Can we achieve accountability for long-term outcomes?

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Volumn 77, Issue 12, 1996, Pages 1219-1225

  Batterham, Roy W ^a,b   Dunt, David R ^a   Disler, Peter B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^b FAIRFIELD HOSPITAL   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DISABILITY; EMPLOYMENT; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; MODEL; PERFORMANCE; QUALITY OF LIFE; REVIEW; SELF CARE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION;

EID: 0030479458     PISSN: 00039993     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0003-9993(96)90183-5     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Wolfensberger W. A brief introduction to social role valorization as a high-order concept for structuring human services. Syracuse (NY): Training Institute for Human Service Planning, Leadership and Change Agentry, Syracuse University, 1991.
2. World Health Organization. Resolution on disability prevention and rehabilitation (A29-68). Geneva: WHO, 1976.
3. Verville RE. The Americans with Disabilities Act: an analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1990;71:1010-3.
4. Australian Government. Disability Services Act. Canberra: Commonwealth Government Printer, 1986.
5. Australian Government. Accommodation for people with disabilities. Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs. Canberra: Commonwealth Government Printer, 1990.
6. Garbutcheon Singh M. Performance indicators - indicters or vindicators of inequity? Educ Links 1989;36:18-20.
7. Garbutcheon Singh M. Performance indicators in education. Geelong, Australia: Deakin University, 1990.
8. Ginsberg PE. The dysfunctional side effects of quantitative indicator production. Eval Program Plan 1984;7:1-12.
9. Kottke FJ. Philosophic considerations of quality of life for the disabled. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1982;63:60-2.
10. Hindle D. FIM is the beginning: management of the cost and utility of rehabilitation services. Australasian College of Rehabilitation Medicine, XIIth Annual Scientific Meeting: 1992 April 12-15; Melbourne. Melbourne: The Australasian College of Rehabilitation Medicine, 1992.
11. Vash C. New venues, new allies, new ways. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1990;71:1043-6.
12. Fuhrer MJ. Overview of outcome analysis in rehabilitation. In: Fuhrer MJ, editor. Rehabilitation outcomes: analysis and measurement. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company, 1987:1-17.
13. Anderson TP. Quality of life of the individual with a disability [editorial]. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1982;63:55.
14. Bach-Y-Rita P, Bach-Y-Rita E. Hope and active participation in the rehabilitation environment. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1990;71: 1084-5.
15. Batavia AI. Assessing the function of functional assessment: a consumer perspective. Disabil Rehabil 1992;14:156-60.
16. DeJong G. Health care reform and disability: affirming our commitment to community. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993;74:1017-24.
17. Whiteneck GG. Measuring what matters: key rehabilitation outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994;75:1073-6.
18. Frattali CM. Perspectives on functional assessment: its use for policy making. Disabil Rehabil 1993;15:1-9.
19. Fullerton KJ, Mackenzie G, Stout RW. Prognostic indices in stroke. Quart J Med 1988;250:147-62.
20. Stineman MG, Maislin G, Williams SV. Applying quantitative methods to the prediction of full functional recovery in adult rehabilitation patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993;74:787-95.
21. Oczkowski WJ, Barecca S. The Functional Independence Measure: its use to identify rehabilitation needs in stroke survivors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1973;74:1291-4.
22. Osberg JS, DeJong G, Haley SM, Seward ML, McGinnis GE, Germaine J. Predicting long-term outcome among rehabilitation stroke patients. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1988;67:94-103.
23. Harwood RH, Rogers A, Dickinson E, Ebrahim S. Measuring handicap: the London handicap scale, a new outcome measure for chronic disease. Qual Health Care 1994;3:11-16.
24. Wilson IB, Cleary PD. Linking clinical variables with health related quality of life. JAMA 1995;273:59-65.
25. Harvey RF, Silverstein B, Venzon MA, Kilgore KM, Fisher WP, Steiner M, et al. Applying psychometric criteria to functional assessment in rehabilitation: III. Construct validity and predicting level of care. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1992;73:887-92.
