Mini-review: Rehabilitation engineering: Research priorities and trends.

Rehabilitation Engineering is the use of engineering principles applied to rehabilitation, disability, and independent living. Google Scholar is a searchable resource that allows people from around the world to create profiles of their interests and collaborations, and it provides a means to search the broad scientific and technical literature. Google Scholar was used to identify the 150 most cited people who listed Rehabilitation Engineering in their profile. Research impact, characteristics, and areas of research of the most cited rehabilitation engineers were examined. Furthermore, gender and geographical differences in research metrics of the highest citied rehabilitation engineers were investigated. Consumer priorities in rehabilitation engineering were identified using a voice of consumer (VoC) survey and recent literature based on VoC studies. Gaps between research publication and activities and consumer priorities were identified to recommend seven areas of research with high demand and opportunity for growth and innovation. Implications.

Moving stroke rehabilitation research evidence into clinical practice: Consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable.

Moving research evidence to practice can take years, if not decades, which denies stroke patients and families from receiving the best care. We present the results of an international consensus process prioritizing what research evidence to implement into stroke rehabilitation practice to have maximal impact. An international 10-member Knowledge Translation Working Group collaborated over a six-month period via videoconferences and a two-day face-to-face meeting. The process was informed from surveys received from 112 consumers/family members and 502 health care providers in over 28 countries, as well as from an international advisory of 20 representatives from 13 countries. From this consensus process, five of the nine identified priorities relate to service delivery (interdisciplinary care, screening and assessment, clinical practice guidelines, intensity, family support) and are generally feasible to implement or improve upon today. Readily available website resources are identified to help health care providers harness the necessary means to implement existing knowledge and solutions to improve service delivery. The remaining four priorities relate to system issues (access to services, transitions in care) and resources (equipment/technology, staffing) and are acknowledged to be more difficult to implement. We recommend that health care providers, managers, and organizations determine whether the priorities we identified are gaps in their local practice, and if so, consider implementation solutions to address them to improve the quality of lives of people living with stroke.

A stroke recovery trial development framework: Consensus-based core recommendations from the Second Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable.

A major goal of the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable (SRRR) is to accelerate development of effective treatments to enhance stroke recovery beyond that expected to occur spontaneously or with current approaches. In this paper, we describe key issues for the next generation of stroke recovery treatment trials and present the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable Trials Development Framework (SRRR-TDF). An exemplar (an upper limb recovery trial) is presented to demonstrate the utility of this framework to guide the GO, NO-GO decision-making process in trial development.

Thirty Years of National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems Center Research-An Update.

The Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems Center (TBIMSC) program was established by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research in 1987, with the goal of conducting research to improve the care and outcomes for individuals with moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). This article provides an update on TBIMSC research program activities since 2010 when a similar article was published. It includes (1) discussion of TBIMSC program management and infrastructure; (2) detail on the management, data quality, access, use, and knowledge translation of the TBIMSC National Database, with more than 16 000 participants with follow-up out to 25 years postinjury to date; (3) an overview of the TBIMSC site-specific studies and collaborative module research; (4) highlights of several collaborative initiatives between the TBIMSCs and other federal, advocacy, and research stakeholders; (5) an overview of the vast knowledge translation occurring through the TBIMSC program; and (6) discussion of issues that impact on the data collection methods for and contents of the TBIMSC National Database. On the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the TBIMSC program, this article highlights many of the accomplishments of this well-established, multicenter TBI research consortium.

Moving research tools into practice: the successes and challenges in promoting uptake of classification tools.

PURPOSE: In this paper, we present our experiences - both successes and challenges - in implementing evidence-based classification tools into clinical practice. We also make recommendations for others wanting to promote the uptake and application of new research-based assessment tools. METHOD: We first describe classification systems and the benefits of using them in both research and practice. We then present a theoretical framework from Implementation Science to report strategies we have used to implement two research-based classification tools into practice. We also illustrate some of the challenges we have encountered by reporting results from an online survey investigating 58 Speech-language Pathologists' knowledge and use of the Communication Function Classification System (CFCS), a new tool to classify children's functional communication skills. RESULT AND CONCLUSIONS: We offer recommendations for researchers wanting to promote the uptake of new tools in clinical practice. Specifically, we identify structural, organizational, innovation, practitioner, and patient-related factors that we recommend researchers address in the design of implementation interventions. Roles and responsibilities of both researchers and clinicians in making implementations science a success are presented. Implications for rehabilitation Promoting uptake of new and evidence-based tools into clinical practice is challenging. Implementation science can help researchers to close the knowledge-to-practice gap. Using concrete examples, we discuss our experiences in implementing evidence-based classification tools into practice within a theoretical framework. Recommendations are provided for researchers wanting to implement new tools in clinical practice. Implications for researchers and clinicians are presented.

Qualitative research in rehabilitation science: opportunities, challenges, and future directions.

