Barriers and facilitators for increased accessibility to quality rehabilitation services in low- and middle- income countries: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: With an increasing number of people experiencing limitations in functioning during their life course, the need for comprehensive rehabilitation services is high. In 2017, the WHO Rehabilitation 2030 initiative noted that the need for the establishment and expansion of rehabilitation services is paramount in order to obtain well-being for the population and to ensure equal access to quality healthcare for all. The organization of rehabilitation services is however facing challenges especially in low-and middle-income countries with a very small proportion of people who require rehabilitation actually getting them. Various surveys conducted in low-and -middle income countries have revealed existing gaps between the need for rehabilitation services and the actual receipt of these services. This systematic review aimed to determine the barriers and facilitators for increasing accessibility to rehabilitation services in low- and middle-income countries. Recommendations for strengthening rehabilitation service organization are presented based on the available retrieved data. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: In this systematic review, an electronic search through three primary databases, including Medline (PubMed), Scopus and Web of Science (WOS) was conducted to identify original studies reporting on barriers and facilitators for rehabilitation service organization in low-and middle-income countries. Date of search: 25th April 2021 (PubMed), 3rd May 2021 (Scopus and Web of Science). All studies including barriers or/and facilitators for rehabilitation services in low- and middle income countries which were written in English were included in the review. The articles written in other languages and grey literature, were excluded from this review. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Total of 42 articles were included from year 1989 to 2021. Numerous barriers were identified that related to education, resources, leadership, policy, technology and advanced treatment, community-based rehabilitation (CBR), social support, cultural influences, political issues, registries and standards of care. National health insurance including rehabilitation and funding from government and NGOs are some of the facilitators to strengthen rehabilitation service organization. Availability of CBR programs, academic rehabilitation training programs for allied health professionals, collaboration between Ministry of Heath (MOH) and Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) on telerehabilitation services are amongst other facilitators. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations for improving and expanding rehabilitation service organization include funding, training, education, and sharing of resources.

Core outcome measurement set for research and clinical practice in post-COVID-19 condition (long COVID) in children and young people: an international Delphi consensus study "PC-COS Children".

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic substantially impacted different age groups, with children and young people not exempted. Many have experienced enduring health consequences. Presently, there is no consensus on the health outcomes to assess in children and young people with post-COVID-19 condition. Furthermore, it is unclear which measurement instruments are appropriate for use in research and clinical management of children and young people with post-COVID-19. To address these unmet needs, we conducted a consensus study, aiming to develop a core outcome set (COS) and an associated core outcome measurement set (COMS) for evaluating post-COVID-19 condition in children and young people. Our methodology comprised of two phases. In phase 1 (to create a COS), we performed an extensive literature review and categorisation of outcomes, and prioritised those outcomes in a two-round online modified Delphi process followed by a consensus meeting. In phase 2 (to create the COMS), we performed another modified Delphi consensus process to evaluate measurement instruments for previously defined core outcomes from phase 1, followed by an online consensus workshop to finalise recommendations regarding the most appropriate instruments for each core outcome. In phase 1, 214 participants from 37 countries participated, with 154 (72%) contributing to both Delphi rounds. The subsequent online consensus meeting resulted in a final COS which encompassed seven critical outcomes: fatigue; post-exertion symptoms; work/occupational and study changes; as well as functional changes, symptoms, and conditions relating to cardiovascular, neuro-cognitive, gastrointestinal and physical outcomes. In phase 2, 11 international experts were involved in a modified Delphi process, selecting measurement instruments for a subsequent online consensus workshop where 30 voting participants discussed and independently scored the selected instruments. As a result of this consensus process, four instruments met a priori consensus criteria for inclusion: PedsQL multidimensional fatigue scale for "fatigue"; PedsQL gastrointestinal symptom scales for "gastrointestinal"; PedsQL cognitive functioning scale for "neurocognitive" and EQ-5D for "physical functioning". Despite proposing outcome measurement instruments for the remaining three core outcomes ("cardiovascular", "post-exertional malaise", "work/occupational and study changes"), a consensus was not achieved. Our international, consensus-based initiative presents a robust framework for evaluating post-COVID-19 condition in children and young people in research and clinical practice via a rigorously defined COS and associated COMS. It will aid in the uniform measurement and reporting of relevant health outcomes worldwide.

Relevance and use of health policy, health systems and health services research for strengthening rehabilitation in real-life settings: methodological considerations.

