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.

Description of an interdisciplinary, holistic cognitive rehabilitation program for adults with mild to moderate cognitive impairment after acquired brain injury.

PURPOSE: Cognitive rehabilitation research has progressed slowly, in part due to incomplete reporting of intervention content and delivery and the difficulties this produces for discerning program effectiveness. This knowledge gap can be reduced by providing detailed intervention descriptions. We document the content/ingredients and therapeutic targets of a cognitive rehabilitation program for adults with mild-to-moderate cognitive impairment. METHODS: The documentation process used a method of participatory/collaborative research. Discussions with the clinical team identified session content/ingredients and therapeutic targets, which were then described using Body Functions, and Activities & Participation domains from the International Classification of Function, Disability and Health (ICF). Domains most frequently targeted by each clinician were identified as Primary Targets. RESULTS: Each clinician produced a detailed description of session content, implementation, and ICF-coded therapeutic targets. This revealed that the whole program targets 29 ICF domains, seven of which were identified as Primary Targets: Higher-level Cognitive; Attention; Memory; Emotional; Global Psychosocial, Temperament and Personality, and Conversation. CONCLUSIONS: Documentation of treatment targets enabled identification of appropriate outcome measures which are now being used to investigate program efficacy. This step-by-step explanation of the documentation process could serve as a guide for other teams wanting to document their rehabilitation interventions and/or establish similar programs.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONIncomplete reporting of intervention content and delivery contributes to difficulties in discerning the effectiveness of complex rehabilitation programs.Current recommendations for rehabilitation intervention reporting suggest that these difficulties can be partially overcome by providing detailed descriptions of intervention content/ingredients and treatment targets.Human and physical resources differ widely from one clinical setting to another and the existence of clear program descriptions can guide clinicians who wish to create similar programs.Detailed descriptions of rehabilitation interventions are necessary to accurately measure patient outcomes and generate testable hypotheses about proposed mechanisms of action.Program descriptions are needed for the development of treatment theories and the advancement of evidence-based practice in rehabilitation.

A roadmap for research in post-stroke fatigue: Consensus-based core recommendations from the third Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable.

RATIONALE: Fatigue affects almost half of all people living with stroke. Stroke survivors rank understanding fatigue and how to reduce it as one of the highest research priorities. METHODS: We convened an interdisciplinary, international group of clinical and pre-clinical researchers and lived experience experts. We identified four priority areas: (1) best measurement tools for research, (2) clinical identification of fatigue and potentially modifiable causes, (3) promising interventions and recommendations for future trials, and (4) possible biological mechanisms of fatigue. Cross-cutting themes were aphasia and the voice of people with lived experience. Working parties were formed and structured consensus building processes were followed. RESULTS: We present 20 recommendations covering outcome measures for research, development, and testing of new interventions and priority areas for future research on the biology of post-stroke fatigue. We developed and recommend the use of the Stroke Fatigue Clinical Assessment Tool. CONCLUSIONS: By synthesizing current knowledge in post-stroke fatigue across clinical and pre-clinical fields, our work provides a roadmap for future research into post-stroke fatigue.

International survey on the implementation of the European and American guidelines on disorders of consciousness.

Diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic procedures for patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness (pDoCs) vary significantly across countries and clinical settings, likely due to organizational factors (e.g., research vs. non-academic hospitals), expertise and availability of resources (e.g., financial and human). Two international guidelines, one from the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) and one from the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) in collaboration with the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine (ACRM) and the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR), were developed to facilitate consistent practice among professionals working with this challenging patient population. While the recommendations of both guidelines agree in principle, it remains an open issue how to implement them into clinical practice in the care pathway for patients with pDoCs. We conducted an online survey to explore health professional clinical practices related to the management of patients with pDoCs, and compare said practices with selected recommendations from both the guidelines. The survey revealed that while some recommendations are being followed, others are not and/or may require more honing/specificity to enhance their clinical utility. Particular attention should be given to the implementation of a multimodal assessment of residual consciousness, to the detection and treatment of pain, and to the impact of restrictions imposed by COVID-19 pandemics on the involvement of patients' families/representatives.

A roadmap for research in post-stroke fatigue: Consensus-based core recommendations from the third Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable.