PURPOSE: Qualitative research has had a significant impact within rehabilitation science over time. During the past 20 years the number of qualitative studies published per year in Disability and Rehabilitation has markedly increased (from 1 to 54). In addition, during this period there have been significant changes in how qualitative research is conceptualized, conducted, and utilized to advance the field of rehabilitation. The purpose of this article is to reflect upon the progress of qualitative research within rehabilitation to date, to explicate current opportunities and challenges, and to suggest future directions to continue to strengthen the contribution of qualitative research in this field. METHODS: Relevant literature searches were conducted in electronic data bases and reference lists. Pertinent literature was examined to identify current opportunities and challenges for qualitative research use in rehabilitation and to identify future directions. RESULTS: Six key areas of opportunity and challenge were identified: (a) paradigm shifts, (b) advancements in methodology, (c) emerging technology, (d) advances in quality evaluation, (e) increasing popularity of mixed methods approaches, and (f) evolving approaches to knowledge translation. Two important future directions for rehabilitation are posited: (1) advanced training in qualitative methods and (2) engaging qualitative communities of research. CONCLUSION: Qualitative research is well established in rehabilitation and has an important place in the continued growth of this field. Ongoing development of qualitative researchers and methods are essential. Implications for Rehabilitation Qualitative research has the potential to improve rehabilitation practice by addressing some of the most pervasive concerns in the field such as practitioner-client interaction, the subjective and lived experience of disability, and clinical reasoning and decision making. This will serve to better inform those providing rehabilitation services thereby benefiting patients that are utilizing these services. Changes over time in how qualitative research is conceptualized, conducted, and utilized to advance rehabilitation science have resulted in a number of unique opportunities and challenges in using qualitative research that must be considered within this field. Advances in methodology and increased expectations for evaluation must be considered to ensure quality and credibility of qualitative rehabilitation research within rehabilitation. Improved quality and credibility may increase likelihood of research dissemination and use by clinicians intervening within the rehabilitation process in order to improve clinical practice. In order to maximize opportunities and mitigate challenges there are two principal future directions for rehabilitation scientists to consider: (1) advancing training in qualitative methods to adequately prepare future rehabilitation scientists and (2) engaging qualitative communities of research.

Publication trends of study protocols in rehabilitation.

INTRODUCTION: Growing evidence points for the need to publish study protocols in the health field. The aim of this paper was to observe whether the growing interest in publishing study protocols in the broader health field has been translated into increased publications of rehabilitation study protocols. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: PubMed was searched with appropriate combinations of Medical Subject Headings up to December 2014. The effective presence of study protocols was manually screened. Regression models analyzed the yearly growth of publications. Two-sample Z-tests analyzed whether the proportion of systematic reviews (SRs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) among study protocols differed from that of the same designs for the broader rehabilitation research. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Up to December 2014, 746 publications of rehabilitation study protocols were identified, with an exponential growth since 2005 (r2=0.981; P<0.001). RCT protocols were the most common among rehabilitation study protocols (83%), while RCTs were significantly more prevalent among study protocols than among the broader rehabilitation research (83% vs. 35.8%; P<0.001). For SRs, the picture was reversed: significantly less common among study protocols (2.8% vs. 9.3%; P<0.001). Funding was more often reported by rehabilitation study protocols than the broader rehabilitation research (90% vs. 53.1%; P<0.001). Rehabilitation journals published a significantly lower share of rehabilitation study protocols than they did for the broader rehabilitation research (1.8% vs.16.7%; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Identifying the reasons for these discrepancies and reverting unwarranted disparities (e.g. low rate of publication for rehabilitation SR protocols) are likely new avenues for rehabilitation research and its publication. SRs, particularly those aggregating RCT results, are considered the best standard of evidence to guide rehabilitation clinical practice; however, that standard can be improved in rigor and/or transparency if the publications of rehabilitation SRs protocols become more common.

The ATTEND trial: An alternative explanation with implications for future recovery and rehabilitation clinical trials.

Over the past decade, ATTEND is one of only a handful of moderate to large-scale nonpharmacologic stroke recovery trials with a focus on rehabilitation. While unique in some respects, its test of superiority for the experimental intervention returned negative/neutral results, with no differences in outcome between the experimental intervention and an appropriate control group - a result not uncommon to the majority of moderate to large stroke rehabilitation intervention trials (i.e. six out of eight conducted in the past decade). The authors offer a number of potential explanations for the negative outcome, all of which have merit. We choose not to dwell on these possibilities, but rather offer a radically different explanation, one which has implications for future rehabilitation clinical trials. Our premise is that the process of neurorehabilitation is complex and multifaceted, but most importantly, for success, it requires a genuine collaboration between the patient and the clinician or caregiver to effect optimal recovery. This collaborative relationship must be defined by the unique perspective of each patient. By doing so, we acknowledge the importance of the individual patient's values, goals, perspectives, and capacity. Rehabilitation scientists can design what arguably is a scientifically sound intervention that is evidence-based and even with preliminary data supporting its efficacy, but if the patient does not value the target outcome, does not fully engage in the therapy, or does not expect the intervention to succeed, the likelihood of success is poor. We offer this opinion, not to be critical, but to suggest a paradigm shift in the way in which we conduct stroke recovery and rehabilitation trials.

