion of family or significant others in wellbeing plans.

Taking Charge After Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Randomized Controlled Feasibility Trial of a Psychologically Informed Self-Management Intervention.

Purpose: Few interventions improve outcomes for people with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), particularly higher risk groups such as those admitted to hospital with an acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD). The aim of the study was to test the feasibility and acceptability of a modified version of the Take Charge program in people after AECOPD and to determine the potential to improve self-reported limitations, health-related quality of life and reduce future hospitalizations. Patients and Methods: A prospective, parallel group randomized trial with blinded endpoint assessment. Participants had been discharged from hospital with a diagnosis of AECOPD and were randomized to receive either a single 60-90 minute session of "Take Charge for COPD" from a trained facilitator in their own home or usual care. Take Charge is a "talking therapy" that encourages a sense of purpose, autonomy, mastery, and connectedness with others. The primary outcome was the rate of moderate or severe episodes of AECOPD in the subsequent 12 months. Results: Fifty-six people were randomized (study target 60): predominantly European (71%), female (61%), older (mean [SD] age 70 [11] years), and non-smokers (89%). Charlson Comorbidity Index mean (SD) score was 2.3 (1.6) indicating mild to moderate comorbidity severity. There were 85 moderate or severe AECOPD episodes in the 12 months after the index admission for the Take Charge participants and 84 episodes in the control group (relative rate 0.93; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 1.26). COPD Clinical Questionnaire (CCQ) scores were significantly lower (better) in the Take Charge group (mean difference -1.26; 95% CI -2.06 to -0.45). Conclusion: The Take Charge intervention proved feasible with a population of people recently discharged from hospital with AECOPD. The direction of change in the primary outcome and some secondary outcomes suggest that an adequately powered study is justified.

Experiences of vocational rehabilitation and support services for people living with a long term condition: qualitative systematic review.

PURPOSE: Identify and synthesise qualitative research evidence on activities and processes within formal vocational service provision that contribute to experiences of effective support to gain employment for people living with long term conditions. METHODS: A pre-published protocol was developed using PRISMA guidelines. Seven databases were searched to identify qualitative research. Results of the search were screened against inclusion criteria and for methodological quality. Findings from included studies were extracted and then analysed using thematic synthesis methods. RESULTS: Twenty two studies met the inclusion criteria. Six themes were identified that elucidated factors that contribute to experiences of supportive and effective vocational rehabilitation service delivery: a personalised service with service user preferences at the core; sustainable, timely and ongoing support; proactive collaboration with the employing organisation; peer support, the essential and necessary skills for gaining employment; and critical vocational worker skills, knowledge and attitudes. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the utility of synthesising qualitative research to provide insight into the factors that contribute to experiences of supportive and effective vocational rehabilitation services that traverse various contexts. Future high quality qualitative research is required to probe a broader range of long term conditions to better identify the similarities and differences across services and groups.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONAcross qualitative studies, common aspects of "good" vocational services can be identified that contribute to experiences of effective support to gain paid work for people living with long term conditions.Services are experienced positively when they are personalised, flexible, collaborative and take into account both lived experience and knowledge of the person's condition.Vocational rehabilitation services should proactively build collaborative relationships between the job seeker, employing organisation and other agencies and services.Specific skills and services that people living with long-term conditions find particularly helpful include peer support, work-focused skill development and workplace adjustment and accommodations.

Living with a long-term health condition and seeking paid work: qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis.

PURPOSE: An interplay of complex issues influence opportunities to gain paid work for people living with long-term conditions, but there are patterns that traverse the various contexts. Synthesising findings across qualitative studies can inform vocational rehabilitation approaches. METHODS: Public consultation and PRISMA guidelines were used to develop a protocol and comprehensive search strategy. Seven databases were searched and results screened against inclusion criteria. Included studies investigated either lived experiences of gaining paid work while living with a long-term condition or the socio-cultural factors affecting opportunities for paid work. Findings were extracted from included studies and then analysed using thematic synthesis. RESULTS: Sixty-two studies met inclusion criteria. Identified themes demonstrate that people living with long-term conditions need access to support through the different stages of gaining paid work. This can include considering the benefits and risks of having paid work and negotiating needs in the workplace prior to and during employment. Positive experiences for workers and employers were influential in changing attitudes about the work-ability of people living with long-term conditions. CONCLUSION: Findings emphasise the interplay between socio-cultural norms and the constraints experienced in trying to gain work. Appropriately targeted support can unlock possibilities that are otherwise hindered by these norms.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONPositive experiences of paid work for people living with long-term conditions and those who employ them are important for stimulating future opportunities."Informal" or alternative routes into paid work are experienced as more successful in contending with discrimination.Job seekers living with long-term conditions need access to pre-placement advocacy, support to negotiate work-related needs, and support to negotiate difficulties that arise in the job.Vocational rehabilitation initiatives need to have good collaboration with other health services to ensure consistent messages about seeking and managing work.