RATIONALE: Fatigue affects almost half of all people living with stroke. Stroke survivors rank understanding fatigue and how to reduce it as one of the highest research priorities. METHODS: We convened an interdisciplinary, international group of clinical and pre-clinical researchers and lived experience experts. We identified four priority areas: (1) best measurement tools for research, (2) clinical identification of fatigue and potentially modifiable causes, (3) promising interventions and recommendations for future trials, and (4) possible biological mechanisms of fatigue. Cross-cutting themes were aphasia and the voice of people with lived experience. Working parties were formed and structured consensus building processes were followed. RESULTS: We present 20 recommendations covering outcome measures for research, development, and testing of new interventions and priority areas for future research on the biology of post-stroke fatigue. We developed and recommend the use of the Stroke Fatigue Clinical Assessment Tool. CONCLUSIONS: By synthesizing current knowledge in post-stroke fatigue across clinical and pre-clinical fields, our work provides a roadmap for future research into post-stroke fatigue.

Control intervention design for preclinical and clinical trials: Consensus-based core recommendations from the third Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable.

Control comparator selection is a critical trial design issue. Preclinical and clinical investigators who are doing trials of stroke recovery and rehabilitation interventions must carefully consider the appropriateness and relevance of their chosen control comparator as the benefit of an experimental intervention is established relative to a comparator. Establishing a strong rationale for a selected comparator improves the integrity of the trial and validity of its findings. This Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable (SRRR) taskforce used a graph theory voting system to rank the importance and ease of addressing challenges during control comparator design. "Identifying appropriate type of control" was ranked easy to address and very important, "variability in usual care" was ranked hard to address and of low importance, and "understanding the content of the control and how it differs from the experimental intervention" was ranked very important but not easy to address. The CONtrol DeSIGN (CONSIGN) decision support tool was developed to address the identified challenges and enhance comparator selection, description, and reporting. CONSIGN is a web-based tool inclusive of seven steps that guide the user through control comparator design. The tool was refined through multiple rounds of pilot testing that included more than 130 people working in neurorehabilitation research. Four hypothetical exemplar trials, which span preclinical, mood, aphasia, and motor recovery, demonstrate how the tool can be applied in practice. Six consensus recommendations are defined that span research domains, professional disciplines, and international borders.

Control intervention design for preclinical and clinical trials: Consensus-based core recommendations from the third Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable.

Control comparator selection is a critical trial design issue. Preclinical and clinical investigators who are doing trials of stroke recovery and rehabilitation interventions must carefully consider the appropriateness and relevance of their chosen control comparator as the benefit of an experimental intervention is established relative to a comparator. Establishing a strong rationale for a selected comparator improves the integrity of the trial and validity of its findings. This Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable (SRRR) taskforce used a graph theory voting system to rank the importance and ease of addressing challenges during control comparator design. "Identifying appropriate type of control" was ranked easy to address and very important, "variability in usual care" was ranked hard to address and of low importance, and "understanding the content of the control and how it differs from the experimental intervention" was ranked very important but not easy to address. The CONtrol DeSIGN (CONSIGN) decision support tool was developed to address the identified challenges and enhance comparator selection, description, and reporting. CONSIGN is a web-based tool inclusive of seven steps that guide the user through control comparator design. The tool was refined through multiple rounds of pilot testing that included more than 130 people working in neurorehabilitation research. Four hypothetical exemplar trials, which span preclinical, mood, aphasia, and motor recovery, demonstrate how the tool can be applied in practice. Six consensus recommendations are defined that span research domains, professional disciplines, and international borders.

Factors Influencing Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Trainee Research Engagement.

ABSTRACT: Research engagement during physical medicine and rehabilitation residency and fellowship training is essential for advancing evidence-based medicine and fostering the development of clinician-scientists. Current Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education guidelines regarding research requirements during physical medicine and rehabilitation training are ambiguous, and it is unknown whether physical medicine and rehabilitation trainees receive adequate support to pursue research at the level they desire. This anonymous survey study aimed to identify perceived barriers and facilitators to research engagement among US physical medicine and rehabilitation residents and fellows. Our findings suggest that physical medicine and rehabilitation trainees value research engagement. However, research productivity during physical medicine and rehabilitation residency is limited, with many trainees reporting inadequate support and time to participate in research in a meaningful way. Additional support from residency and fellowship programs, including protected time for research, as well as research-specific education and mentorship should be considered to enhance physical medicine and rehabilitation trainee research engagement.