How a diverse research ecosystem has generated new rehabilitation technologies: Review of NIDILRR's Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers.

Over 50 million United States citizens (1 in 6 people in the US) have a developmental, acquired, or degenerative disability. The average US citizen can expect to live 20% of his or her life with a disability. Rehabilitation technologies play a major role in improving the quality of life for people with a disability, yet widespread and highly challenging needs remain. Within the US, a major effort aimed at the creation and evaluation of rehabilitation technology has been the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs) sponsored by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research. As envisioned at their conception by a panel of the National Academy of Science in 1970, these centers were intended to take a "total approach to rehabilitation", combining medicine, engineering, and related science, to improve the quality of life of individuals with a disability. Here, we review the scope, achievements, and ongoing projects of an unbiased sample of 19 currently active or recently terminated RERCs. Specifically, for each center, we briefly explain the needs it targets, summarize key historical advances, identify emerging innovations, and consider future directions. Our assessment from this review is that the RERC program indeed involves a multidisciplinary approach, with 36 professional fields involved, although 70% of research and development staff are in engineering fields, 23% in clinical fields, and only 7% in basic science fields; significantly, 11% of the professional staff have a disability related to their research. We observe that the RERC program has substantially diversified the scope of its work since the 1970's, addressing more types of disabilities using more technologies, and, in particular, often now focusing on information technologies. RERC work also now often views users as integrated into an interdependent society through technologies that both people with and without disabilities co-use (such as the internet, wireless communication, and architecture). In addition, RERC research has evolved to view users as able at improving outcomes through learning, exercise, and plasticity (rather than being static), which can be optimally timed. We provide examples of rehabilitation technology innovation produced by the RERCs that illustrate this increasingly diversifying scope and evolving perspective. We conclude by discussing growth opportunities and possible future directions of the RERC program.

Advances in neurocognitive rehabilitation research from 1992 to 2017: The ascension of neural plasticity.

OBJECTIVE: The last 25 years have seen profound changes in neurocognitive rehabilitation that continue to motivate its evolution. Although the concept of nervous system plasticity was discussed by William James (1890), the foundation for experience-based plasticity had not reached the critical empirical mass to seriously impact rehabilitation research until after 1992. The objective of this review is to describe how the emergence of neural plasticity has changed neurocognitive rehabilitation research. METHOD: The important developments included (a) introduction of a widely available tool that could measure brain plasticity (i.e., functional MRI); (b) development of new structural imaging techniques that could define limits of and opportunities for neural plasticity; (c) deployment of noninvasive brain stimulation to leverage neural plasticity for rehabilitation; (d) growth of a literature indicating that exercise has positively impacts neural plasticity, especially for older persons; and (e) enhancement of neural plasticity by creating interventions that generalize beyond the boundaries of treatment activities. Given the massive literature, each of these areas is developed by example. RESULTS: The expanding influence of neural plasticity has provided new models and tools for neurocognitive rehabilitation in neural injuries and disorders, as well as methods for measuring neural plasticity and predicting its limits and opportunities. Early clinical trials have provided very encouraging results. CONCLUSION: Now that neural plasticity has gained a firm foothold, it will continue to influence the evolution of neurocognitive rehabilitation research for the next 25 years and advance rehabilitation for neural injuries and disease. (PsycINFO Database Record

The World Health Organization "Rehabilitation 2030: a call for action".

February 6th-7th, 2017 might become a memorable date in the future of rehabilitation. On these two days, the World Health Organization (WHO) has summoned over 200 stakeholders in the Executive Board Room of the WHO Headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. Their common aim was to a launch the "Rehabilitation 2030" call to action and to present the WHO Recommendations on rehabilitation in health systems. These initiatives are meant to draw attention to the increasing unmet need for rehabilitation in the world; to highlight the role of rehabilitation in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals proposed by the United Nations; to call for coordinated and concerted global action towards strengthening rehabilitation in health systems. The aim of this paper is to report on the scientific events of these 2 days, which will most likely mark the history of rehabilitation.

Rehabilitation Research Priorities: The Next 10 Years.

A core set of foundational themes are needed to develop the next decade of rehabilitation research priorities to optimize burn recovery. These themes include integrating burn survivors into rehabilitation research, measuring the right things, utilizing technology, learning from other fields of medicine, translating bench research to rehabilitation, harnessing big data, capitalizing on past successes, embracing social media, and expanding partnerships. It is the challenge of the burn care community to utilize these foundational themes to champion the field of burn rehabilitation research.

Republication of: Elevating the quality of disability and rehabilitation research: Mandatory use of the reporting guidelines.

Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation advocates the complete and transparent reporting of research and methods, and is pleased to be part of an initiative to mandate the use of reporting guidelines. This Editorial is a republication of a previously published Editorial in Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2013.12.010 ), and is republished here under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ ). For citation purposes, please use the original publication details: Chan L, Heinemann AW, Roberts J. Elevating the Quality of Disability and Rehabilitation Research: Mandatory use of the Reporting Guidelines. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95:415-7.