Research on health policy, systems, and services (HPSSR) has seen significant growth in recent decades and received increasing attention in the field of rehabilitation. This growth is driven by the imperative to effectively address real-life challenges in complex healthcare settings. A recent resolution on 'Strengthening rehabilitation in health systems' adopted by the World Health Assembly emphasizes the need to support societal health goals related to rehabilitation, particularly to promote high-quality rehabilitation research, including HPSSR. This conceptual paper, discussed with the participants in the 5th Cochrane Rehabilitation Methodological Meeting held in Milan on September 2023, outlines study designs at diverse levels at which HPSSR studies can be conducted: the macro, meso, and micro levels. It categorizes research questions into four types: those framed from the perspective of policies, healthcare delivery organizations or systems, defined patient or provider populations, and important data sources or research methods. Illustrative examples of appropriate methodologies are provided for each type of research question, demonstrating the potential of HPSSR in shaping policies, improving healthcare delivery, and addressing patient and provider perspectives. The paper concludes by discussing the applicability, usefulness, and implementation of HPSSR findings, and the importance of knowledge translation strategies, drawing insights from implementation science. The goal is to facilitate the integration of research findings into everyday clinical practice to bridge the gap between research and practice in rehabilitation.

Minimal important difference of the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 in persons with chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 12-item survey (WHODAS-12) is a questionnaire developed by the WHO to measure functioning across health conditions, cultures, and settings. WHODAS-12 consists of a subset of the 36 items of WHODAS-2.0 36-item questionnaire. Little is known about the minimal important difference (MID) of WHODAS-12 in persons with chronic low back pain (LBP), which would be useful to determine whether rehabilitation improves functioning to an extent that is meaningful for people experiencing the condition. Our objective was to estimate an anchor-based MID for WHODAS-12 questionnaire in persons with chronic LBP. METHODS: We analyzed data from two cohort studies (identified in our previous systematic review) conducted in Europe that measured functioning using the WHODAS-36 in adults with chronic LBP. Eligible participants were adults with chronic LBP with scores on another measure as an anchor to indicate participants with small but important changes in functioning over time [Short-form-36 Physical Functioning (SF36-PF) or Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)] at baseline and follow-up (study 1: 3-months post-treatment; study 2: 1-month post-discharge from hospital). WHODAS-12 scores were constructed as sums of the 12 items (scored 0-4), with possible scores ranging from 0 to 48. We calculated the mean WHODAS-12 score in participants who achieved a small but meaningful improvement on SF36-PF or ODI at follow-up. A meaningful improvement was an MID of 4-16 on ODI or 5-16 on SF36-PF. RESULTS: Of 70 eligible participants in study 1 (mean age = 54.1 years, SD = 14.7; 69% female), 18 achieved a small meaningful improvement based on SF-36 PF. Corresponding mean WHODAS-12 change score was - 3.22/48 (95% CI -4.79 to -1.64). Of 89 eligible participants in study 2 (mean age = 65.5 years, SD = 11.5; 61% female), 50 achieved a small meaningful improvement based on ODI. Corresponding mean WHODAS-12 change score was - 5.99/48 (95% CI - 7.20 to -4.79). CONCLUSIONS: Using an anchor-based approach, the MID of WHODAS-12 is estimated at -3.22 (95% CI -4.79 to -1.64) or -5.99 (95% CI - 7.20 to -4.79) in adults with chronic LBP. These MID values inform the utility of WHODAS-12 in measuring functioning to determine whether rehabilitation or other health services achieve a minimal difference that is meaningful to patients with chronic LBP.

Measurement Properties and Minimal Important Change of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 in Persons With Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the measurement properties and minimal important change (MIC) of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) short (12 questions) and full (36 questions) versions in persons with nonspecific low back pain (LBP). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, APA PsycInfo, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (inception to May 2021). STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies assessed measurement properties or MIC of WHODAS 2.0 in persons with LBP. DATA EXTRACTION: Paired reviewers screened articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using Consensus-Based Standards for Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) and COSMIN-Outcome Measures in Rheumatology checklists. DATA SYNTHESIS: We descriptively synthesized results stratified by measurement property and LBP duration (subacute: 6 weeks to 3 months; chronic: ≥3 months). RESULTS: We screened 297 citations and included 14 studies (reported in 15 articles). Methodological quality of studies was very good for internal consistency and varied between very good and doubtful for construct validity, doubtful for responsiveness, and adequate for all other properties assessed. Evidence suggests that WHODAS 2.0 full version has adequate content validity (2 studies); WHODAS 2.0 short and full versions have adequate structural validity (3 studies), but construct validity is indeterminate (9 studies). WHODAS 2.0 short and full versions have adequate internal consistency (10 studies), and the full version has adequate test-retest and interrater reliability (3 studies) in persons with LBP. Minimal detectable change (MDC) was 10.45-13.99 of 100 for the full version and 8.6 of 48 for the short version in persons with LBP (4 studies). WHODAS 2.0 full version has no floor or ceiling effects, but the short version has potential floor effects in persons with chronic LBP (3 studies). One study estimated MIC for the full version as 4.87 of 100 or 9.74 of 100 (corresponding to 1- and 2-point change on 0- to 10-cm visual analog scale for pain, respectively), and 1 study estimated 3.09-4.68 of 48 for the short version. CONCLUSIONS: In persons with LBP, WHODAS 2.0 full version has adequate content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, and reliability. WHODAS 2.0 short version has adequate structural validity and internal consistency. Construct validity of the short and full versions is indeterminate. Since MDC is estimated to be larger than MIC, users may consider both MIC and MDC thresholds to measure change in functioning for LBP.