Research priorities in HIV, aging and rehabilitation: building on a framework with the Canada-International HIV and Rehabilitation Research Collaborative.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, the Canada-International HIV and Rehabilitation Research Collaborative established a framework of research priorities in HIV, aging and rehabilitation. Our aim was to review and identify any new emerging priorities from the perspectives of people living with HIV, clinicians, researchers, and representatives from community organizations. METHODS: We conducted a multi-stakeholder international consultation with people living with HIV, researchers, clinicians and representatives of community-based organizations. Stakeholders convened for a one-day Forum in Manchester, United Kingdom (UK) to discuss research priorities via a web-based questionnaire and facilitated discussions. We analyzed data using conventional content analytical techniques and mapped emerging priorities onto the foundational framework. RESULTS: Thirty-five stakeholders from the UK(n = 29), Canada(n = 5) and Ireland(n = 1) attended the Forum, representing persons living with HIV or representatives from community-based organizations(n = 12;34%), researchers or academics(n = 10;28%), service providers(n = 6;17%), clinicians(n = 4;11%); and trainees(n = 4;11%). Five priorities mapped onto the Framework of Research Priorities across three content areas: A-Episodic Health and Disability Aging with HIV (disability, frailty, social participation), B-Rehabilitation Interventions for Healthy Aging across the Lifespan (role, implementation and impact of digital and web-based rehabilitation interventions) and C-Outcome Measurement in HIV and Aging (digital and web-based rehabilitation health technology to measure physical activity). Stakeholders indicated methodological considerations for implementing digital and web-based rehabilitation interventions into research and practice and the importance of knowledge transfer and exchange among the broader community. CONCLUSION: Results highlight the sustained importance of the Framework of Research Priorities and provide further depth and areas of inquiry related to digital and web-based rehabilitation interventions and technology aging with HIV.

Improving Rehabilitation Research to Optimize Care and Outcomes for People with Chronic Primary Low Back Pain: Methodological and Reporting Recommendations from a WHO Systematic Review Series.

Chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) is a prevalent and disabling condition that often requires rehabilitation interventions to improve function and alleviate pain. This paper aims to advance future research, including systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), on CPLBP management. We provide methodological and reporting recommendations derived from our conducted systematic reviews, offering practical guidance for conducting robust research on the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions for CPLBP. Our systematic reviews contributed to the development of a WHO clinical guideline for CPLBP. Based on our experience, we have identified methodological issues and recommendations, which are compiled in a comprehensive table and discussed systematically within established frameworks for reporting and critically appraising RCTs. In conclusion, embracing the complexity of CPLBP involves recognizing its multifactorial nature and diverse contexts and planning for varying treatment responses. By embracing this complexity and emphasizing methodological rigor, research in the field can be improved, potentially leading to better care and outcomes for individuals with CPLBP.

Reasons for missing evidence in rehabilitation meta-analyses: a cross-sectional meta-research study.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials are the best evidence for informing on intervention effectiveness. Their results, however, can be biased due to omitted evidence in the quantitative analyses. We aimed to assess the proportion of randomized controlled trials omitted from meta-analyses in the rehabilitation field and explore related reasons. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional meta-research study. For each systematic review included in a published selected sample in the rehabilitation field, we identified an index meta-analysis on the primary outcome and the main comparison. We then looked at all the studies considered eligible for the chosen comparison in the systematic review and identified those trials that have been omitted (i.e., not included) from each index meta-analysis. Reasons for omission were collected based on an eight-reason classification. We used descriptive statistics to describe the proportion of omitted trials overall and according to each reason. RESULTS: Starting from a cohort of 827 systematic reviews, 131 index meta-analyses comprising a total of 1761 eligible trials were selected. Only 16 index meta-analyses included all eligible studies while 15 omitted studies without providing references. From the remaining 100 index meta-analyses, 717 trials (40,7%) were omitted overall. Specific reasons for omission were: "unable to distinguish between selective reporting and inadequate planning" (39,3%, N = 282), "inadequate planning" (17%, N = 122), "justified to be not included" (15,1%, N = 108), "incomplete reporting" (8,4%, N = 60), "selective reporting" (3,3%, N = 24) and other situations (e.g., outcome present but no motivation for omission) (5,2%, N = 37). The 11,7% (N = 84) of omitted trials were not assessed due to non-English language or full text not available. CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of the eligible trials were omitted from their index meta-analyses. Better reporting, protocol registration, definition and adoption of core outcome sets are needed to prevent omission of evidence in systematic reviews.