26. McLellan DL. The feasability of indicators and targets for rehabilitation services. Clin Rehabil 1992;6:55-66.
27. Dellario DJ. The relationship between interagency linkages and rehabilitation outcomes: implications for policy and practice. In: Fuhrer MJ, editor. Rehabilitation outcomes: analysis and measurement. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company, 1987:235-42.
28. McGrath JR, Davis AM. Rehabilitation: where are we going and how do we get there? Clin Rehabil 1992;6:225-35.
29. Keith RA, Lipsey MW. The role of theory in rehabilitation, assessment, treatment and outcomes. In: Glueckauf RL, Sechrest LB, Bond GR, McDonel EC, editors. Improving assessment in rehabilitation and health. Newbury Park (CA): Sage, 1993:33-60.
30. Verbrugge LM, Jette AM. The disablement process. Soc Sci Med 1994;38:1-14.
31. Campbell DT. Assessing the impact of planned social change. Eval Program Plan 1979;2:67-90.
32. Gamble TJ. The foibles of bureaucratic control: a response to Ginsberg. Eval Program Plan 1984;7:15-6.
33. Glenwick DS, Stephens MAP, Maher CA. On considering the unintended impact of evaluation: reactive distortions in program goals and activities. Eval Program Plan 1984;7:321-7.
34. Fries JF, Spitz PW. The hierarchy of patient outcomes. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life assessments in clinical trials. New York: Raven Press, 1990:25-35.
35. Glueckauf RL. Use and misuse of assessment in rehabilitation: getting back to basics. In: Glueckauf RL, Sechrest LB, Bond GR, McDonel EC, editors. Improving assessment in rehabilitation and health. Newbury Park (CA): Sage, 1993:135-55 .
36. Thorngren M, Westling B. Rehabilitation and achieved health quality after stroke: a population based study of 258 hospitalized cases followed for one year. Acta Neurol Scand 1990;82:374-80.
37. Kettle M, Chamberlain MA. The stroke patient in an urban environment. Clin Rehabil 1989;3:131-8.
38. Chen H-T, Rossi PH. The theory drived approach to validity. Eval Program Plan 1987;10:95-103.
39. Chen H-T. Theory-driven evaluations. Newbury Park (CA): Sage, 1990.
40. Patton M. A context and boundaries for a theory-driven approach to validity. Eval Program Plan 1989;12:375-7.
41. Fougeyrollas P. Documenting environmental factors for preventing the handicap process: Quebec contributions relating to ICIDH and social participation of people with functional differences. Disabil Rehabil 1995;17:145-453.
42. Punamäki R-L, Aschan H. Self-care and mastery among primary health care patients. Soc Sci Med 1994;39:733-41.
43. Kopec JA. Concepts of disability: the activity space model. Soc Sci Med 1995;40:649-56.
44. Culyer AJ. Commodities, characteristics of commodities, characteristics of people, utilities and the quality of life. In: Baldwin S, Godfrey C, Propper C, editors. Quality of life. London: Routledge, 1990:9-27.
45. Fuhrer MJ, Rintala D, Hart KA, Clearman R, Young ME. Relationship of life satisfaction to impairment, disability and handicap among persons with spinal cord injury living in the community. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1992;73:552-7.
46. Anderson TP. Assumptions in rehabilitation medicine. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1988;69:240-2.
47. Ziebland S, Fitzpatrick R, Jenkinson C. Tacit models of disability underlying health status instruments. Soc Sci Med 1993;37:69-75.
48. Vogenthaler DR, Smith KR, Goldfader P. Head injury, an empirical study: describing long-term productivity and independent living outcome. Brain Inj 1989;3:355-68.
49. Wax TM. Matchmaking among cultures: disability culture and the larger marketplace. In: Glueckauf RL, Sechrest LB, Bond GR, McDonel EC, editors. Improving assessment in rehabilitation and health. Newbury Park (CA): Sage, 1993:176-95.
50. Nykvist F, Hurme M, Alaranta H, Miettinen M-L. Social factors and outcome in a five-year follow-up study of 276 patients with sciatica. Scand J Rehabil Med 1991;23:19-26.