Cochrane "evidence relevant to" rehabilitation of people with post COVID-19 condition. What it is and how it has been mapped to inform the development of the World Health Organization recommendations.

Cochrane Rehabilitation developed a series of actions to provide the global rehabilitation community with the best available evidence to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. These initiatives constituted the REH-COVER (Rehabilitation COVID-19 evidence-based response) action. In March 2020, the first initiative started in agreement with the European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (EJPRM): the rapid systematic review of all papers relevant to COVID-19 rehabilitation to inform rehabilitation health professionals rapidly. Currently, we are facing the long-term consequences of COVID-19, initially called "long Covid" and now named post COVID-19 condition (PCC), which led to the request by the WHO Rehabilitation Programme for evidence synthesis to support the development of specific recommendations. Cochrane Rehabilitation provided the best available evidence from the REH-COVER rapid living systematic review results, a systematic scoping review on the models of care and a summary of "evidence relevant to" the rehabilitation for adults with PCC. Based on this evidence, expert groups developed the 16 recommendations for the rehabilitation of adults with PCC recently published in Chapter 24 of the WHO "Clinical management of COVID-19 living guideline." This paper aims to introduce the Special Section of EJPRM reporting the work performed by Cochrane Rehabilitation to produce a summary of the existing "evidence relevant to" the rehabilitation of adults with PCC. The paper reports the methodology (overview of systematic reviews with mapping) and introduces the concept of "evidence relevant to" rehabilitation.

Scoping review of rehabilitation care models for post COVID-19 condition.

Objective: To systematically map the current evidence about the characteristics of health systems, providers and patients to design rehabilitation care for post coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) condition. Methods: We conducted a scoping review by searching the databases: MEDLINE®, Embase®, Web of Science, Cochrane COVID-19 Registry and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from inception to 22 April 2022. The search strategy included terms related to (i) post COVID-19 condition and other currently known terminologies; (ii) care models and pathways; and (iii) rehabilitation. We applied no language or study design restrictions. Two pairs of researchers independently screened title, abstracts and full-text articles and extracted data. We charted the evidence according to five topics: (i) care model components and functions; (ii) safe delivery of rehabilitation; (iii) referral principles; (iv) service delivery settings; and (v) health-care professionals. Findings: We screened 13 753 titles and abstracts, read 154 full-text articles, and included 37 articles. The current evidence is conceptual and expert based. Care model components included multidisciplinary teams, continuity or coordination of care, people-centred care and shared decision-making between clinicians and patients. Care model functions included standardized symptoms assessment, telehealth and virtual care and follow-up system. Rehabilitation services were integrated at all levels of a health system from primary care to tertiary hospital-based care. Health-care workers delivering services within a multidisciplinary team included mostly physiotherapists, occupational therapists and psychologists. Conclusion: Key policy messages include implementing a multilevel and multiprofessional model; leveraging country health systems' strengths and learning from other conditions; financing rehabilitation research providing standardized outcomes; and guidance to increase patient safety.

Pre-rehabilitation scores of functioning measured using the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule in persons with nonspecific low back pain: a scoping review.

Knowledge of the pre-rehabilitation generic status of functioning in individuals with low back pain is necessary to understand the clinical utility of rehabilitation care. We conducted a scoping review to describe the pre-rehabilitation functioning status of persons with nonspecific low back pain using the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS)-36 or WHODAS-12. We searched multiple databases from 2010 to 2021 for studies reporting pre-rehabilitation scores using WHODAS in persons with low back pain. Reviewers independently screened articles and extracted data, and we descriptively summarized results by the duration of low back pain (acute/subacute <3 months; chronic ≥3 months), and the WHODAS version. Of 1770 citations screened, eight citations were relevant. Five studies were conducted in Europe, two in America, and one in the African Region (mostly high-income countries). In persons with acute low back pain, the mean WHODAS-36 pre-rehabilitation summary score (complex scoring) was 22.8/100 (SD = 15.4) (one study). In persons with chronic low back pain, the mean WHODAS-36 summary score (complex scoring) ranged from 22.8/100 (SD = 5.7) to 41.5/100 (SD = 13.8) (two studies). For WHODAS-12 in persons with chronic low back pain, the mean summary score was 11.4/48 (SD = 8.7) or 14.4/48 (SD = 9.4) using simple scoring (two studies), and 25.8/100 (SD = 2.2) using complex scoring (one study). No floor or ceiling effects were observed in WHODAS-36 summary scores for chronic low back pain. Our scoping review comprehensively summarizes available studies reporting pre-rehabilitation levels of functioning using WHODAS in persons with low back pain. Persons with low back pain seeking rehabilitation have moderate limitations in functioning, and limitations level tends to be worse with chronic low back pain.