Cochrane Rehabilitation: 2020 annual report.

During its fourth year of existence, Cochrane Rehabilitation went on to promote evidence-informed health decision-making in rehabilitation. In 2020, the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has made it necessary to alter priorities. In these challenging times, Cochrane Rehabilitation has firstly changed its internal organisation and established a new relevant project in line with pandemic needs: the REH-COVER (Rehabilitation - COVID-19 evidence-based response) action. The aim was to focus on the timely collection, review and dissemination of summarised and synthesised evidence relating to COVID-19 and rehabilitation. Cochrane Rehabilitation REH-COVER action has included in 2020 five main initiatives: 1) rapid living systematic reviews on rehabilitation and COVID-19; 2) interactive living evidence map on rehabilitation and COVID-19; 3) definition of the research topics on "rehabilitation and COVID-19" in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO) rehabilitation programme; 4) Cochrane Library special collection on Coronavirus (COVID-19) rehabilitation; and 5) collaboration with COVID-END for the topics "rehabilitation" and "disability." Furthermore, we are still carrying on five different special projects: Be4rehab; RCTRACK; definition of rehabilitation for research purposes; ebook project; and a prioritization exercise for Cochrane Reviews production. The Review Working Area continued to identify and "tag" the rehabilitation-relevant reviews published in the Cochrane library; the Publication Working Area went on to publish Cochrane Corners, working more closely with the Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) and Cochrane Networks, particularly with Cochrane Musculoskeletal, Oral, Skin and Sensory Network; the Education Working Area, the most damaged in 2020, tried to continue performing educational activities such as workshops in different online meetings; the Methodology Working Area organized the third and fourth Cochrane Rehabilitation Methodological (CRM) meetings respectively in Milan and Orlando; the Communication Working Area spread rehabilitation evidences through different channels and translated the contents in different languages.

Effectiveness of vocational interventions for gaining paid work for people living with mild to moderate mental health conditions: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of vocational interventions to help people living with mild to moderate mental health conditions gain paid work. METHODS: Systematic review of international, peer-reviewed literature. Development of the prepublished protocol and search strategy was done in consultation with stakeholder reference groups consisting of people with lived experience of long-term conditions, advocates and clinicians. We searched academic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, AMED, CINAHL, Proquest Dissertations and Theses database, and Business Source Complete for controlled trials comparing a specific vocational intervention against a control intervention or usual care, published between 1 January 2004 and 1 August 2019. Two authors independently screened search results, extracted data and appraised studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. RESULTS: Eleven studies met inclusion criteria. Seven studies investigated Individual Placement and Support (IPS) modified for people who were not in intensive mental health treatment services. These studies occurred settings such as community vocational rehabilitation services, a housing programme and community mental health services. The studies provided very low quality evidence that people who receive IPS-style vocational rehabilitation are more likely to gain competitive employment than people who receive usual care (risk ratio 1.70, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.34, seven studies, 1611 participants). The remaining four studies considered cognitive behavioural therapy or specific vocational rehabilitation interventions designed to fit a unique context. There was insufficient evidence from these studies to draw conclusions regarding the effectiveness of non-IPS forms of vocational rehabilitation for people with mild to moderate mental health conditions. DISCUSSION: The meta-analysis showed a clear intervention effect but low precision, and more high-quality studies are needed in this field. There is currently very low quality evidence that IPS-style intervention results in more participants in competitive employment compared with 'usual care' control groups in populations with mild to moderate mental health conditions.

Expert opinions leave space for uncertainty when defining rehabilitation interventions: analysis of difficult decisions regarding categorization of rehabilitation reviews in the Cochrane library.

