Disparities in Access to, Use of, and Quality of Rehabilitation Following Stroke in the United States: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: To summarize current reports in the literature on disparities in rehabilitation following stroke; identify gaps in our understanding of rehabilitation disparities; and make recommendations for future research. DATA SOURCES: A Health Sciences librarian developed a search string based on an a priori protocol and searched MEDLINE (Ovid) Embase (Elsevier), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL, EBSCO). STUDY SELECTION: A two-step screening process of titles and abstracts followed by full-text review was conducted. Primary observational studies conducted in the United States that reported on disparities in rehabilitation (i.e., physical, occupational, or speech therapy) among adults following stroke were retained. Eligible disparity populations included racial minorities; ethnic minorities; sex and gender minorities; older population; socioeconomically disadvantaged populations; and geographic minorities (inner city/rural). DATA EXTRACTION: Data extracted from retained articles included: aims/objectives; data source; sample characteristics, rehabilitation outcomes examined; types of disparities examined; statistical methods used; and disparity findings. DATA SYNTHESIS: 7,853 titles and abstracts were screened, and 473 articles underwent full-text review. 49 articles were included for data extraction and analysis. Many articles examined more than one disparity type with most examining disparities in race and/or ethnicity (n=43, 87.7%), followed by sex (n=25, 53.0%), age (n=23, 46.9%), socioeconomic status (n=22, 44.9%), and urban/rural status (n=8, 16.3%). Articles varied widely by sample characteristics, data sources, rehabilitation outcomes, and methods of examining disparities. CONCLUSIONS: While we found some consistent evidence of disparities in rehabilitation for older individuals, non-White races, and individuals of lower socioeconomic status, the variability in methods made synthesis of findings challenging. Further work, including additional well-designed studies and systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses of current studies are needed to better understand the extent of rehabilitation disparities following stroke.

Social Determinants of Health and the Use of Community-Based Rehabilitation Following Stroke: Methodologic Considerations.

Social determinants are nonmedical factors frequently used to study disparities in health outcomes but have not been widely explored in regard to rehabilitation service utilization. In our National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development-funded study, Access to and Effectiveness of Community-Based Rehabilitation After Stroke, we reviewed several conceptual models and frameworks for the study of social determinants to inform our work. The overall objective of this special communication is to describe our approach to identifying, selecting, and using area-level measures of social determinants to explore the relationship between social determinants and rehabilitation use. We present our methods for developing a conceptual model and a methodologic framework for the selection of social determinant measures relevant to rehabilitation use, as well as an overview of publicly available data on social determinants. We then discuss the methodologic challenges encountered and future directions for this work.

Referral to Community-Based Rehabilitation Following Acute Stroke: Findings From the COMPASS Pragmatic Trial.

BACKGROUND: Few studies on care transitions following acute stroke have evaluated whether referral to community-based rehabilitation occurred as part of discharge planning. Our objectives were to describe the extent to which patients discharged home were referred to community-based rehabilitation and identify the patient, hospital, and community-level predictors of referral. METHODS: We examined data from 40 North Carolina hospitals that participated in the COMPASS (Comprehensive Post-Acute Stroke Services) cluster-randomized trial. Participants included adults discharged home following stroke or transient ischemic attack (N=10 702). In this observational analysis, COMPASS data were supplemented with hospital-level and county-level data from various sources. The primary outcome was referral to community-based rehabilitation (physical, occupational, or speech therapy) at discharge. Predictor variables included patient (demographic, stroke-related, medical history), hospital (structure, process), and community (therapist supply) measures. We used generalized linear mixed models with a hospital random effect and hierarchical backward model selection procedures to identify predictors of therapy referral. RESULTS: Approximately, one-third (36%) of stroke survivors (mean age, 66.8 [SD, 14.0] years; 49% female, 72% White race) were referred to community-based rehabilitation. Rates of referral to physical, occupational, and speech therapists were 31%, 18%, and 10%, respectively. Referral rates by hospital ranged from 3% to 78% with a median of 35%. Patient-level predictors included higher stroke severity, presence of medical comorbidities, and older age. Female sex (odds ratio, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.12-1.38]), non-White race (2.20 [2.01-2.44]), and having Medicare insurance (1.12 [1.02-1.23]) were also predictors of referral. Referral was higher for patients living in counties with greater physical therapist supply. Much of the variation in referral across hospitals remained unexplained. CONCLUSIONS: One-third of stroke survivors were referred to community-based rehabilitation. Patient-level factors predominated as predictors. Variation across hospitals was notable and presents an opportunity for further evaluation and possible targets for improved poststroke rehabilitative care. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02588664.