Understanding implementation of a complex intervention in a stroke rehabilitation research trial: A qualitative evaluation using Normalisation Process Theory.

BACKGROUND: The Implicit Learning in Stroke study was a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial, investigating the use of different motor learning strategies in acute stroke rehabilitation. Participating Stroke Units (n = 8) were from the South East/West regions of the UK, with the experimental intervention (implicit learning) being delivered by clinical teams. It required therapists to change how they gave instructions and feedback to patients during rehabilitation. This paper reports the processes underpinning implementation of the implicit learning intervention. The evaluation aimed to i) understand how therapists made sense of, engaged with and interpreted the effects of the intervention; ii) compare this to the experience reported by patients; iii) extrapolate learning of broader relevance to the design and conduct of research involving complex interventions in stroke rehabilitation. METHODS: Qualitative evaluation, with data collected through focus groups with clinical staff (n = 20) and semi structured interviews with people with stroke (n = 19). Mixed inductive and theory driven analysis, underpinned by Normalisation Process Theory. RESULTS: How therapists made sense of and experienced the intervention impacted how it was implemented. The intervention was delivered by individual therapists, and was influenced by their individual values, beliefs and concerns. However, how teams worked together to build a shared (team) understanding, also played a key role. Teams with a more "flexible" interpretation, reported the view that the intervention could have benefits in a wide range of scenarios. Those with a more fixed, "rule based" interpretation, found it harder to implement, and perceived the benefits to be more limited. Therapists' concerns that the intervention may impair therapeutic relationships and patient learning were not reflected in how patients experienced it. CONCLUSIONS: Changing practice, whether in a research study or in the "real world", is complex. Understanding the process of implementation is crucial to effective research delivery. Implementation frameworks facilitate understanding, and subsequently the systematic and iterative development of strategies for this to be addressed. How teams (rather than individuals) work together is central to how complex interventions are understood and implemented. It is possible that new complex interventions work best in contexts where there are 'flexible' cultures. Researchers should consider, and potentially measure this, before they can effectively implement and evaluate an intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials - NCT03792126.

ReDWINE: A clinical datamart with text analytical capabilities to facilitate rehabilitation research.

Rehabilitation research focuses on determining the components of a treatment intervention, the mechanism of how these components lead to recovery and rehabilitation, and ultimately the optimal intervention strategies to maximize patients' physical, psychologic, and social functioning. Traditional randomized clinical trials that study and establish new interventions face challenges, such as high cost and time commitment. Observational studies that use existing clinical data to observe the effect of an intervention have shown several advantages over RCTs. Electronic Health Records (EHRs) have become an increasingly important resource for conducting observational studies. To support these studies, we developed a clinical research datamart, called ReDWINE (Rehabilitation Datamart With Informatics iNfrastructure for rEsearch), that transforms the rehabilitation-related EHR data collected from the UPMC health care system to the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model (CDM) to facilitate rehabilitation research. The standardized EHR data stored in ReDWINE will further reduce the time and effort required by investigators to pool, harmonize, clean, and analyze data from multiple sources, leading to more robust and comprehensive research findings. ReDWINE also includes deployment of data visualization and data analytics tools to facilitate cohort definition and clinical data analysis. These include among others the Open Health Natural Language Processing (OHNLP) toolkit, a high-throughput NLP pipeline, to provide text analytical capabilities at scale in ReDWINE. Using this comprehensive representation of patient data in ReDWINE for rehabilitation research will facilitate real-world evidence for health interventions and outcomes.

Goal Attainment Scaling in rehabilitation: An educational review providing a comprehensive didactical tool box for implementing Goal Attainment Scaling.