BACKGROUND: In 2017, Cochrane Rehabilitation created an online relational database to crowd-source the identification and categorization of Cochrane publications for relevance to rehabilitation. One of the challenges of this work has been the lack of an operational definition to determine what is or is not a rehabilitation intervention. As such, categorization decisions have been largely based on expert opinion, with two health professionals screening each review, and with disagreements in categorization decisions being adjudicated by the Cochrane Rehabilitation Review Committee. AIM: To analyze the rationale for resolving conflicts in the identification of rehabilitation reviews from all Cochrane reviews to contribute to future work on the scope and definition of rehabilitation interventions. METHODS: We extracted data on decisions made about all Cochrane titles (both protocols and reviews) published between 1 January, 1996, and 31 August, 2019, and identified all titles where there had been disagreement between any people categorizing the reviews. We used thematic analysis methods to classify the reasons for including or excluding reviews from a collection of reviews on rehabilitation interventions. We compared across groups to identify areas of conflict and errors in the initial categorization. RESULTS: Of the 9756 Cochrane titles screened, we identified 894 (9.2%) where some disagreement existed about whether a review was about rehabilitation interventions or not. Of these, 333 (37.2%) had met our original pragmatic criteria for being a "rehabilitation" review, while 561 (52.8%) had not. Seven hundred and nineteen of these reviews (80.4%) could be grouped by inductively created, reportable criteria to justify the initial categorization decisions. Fifty-seven reviews (6.4%) were on topics that were too idiosyncratic to easily group with others for the purposes of categorization. Conflicts in the rationale for categorization decisions were identified in 90 reviews (10.1%) and errors in the initial categorization for 28 reviews (3.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The challenges and conflicts identified in this study clearly indicate the need for better operational definition of rehabilitation interventions. This study provides a foundation for future work to check the utility of any new definition of rehabilitation interventions and to improve the trustworthiness of categorization decisions regarding the Cochrane Rehabilitation database.

Cochrane Rehabilitation: 2019 annual report.

During its third year of existence, Cochrane Rehabilitation goals included to point out the main methodological issues in rehabilitation research, and to increase the Knowledge Translation activities. This has been performed through its committees and specific projects. In 2019, Cochrane Rehabilitation worked on five different special projects at different stages of development: 1) a collaboration with the World Health Organization to extract the best evidence for Rehabilitation (Be4rehab); 2) the development of a reporting checklist for Randomised Controlled Trials in rehabilitation (RCTRACK); 3) the definition of what is the rehabilitation for research purposes; 4) the ebook project; and 5) a prioritization exercise for Cochrane Reviews production. The Review Committee finalized the screening and "tagging" of all rehabilitation reviews in the Cochrane library; the Publication Committee increased the number of international journals with which publish Cochrane Corners; the Education Committee continued performing educational activities such as workshops in different meetings; the Methodology Committee performed the second Cochrane Rehabilitation Methodological Meeting and published many papers; the Communication Committee spread the rehabilitation evidence through different channels and translated the contents in different languages. The collaboration with several National and International Rehabilitation Scientific Societies, Universities, Hospitals, Research Centers and other organizations keeps on growing.

A Review of CONSORT Guidelines About Comparison Groups With a Focused Discussion on Implications for Rehabilitation Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVE: We examined and appraised the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 Statement and its extension from the perspective of the reporting of comparison groups (ie, interventions or control conditions against which an experimental intervention is compared) in clinical trials on rehabilitation topics. DESIGN: We downloaded the CONSORT 2010 Statement and all endorsed and unofficial extensions reported on the CONSORT and EQUATOR Web sites. We extracted all statements on the selection, design, delivery, or interpretation of data from comparison groups in clinical trials. We discussed preliminary findings during the Cochrane Rehabilitation Methodology Meeting in Kobe and then further by email before finalizing results. RESULTS: We identified 23 standards reported across the CONSORT 2010 Statement and 10 extensions. Overall, these standards address many, but not all, issues related to reporting of comparison groups in rehabilitation trials. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that additional standards be created for the selection of types of comparisons, choices around reporting of "usual care," reporting of intended "mechanisms of control," and reporting a rationale for the hypothesized superiority of one intervention over another when superiority trial design are used. Rehabilitation research would benefit from development of a specific checklist and guidelines to help researchers make best use of existing extensions.

Evaluating the effectiveness of therapeutic horse riding for children and young people experiencing disability: a single-case experimental design study.