Relevance of learning health systems to physiatrists and its synergy with implementation science: A commentary.

As health care attempts to bridge the gap between evidence and practice, the concept of the learning health system (LHS) is becoming increasingly relevant. LHS integrates evidence with health systems data, driving health care quality and outcomes through updates in policy, practice, and care delivery. In addition, LHS research is becoming critically important as there are several initiatives underway to increase research capacity, expertise, and implementation, including attempts to stimulate increasing numbers of LHS researchers. Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation (PM&R) physicians (physiatrists), nurses, therapists (physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech therapists, clinical psychologists), and scientists are affiliated with LHSs. As LHS research expands in health care systems, better awareness and understanding of LHSs and LHS research competencies are key for rehabilitation professionals including physiatrists. To address this need, the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) identified 33 core competencies, grouped into eight domains, for training LHS researchers. The domains are: (1) Systems Science; (2) Research Questions and Standards of Scientific Evidence; (3) Research Methods; (4) Informatics; (5) Ethics of Research and Implementation in Health Systems; (6) Improvement and Implementation Science; (7) Engagement, Leadership, and Research Management; and the recently added (8) Health and Healthcare Equity and Justice. The purpose of this commentary is to define LHS and its relevance to physiatrists, present the role of implementation science (IS) in LHSs and application of IS principles to design LHSs, illustrate current LHS research in rehabilitation, and discuss potential solutions to improve awareness and to stimulate interest in LHS research and IS among physiatrists in LHSs.

Learning Health Systems Research Competencies: A Survey of the Rehabilitation Research Community.

OBJECTIVE: The Learning Health Systems Rehabilitation Research Network (LeaRRn), an NIH-funded rehabilitation research resource center, aims to advance the research capacity of learning health systems (LHSs) within the rehabilitation community. A needs assessment survey was administered to inform development of educational resources. METHODS: The online survey included 55 items addressing interest in and knowledge of 33 LHS research core competencies in 7 domains and additional items on respondent characteristics. Recruitment targeting rehabilitation researchers and health system collaborators was conducted by LeaRRn, LeaRRn health system partners, rehabilitation professional organizations, and research university program directors using email, listservs, and social media announcements. RESULTS: Of the 650 people who initiated the survey, 410 respondents constituted the study sample. Respondents indicated interest in LHS research and responded to at least 1 competency item and/or demographic question. Two-thirds of the study sample had doctoral research degrees, and one-third reported research as their profession. The most common clinical disciplines were physical therapy (38%), communication sciences and disorders (22%), and occupational therapy (10%). Across all 55 competency items, 95% of respondents expressed "a lot" or "some" interest in learning more, but only 19% reported "a lot" of knowledge. Respondents reported "a lot" of interest in a range of topics, including selecting outcome measures that are meaningful to patients (78%) and implementing research evidence in health systems (75%). "None" or "some" knowledge was reported most often in Systems Science areas such as understanding the interrelationships between financing, organization, delivery, and rehabilitation outcomes (93%) and assessing the extent to which research activities will improve the equity of health systems (93%). CONCLUSION: Results from this large survey of the rehabilitation research community indicate strong interest in LHS research competencies and opportunities to advance skills and training. IMPACT: Competencies where respondents indicated high interest and limited knowledge can inform development of LHS educational content that is most needed.

Development of a rehabilitation researcher survey of knowledge and interest in learning health systems research.

Introduction: LeaRRn, an NIH-funded rehabilitation resource center, is dedicated to developing learning health systems (LHS) research competencies within the rehabilitation community. To appropriately target resources and training opportunities for rehabilitation researchers, we developed and pilot tested a survey based on AHRQ LHS research core competencies to assess the training needs of rehabilitation researchers interested in LHS research. Methods: Survey items were developed by the investigative team and iteratively refined with the assistance of an expert panel using two rounds of content validation. Survey items addressed knowledge of, ability to apply, and interest in LHS research competencies. The survey was pre-pilot tested with six rehabilitation professionals, refined again, and then pilot tested. Time to complete the survey was measured. Spearman correlations examined relationships between knowledge and ability. Results: A 78-item survey was pilot tested. Forty-five individuals completed the pilot survey in full (71% female, 84% white, and 93% non-Hispanic). Due to concerns about response burden (mean 15 minutes to complete) and strong correlation between "knowledge" and "ability" ratings (all rho >0.57), "ability" was dropped, resulting in a 55-item survey assessing "knowledge" and "interest" in LHS research competencies. Conclusions: We developed a survey of knowledge and interest in LHS research competencies for rehabilitation researchers. The resulting survey may be used to assess training needs and guide LHS research content development by educators, programs directors, and other initiatives within the rehabilitation research community.