CONTEXT: Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) is a person-centered and collaborative approach, allowing to assess the effectiveness of an intervention on personally relevant goals. However, GAS is not a "scale" but a heterogeneous group of methodologies, including many variations and lack of consensus on high quality GAS. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this communication is to: 1. provide updated didactical information on GAS use in PRM practice and research; 2. increase awareness of GAS methodological challenges; 3. guide use of GAS as an integrated process of rehabilitation after goal setting and; 4. provide updated resources for self-directed learning and extensive supplemental material to increase knowledge and practical skills in GAS use. METHODS: Educational literature review about current GAS applications relevant to PRM fields. RESULTS: Practical advice is provided regarding clinical challenges in GAS: definition of 0 level, time-frame and means employed to attain the goal, dealing with unforeseen pattern of improvement, synthesizing the numerous significations of "SMART" goal acronym to guide best use of GAS, and thinking flexibility on the type of relevant goals that can be set. Challenges with GAS in rehabilitation research are presented in order to promote researcher's and reviewer's awareness on reliable use of GAS and encouraging best-use of GAS.

Sex and Gender Reporting in Rehabilitation Research: A Commentary.

Although many funding agencies have mandated sex and gender considerations in grant proposals, the integration of these considerations may not be consistently integrated in the reporting phase. Increasingly more journals are however mandating requirements in the process of peer review and reporting. This commentary provides a rationale, context, and resources for authors in the rehabilitation field regarding sex and gender considerations in scientific reporting to ultimately aim to improve science and equity in our research.

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.

Progress Report on the Spinal Cord Rehabilitation Research Initiatives Based on Registered Clinical Studies From 2000 to 2022.

TO CLAIM CME CREDITS: Complete the self-assessment activity and evaluation online at http://www.physiatry.org/JournalCME. CME OBJECTIVES: Upon completion of this article, the reader should be able to: (1) Identify the most common trends and features of research studies on spinal cord rehabilitation, which were registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov Website between 2000 and 2022; (2) Discuss the main limitations of research on spinal cord rehabilitation, based on the protocols published on the ClinicalTrials.gov Website; and (3) Recognize important knowledge gaps in clinical studies on spinal cord rehabilitation that were registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov Website. LEVEL: Advanced. ACCREDITATION: The Association of Academic Physiatrists is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians.The Association of Academic Physiatrists designates this Journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s) ™. Physicians should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

Methodological Issues Relevant to Blinding in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Research.

ABSTRACT: Blinding in research is important, and the field of physical medicine and rehabilitation poses special consideration owing to the patient populations and treatment methodologies used. Historically, blinding has been increasingly relevant to conducting good-quality research. The main reason to blind is to reduce bias. There are several strategies to blinding. At times, when blinding is not possible, alternatives to blinding include sham control and description of study and control groups. Illustrative examples of blinding used in physical medicine and rehabilitation research are described in this article, along with how to assess success and fidelity of blinding.

Mapping two decades of multiple sclerosis rehabilitation trials: A systematic scoping review and call to action to advance the study of race and ethnicity in rehabilitation research.

BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS), is prevalent across many racial and ethnic groups, and disproportionately impacts racially minoritized populations. Rehabilitation interventions are an important component of comprehensive MS care. Yet, we do not know the extent to which MS rehabilitation trials consider race and ethnicity in defining eligibility criteria, planning recruitment strategies, selecting outcome measures, supporting intervention delivery, and designing approaches to promote adherence and retention. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of five databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, and Web of Science) to locate randomized controlled rehabilitation trials published from January 2002 to March 2022. We extracted data from relevant studies, assessed their methodological quality, and narratively summarized results. Reporting of this review is in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). RESULTS: Fifty-six studies of neurorehabilitation (n = 3), cognitive rehabilitation (n = 6), exercise training (n = 9) and self-management (n = 38) interventions were included in this review. The studies were predominantly from North America (n = 44; 73%) or Europe (n = 12; 20%) and included 4280 participants. Most participants (n = 3669; 86%) were Caucasians. Less than 10% of participants were Black (n = 282), Latinx/Hispanic (n = 60), Asian (n = 46), Indigenous (n = 7), or Arab (n = 2). Few studies discussed how race and/or ethnicity were considered in trial planning or execution. CONCLUSIONS: Without consistent and systematic attention to race and ethnicity, both in terms of trial design and reporting, it is impossible to know how MS rehabilitation interventions will translate into real-world applications. This call to action - to the MS rehabilitation research community to ensure trial and intervention processes that accommodate the needs of diverse racial and ethnic groups - is an important first step in addressing inequities in rehabilitation care for persons with MS.