Purpose: Therapeutic horse riding aims to improve the health of children and young people experiencing disability; however, its benefits across a range of health domains, particularly the impact on participation outcomes, are not well known. This research evaluated to what extent there was a change in riders balance, functional performance, social responsiveness, quality of life and participation outcomes as a result of therapeutic horse riding.Methods: A multiple-baseline across participants (n = 12) single-case experimental design, with randomly allocated baseline phase lengths, quantitatively evaluated how riders responded to a 20-week intervention.Results: Social participation outcomes measured using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure demonstrated the most consistent positive between-phase differences (performance ES = 1.20, 95% CI [0.82, 1.63]; satisfaction ES = 1.11, 95% CI [0.73, 1.55]). A causal relationship was seen in three riders, but improvements only reached clinical significance for two riders when accounting for phase data trends. No significant outcome patterns were found comparing riders with principally physical impairments to those with principally psychosocial impairments.Conclusions: Being involved in therapeutic horse riding may improve rider's social participation in home, school and community settings. We postulate that rider self-concept development may be a mechanism of treatment effect leading to participation-level changes.Implications for rehabilitationSocial participation was the health outcome demonstrating the most consistent change following therapeutic horse riding, regardless of rider impairment.Therapeutic horse riding can improve social participation in settings beyond the riding arena.Greater intervention tailoring based on rider responses may enhance therapeutic horse riding intervention effects.

Using cannabis for pain management after spinal cord injury: a qualitative study.

Study design: A descriptive qualitative study. Objectives: To explore why individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) choose to use cannabis to manage their pain and their experiences in doing so. Setting: Community-dwelling adults with SCI in New Zealand. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with individuals who had a SCI, experienced pain, and self-reported use of cannabis to manage their pain. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and subject to thematic analysis. Results: Eight individuals participated in this study. We interpreted six themes that captured the participants' perspectives regarding their choice to, and perceptions of, using cannabis to manage SCI pain. Participants were motivated to use cannabis when other pain management strategies had been ineffective and were well-informed, knowledgeable cannabis consumers. Participants reported cannabis reduced their pain quickly and enabled them to engage in activities of daily living and participate in life roles without the drowsiness of traditional prescribed pain medication. Despite the positive aspects, participants were concerned about the irregularity of supply and inconsistent dosage. Conclusions: Findings show that cannabis is used to reduce pain after SCI and enable increased community participation. Findings suggest that future studies examining the efficacy of cannabinoids in managing pain include function and participation outcome measures rather than solely focusing on measuring pain intensity. Focusing on meaningful outcomes may contribute to a greater understanding of the experiences of people with SCI.

Cochrane Rehabilitation: 2018 annual report.

During its second year of existence, Cochrane Rehabilitation worked hard to accomplish new and old goals. The Review Committee completed the massive task of identifying and "tagging" all rehabilitation reviews in the Cochrane library. The Publication Committee signed agreements with several international journals and started the publication of Cochrane Corners. The Education Committee performed educational activities such as workshops in International Meetings. The Methodology Committee has completed a two days Cochrane Rehabilitation Methodological Meeting in Paris of which the results will soon be published. The Communication Committee reaches almost 5,000 rehabilitation professionals through social media, and is working on the translation of contents in Italian, Spanish, French, Dutch, Croatian and Japanese. Memoranda of Understanding have been signed with several National and International Rehabilitation Scientific Societies, Universities, Hospitals, Research Centres and other organizations. The be4rehab (best evidence for rehabilitation) project has been started with the World Health Organisation (WHO) to extract from Cochrane reviews and clinical guidelines the best currently available evidence to produce the WHO Minimum Package of Rehabilitation Interventions. The Cochrane Rehabilitation ebook is under development as well as a priority setting exercise with 39 countries from all continents.

Compared to what? An analysis of the management of control groups in Cochrane reviews in neurorehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Control groups are used in clinical trials to increase confidence that any improvements in patient outcomes are due the therapy under investigation and not to other factors. The reported effect size of any intervention is estimated from differences in outcomes achieved by intervention participants in comparison to control participants. Clinical heterogeneity in control groups across different studies can make the pooling of data from these studies in one meta-analysis questionable or reduce certainty in their results. AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate: 1) the variability in the types of control groups used in studies that have been pooled in meta-analyses in Cochrane reviews on neurorehabilitation interventions; and 2) how authors of Cochrane reviews on neurorehabilitation interventions have taken information about control groups into consideration when making decisions to undertake meta-analyses and interpreting their results. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane library for reviews on neurorehabilitation interventions published between 2012 and 2016 that included at least one meta-analysis involving a control group. We extracted data from included reviews on the review characteristics, the characteristics of the included meta-analyses, and any information on how the review authors managed control groups in the conduct and interpretation of meta-analyses. RESULTS: The 43 included reviews pooled data from 358 clinical trials, with an average of 5±5 clinical trials (range: 2-45) contributing to each meta-analysis. The majority of clinical trials involved a control group containing active treatments (61.7%; 221 of 358), often "treatment as usual" controls without any additional placebo or sham intervention. Over half (58.1%; 25 of 43) of the included meta-analyses involved pooling of data from studies with a mix of different types of control groups, with an additional 25.6% pooling data from studies where control participants had received a range of different active treatments. The influence of different control groups on the summary results from meta-analyses was not analyzed in 21 (48.8%) of the included reviews. CONCLUSIONS: Further work is needed to develop: standardized ways to categorize control conditions in rehabilitation trials; more guidance on reporting criteria for control groups in rehabilitation trials; and agreed methods for managing different control types in one meta-analysis.

