Person-Centered Rehabilitation Model: Framing the Concept and Practice of Person-Centered Adult Physical Rehabilitation Based on a Scoping Review and Thematic Analysis of the Literature.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a cross-professional model framing the concept and practice of person-centered rehabilitation (PCR) in adult populations, based on a scoping review and thematic analysis of the literature. DATA SOURCES: Key databases (PubMed, Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health), snowballing searches, and experts' consultation were the data sources for English-language empirical or conceptual articles published from January 2007-February 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Two independent reviewers selected adult-based articles addressing at least 1 of the 6 categories of PCR-related content, a priori specified in the published review protocol. From 6527 unique references, 147 were finally included in the analysis. Of those, 26 were exclusively conceptual articles. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers extracted textual data on what PCR entails conceptually or as a practice. No quality appraisals were performed as is typical in scoping reviews. DATA SYNTHESIS: A thematic analysis produced thematic categories that were combined into an emergent model (the PCR Model), which was reviewed by 5 external experts. PCR was framed as a way of thinking about and providing rehabilitation services "with" the person. PCR is embedded in rehabilitation structures and practice across 3 levels: (1) the person-professional dyad; (2) the microsystem level (typically an interprofessional team, involving significant others); and (3) a macrosystem level (organization within which rehabilitation is delivered). Thematic categories are articulated within each level, detailing both the conceptual and practice attributes of PCR. CONCLUSIONS: The PCR Model can inform both clinical and service organization practices. The PCR Model may benefit from further developments including obtaining wider stakeholders' input, determining relevance in different cultural and linguistic groups, and further operationalization and testing in implementation projects.

Scoping review of the person-centered literature in adult physical rehabilitation.

PURPOSE: To describe the amount, range, and key characteristics (e.g., publication years, methods, topics) of the person-centered rehabilitation literature in adults with physical impairments. METHOD: Following the published scoping review protocol, papers were identified through: three major databases, snowball searches and expert consultation. Two independent reviewers have identified English-language papers on adult person-centered rehabilitation according to six pre-defined inclusion categories - theoretical, quantitative and qualitive research papers are included; and then have extracted their key characteristics (e.g., aims, methods, participants). Descriptive statistics, regression and content analyses were used to synthesize the results. RESULTS: Of 5912 deduplicated records initially screened, 170 papers were included: 136 empirical, including 13 systematic reviews. Empirical papers had data from 15264 clients and 4098 providers, in total. Yearly publications grew significantly from 2009 to 2018 (r2 = 0.71; b = 1.98: p < 0.01). Publications were unevenly distributed by countries (e.g., United States' publications per population was 44 times lower than New Zealand's). Most papers focused in more than one profession, setting-type or health conditions. Finally, many empirical papers (n = 67) studied implementation of person-centered rehabilitation approaches, including its effect. CONCLUSION: This scoping review synthesizes key characteristics and publication trends in the person-centered rehabilitation literature on adults with physical impairments, a growing but unchartered territory thus far. This large and diverse body of literature can ground further person-centered rehabilitation practices and research, including toward building a transdisciplinary, trans-service model of person-centered rehabilitation.Implications for rehabilitationThe person-centered rehabilitation literature on adults with physical impairments, especially the empirical one, has been growing significantly over time, despite inequitably distributed per countries.Rehabilitation stakeholders, including practitioners, have a growing amount of literature in which they can rely for the operationalization and implementation of person-centered rehabilitation approaches into routine practice.Based on our work, person-centered rehabilitation emerges as a practice requirement that cuts across professional and other rehabilitation silos.

Key Characteristics of Rehabilitation Quality Improvement Publications: Scoping Review From 2010 to 2016.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the peer-reviewed quality improvement (QI) literature in rehabilitation. DATA SOURCES: Five electronic databases were searched for English-language articles from 2010 to 2016. Keywords for QI and safety management were searched for in combination with keywords for rehabilitation content and journals. Secondary searches (eg, references-list scanning) were also performed. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently selected articles using working definitions of rehabilitation and QI study types; of 1016 references, 112 full texts were assessed for eligibility. DATA EXTRACTION: Reported study characteristics including study focus, study setting, use of inferential statistics, stated limitations, and use of improvement cycles and theoretical models were extracted by 1 reviewer, with a second reviewer consulted whenever inferences or interpretation were involved. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fifty-nine empirical rehabilitation QI studies were found: 43 reporting on local QI activities, 7 reporting on QI effectiveness research, 8 reporting on QI facilitators or barriers, and 1 systematic review of a specific topic. The number of publications had significant yearly growth between 2010 and 2016 (P=.03). Among the 43 reports on local QI activities, 23.3% did not explicitly report any study limitations; 39.5% did not used inferential statistics to measure the QI impact; 95.3% did not cite/mention the appropriate reporting guidelines; only 18.6% reported multiple QI cycles; just over 50% reported using a model to guide the QI activity; and only 7% reported the use of a particular theoretical model. Study sites and focuses were diverse; however, nearly a third (30.2%) examined early mobilization in intensive care units. CONCLUSIONS: The number of empirical, peer-reviewed rehabilitation QI publications is growing but remains a tiny fraction of rehabilitation research publications. Rehabilitation QI studies could be strengthened by greater use of extant models and theory to guide the QI work, consistent reporting of study limitations, and use of inferential statistics.