51. De Jong G. Post-rehabilitation health care for people with disabilities: an update on the 1989 White Paper of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993;74 Suppl: S2-S7.
52. Barnes D, Smith D, Gatchel RJ, Mayer TG. Psychosocioeconomic predictors of treatment success/failure in chronic low-back pain patients. Spine 1989;14:427-30.
53. American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. ACRM White Paper: addressing the post-rehabilitation health care needs of persons with disabilities. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993;74 Suppl:S8-S14.
54. Holland R. The care of disabled adults, living at home - is it an option? Clin Rehabil 1989;3:55-8.
55. Wedgewood J. The care of disabled adults: the institutional option. Clin Rehabil 1989;3:59-63.
56. Falconer JA, Naughton BJ, Dunlop DD, Roth EJ, Strasser DC, Sinacore JM. Predicting stroke inpatient rehabilitation outcome using a classification tree approach. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994; 75:619-25.
57. Meyers AR, Feltin M, Masters RJ, Nicastro D, Cupples A, Lederman RI, et al. Rehospitalization and spinal cord injury: cross sectional survey of adults living independently. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1985;66:704-8.
58. McFall RM. The essential role of theory in psychological assessment. In: Glueckauf RI, Sechrest LB, Bond GR, McDonel EC, editors. Improving assessment in rehabilitation and health. Newbury Park (CA): Sage, 1993:11-32.
59. Clayton KS, Chubon RA. Factors associated with quality of life of long-term spinal cord injured persons. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994;75:633-8.
60. Fuhrer MJ. Subjective well-being: implications for medical rehabilitation outcomes and models of disablement. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1994;73:358-64.
61. Brown M, Gordon WA, Diller L. Functional assessment and outcome measurement: An integrative review. In: Pan EL, Backer TE, Vash CL, editors. Annual review of rehabilitation, vol 3. New York: Springer, 1983:93-120.
62. Keany KC, Glueckauf RL. Disability and value change: an overview and reanalysis of acceptance of loss theory. Rehabil Psychol 1993; 38:199-210.
63. Wright BA. Physical disability: a psychosocial approach. ed 2. New York: Harper and Row, 1983.
64. Dikmen S, Machamer J, Temkin N. Psychosocial outcome in patients with moderate to severe head injury: 2-year follow-up. Brain Inj 1993;7:113-24.
65. Diller L, Ben-Yishay Y. Analyzing rehabilitation outcomes for persons with head injury. In: Fuhrer MJ, editor. Rehabilitation outcomes: analysis and measurement. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company, 1987:209-20.
66. Leftoff S. Psychopathology in the light of brain injury: a case study. J Clin Neuropsychol 1983;5:51-63.
67. Lewis I. Role of psychological factors in disordered awareness. In: Prigatano GP, Schacter DL, editors. Awareness of deficit after brain injury - clinical and theoretical issues, New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
68. Kopec J. Concepts of disability: the activity space model. Soc Sci Med 1995;40:649-56.
69. Race KH, Hotch DP, Packer T. Rehabilitation program evaluation: use of focus groups to empower clients. Eval Rev 1994;18:730-40.
70. Hakim S, Weinblatt J. The Delphi process as a tool for clinical decision making: The case of vocational training of people with handicaps. Eval Program Plan 1993;16:25-38.
71. Sanders SH, Brena SF. Empirically derived chronic pain patient subgroups: the utility of multidimensional clustering to identify differential treatment effects. Pain 1993;54:51-6.
72. Klapow JC, Slater MA, Patterson TL, Doctor JN, Atkinson JH, Garfin SR. An empirical evaluation of multidimensional clinical outcome in chronic low back pain patients. Pain 1993;55:107-18.
73. DeJong G, Hughes J. Independent living: methodology for measuring long-term outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1982;63:68-73.
74. DeJong G, Branch LG, Cocoran PJ. Independent living outcomes in spinal cord injury: multivariate analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1984;65:66-73.
75. Withey SB. Quality of life indicators and program evaluation. Eval Program Plan 1980;3:141-3.
76. Laman H, Lankhorst GJ. Subjective weighting of disability: an approach to quality of life assessment in rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil 1994;16:198-204.