One in 11 Cochrane Reviews Are on Rehabilitation Interventions, According to Pragmatic Inclusion Criteria Developed by Cochrane Rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVE: To identify all published protocols and reviews in the Cochrane Library relevant to the scope of practice of rehabilitation; to test pragmatic criteria to identify rehabilitation interventions; to begin categorizing reviews according to the professionals involved in delivering the intervention and broad areas of clinical practice. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. STUDY SELECTION: We screened all published reviews and protocols in the Cochrane library. DATA EXTRACTION: We built an online relational database into which we imported titles and abstracts of all reviews and protocols published in the Cochrane Library from 1996 to August 2018. We recruited rehabilitation professionals worldwide through Cochrane Rehabilitation's social media to find and tag rehabilitation reviews in this database. One rehabilitation physician and 1 allied health professional independently tagged each title against prespecified criteria. The Cochrane Rehabilitation Review Committee examined disagreements between contributors for any uncertainties about how to categorize a review. We revised and improved our preliminary criteria for identifying rehabilitation interventions as the work progressed. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified that 9.4% of all Cochrane publications (894/9471 reviews and protocols) are directly relevant to the practice of rehabilitation. The professional groups whose interventions were most frequently the subject of rehabilitation reviews and protocols were rehabilitation physicians and physical therapists. We also identified a final list of inclusion and exclusion criteria for reviews on rehabilitation interventions. CONCLUSION: Many Cochrane Reviews are directly relevant to rehabilitation. Cochrane needs to consider the rehabilitation community a major stakeholder in all its work. The pragmatic criteria we tested are offered for future discussions on the identification and categorization of rehabilitation interventions by stakeholders worldwide. This work will support the spread of content from the Cochrane Library to rehabilitation professionals and guide future research.

User perspective on receiving adaptive equipment after stroke: A mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND.: Adaptive equipment (AE) is frequently provided during stroke rehabilitation by occupational therapists. PURPOSE.: This study aimed to identify the AE that people typically use after a stroke and the outcomes achieved as a result, and to explore people's experiences obtaining and using AE, to inform both practice and policy in this field. METHOD.: A mixed-methods study, involving a postal questionnaire and interviews, used descriptive statistics and grounded theory to analyze the quantitative and qualitative data, respectively. FINDINGS.: Questionnaire data ( n = 258) revealed mobility AE was issued most frequently, with increased safety as the primary reported outcome. Interview data ( n = 15) indicated relationships with health professionals and the hospital environment shaped early AE selection and use. Once home, making sense of AE and community participation were more influential. IMPLICATIONS.: Therapeutic relationships and reflection time are critical to maximize AE use after stroke. Policy and related funding for AE need to prioritize community participation.

Cochrane Rehabilitation Methodology Committee: an international survey of priorities for future work.

Cochrane Rehabilitation aims to improve the application of evidence-based practice in rehabilitation. It also aims to support Cochrane in the production of reliable, clinically meaningful syntheses of evidence related to the practice of rehabilitation, while accommodating the many methodological challenges facing the field. To this end, Cochrane Rehabilitation established a Methodology Committee to examine, explore and find solutions for the methodological challenges related to evidence synthesis and knowledge translation in rehabilitation. We conducted an international online survey via Cochrane Rehabilitation networks to canvass opinions regarding the future work priorities for this committee and to seek information on people's current capabilities to assist with this work. The survey findings indicated strongest interest in work on how reviewers have interpreted and applied Cochrane methods in reviews on rehabilitation topics in the past, and on gathering a collection of existing publications on review methods for undertaking systematic reviews relevant to rehabilitation. Many people are already interested in contributing to the work of the Methodology Committee and there is a large amount of expertise for this work in the extended Cochrane Rehabilitation network already.