A core outcome set for post-COVID-19 condition in adults for use in clinical practice and research: an international Delphi consensus study.

Health consequences that persist beyond the acute infection phase of COVID-19, termed post-COVID-19 condition (also commonly known as long COVID), vary widely and represent a growing global health challenge. Research on post-COVID-19 condition is expanding but, at present, no agreement exists on the health outcomes that should be measured in people living with the condition. To address this gap, we conducted an international consensus study, which included a comprehensive literature review and classification of outcomes for post-COVID-19 condition that informed a two-round online modified Delphi process followed by an online consensus meeting to finalise the core outcome set (COS). 1535 participants from 71 countries were involved, with 1148 individuals participating in both Delphi rounds. Eleven outcomes achieved consensus for inclusion in the final COS: fatigue; pain; post-exertion symptoms; work or occupational and study changes; survival; and functioning, symptoms, and conditions for each of cardiovascular, respiratory, nervous system, cognitive, mental health, and physical outcomes. Recovery was included a priori because it was a relevant outcome that was part of a previously published COS on COVID-19. The next step in this COS development exercise will be to establish the instruments that are most appropriate to measure these core outcomes. This international consensus-based COS should provide a framework for standardised assessment of adults with post-COVID-19 condition, aimed at facilitating clinical care and research worldwide.

Concept Changes and Standardizing Tools in Community-Based Rehabilitation.

Community-based rehabilitation (CBR) has changed considerably over 4 decades, resulting in a rights-based approach, holding local authorities accountable for service delivery. For medical rehabilitation in low-resource countries, there is concern about how this service gap will be covered. The CBR community continues to strengthen the evidence base for CBR implementation, acknowledging its extensiveness and variety on the ground. The creation of standardizing tools favors this process because it provides the building blocks to scale up, setting standards for implementation research. Finally, an International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health-based assessment and intervention model for CBR is proposed.

Facilitators and Barriers to the Rehabilitation Workforce Capacity Building in Low- to Middle-Income Countries.

An increase in population and chronic conditions leading to disability require increasing emphasis on rehabilitation and health intervention. Poorer countries do not usually have the rehabilitation workforce needed to promote societal inclusion and participation. The roles of the rehabilitation workforce were often not clearly defined, leading to task shifting among rehabilitation professionals. Barriers to capacity building were poor availability of human resources and insufficient training program/supports for their professional development. Facilitators were local government support and international non-governmental organizations collaboration. Recommendations for capacity building effort are for collaboration with the developed nations to encourage funding, training, education, and sharing of resources.

Capacity-building in clinical skills of rehabilitation workforce in low- and middle-income countries.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the prevalence of disability in low-and middle-income countries, the clinical skills of the rehabilitation workforce are not well described. We report health professionals' perspectives on clinical skills in austere settings and identify context-specific gaps in workforce capacity. METHODS: A cross-sectional pilot survey (Pakistan, Morocco, Nigeria, Malaysia) of health professionals' working in rehabilitation in hospital and community settings. A situational-analysis survey captured assessment of clinical skills required in various rehabilitation settings. Responses were coded in a line-by-line process, and linked to categories in domains of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). RESULTS: Respondents (n = 532) from Pakistan 248, Nigeria 159, Morocco 93 and Malaysia 32 included the following: physiotherapists (52.8%), nurses (8.8%), speech (5.3%) and occupational therapists (8.5%), rehabilitation physicians (3.8%), other doctors (5.5%) and prosthetist/orthotists (1.5%). The 10 commonly used clinical skills reported were prescription of: physical activity, medications, transfer-techniques, daily-living activities, patient/carer education, diagnosis/screening, behaviour/cognitive interventions, comprehensive patient-care, referrals, assessments and collaboration. There was significant overlap in skills listed irrespective of profession. Most responses linked with ICF categories in activities/participation and personal factors. CONCLUSION: The core skills identified reflect general rehabilitation practice and a task-shifting approach, to address shortages of health workers in low-and middle-income countries.