Evaluating neurorehabilitation: Lessons from routine data collection

Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry

Volumn 76, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 723-728

  Freeman, J A ^a,b   Hobart, J C ^b,c   Playford, E D ^b   Undy, B ^a   Thompson, A J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PLYMOUTH   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c PENINSULA MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BARTHEL INDEX; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DATA BASE; EVALUATION; FUNCTIONAL INDEPENDENCE MEASURE; HEALTH SERVICE; HOSPITAL PATIENT; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LENGTH OF STAY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; NEUROLOGIC DISEASE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPINE INJURY; STROKE;

EID: 17644426974     PISSN: 00223050     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jnnp.2004.035956     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Black N. High quality clinical databases: breaking down barriers. Lancet 1999;353:1205-6.
2. Black N. Using clinical databases in practice. Individualised prediction of survival for patients with cancer may be possible. BMJ 2003;326:2-3.
3. Motheral B, Brooks J, Clark MA, et al. A checklist for retrospective database studies-report of the ISPOR Task Force on retrospective databases. Value Health 2003;6:90-7.
4. Freeman JA, Playford ED, Thompson AJ. A neurological rehabilitation unit: audit of activity and outcome. J R Coll Phys Lond 1996;30:21-6.
5. Chan L, Houck P, Prela CM, et al. Using Medicare databases for outcomes research in rehabilitation medicine. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2001;80:474-80.
6. Trabin T. The quality agenda accelerates: outcomes collaboratives emerge. Beriav Healthcare Tomorrow 1997;April:11-13.
7. Johnston MV, Wood KD, Fiedler R. Characteristics of effective and efficient rehabilitation programs. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003;84:410-18.
8. Lewsey JD, Leyland AH, Murray GD, et al. Using routine data to complement and enhance me results of randomised controlled trials. Health Technol Assess 2000;4:1-54.
9. Podkin A, Rowan K, Black N. Using high quality clinical databases to complement the results of randomised controlled trials: the case of recombinant human activated protein C. BMJ 2001;323:923-6.
10. Walsh TL, Hanscom B, Lurie JD, et al. Is a condition-specific instrument for patients with low back pain/leg symptoms really necessary? The responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index, MODEMS, and the SF-36. Spine 2003;28:607-15.
11. Black N, Payne M. Improving the use of clinical databases. BMJ 2002;324:1194.
12. van dar Putten JMF, Hobart JC, Freeman JA, et al. Measuring change in disability following impatient rehabilitation: comparison of the responsivenesss of the Barthel Index and the Functional Independence Measure. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1999;66:480-4.
13. Johnson J, Thompson AJ. Rehabilitation in a neuroscience centre: the role of expert assessment and selection. Br J Ther Rehabil 1996;3:303-8.
14. Freeman JA, Langdon DW, Hobart JC, et al. The impact of inpatient rehabilitation on progressive multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 1997;42:236-44.
15. Rossiter DA, Edmondson A, Al Shahi R, et al. Integrated care pathways in multiple sclerosis rehabilitation: completing the audit cycle. Mult Scler 1998;4:85-9.
16. World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health. Available from www.who.int/icf (accessed December 2003).
17. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index (BI). Md State Med J 1965;14:61-5.
18. Granger CV, Cotter AC, Hamilton BB, et al. Functional assessment scales: a study of persons after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993;74:133-8.
19. Hobart JC, Lamping DL, Freeman JA, et al. Evidence-based measurement: which disability scale for neurological rehabilitation? Neurology 2001;57:639-44.
20. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales: a practical guide to fhe development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995:32-3.
21. Finch E, Brooks D, Stratford PW, et al. Physical Rehabilitation Outcome Measures: A Guide to Enhanced Clinical Decision Making. Ontario: Canadian Physiotherapy Association, 2002:244-5.
22. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, 1988.
23. Stroke Unit Trialists' Collaboration. Collaborative systematic review of the randomised trials of organised inpatient (stroke unit) care after stroke. BMJ 1997;314:1151-9.
24. Black N. Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ 1996;312:1215-18.
25. Edwards SGM, Playford ED, Hobart JC, et al. Comparison of physician outcome measures and patients' perception of benefits of inpatient neurorehabilitation. BMJ 2002;324:1493.
26. Carey RG, Seibert JH. Who makes the most progress in inpatient rehabilitation? An analysis of functional gain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1988;69:337-43.
27. Langdon DW, Thompson AJ. Multiple sclerosis: a preliminary study of selected variables affecting rehabilitation outcome. Mult Scler 1999;5:94-100.
28. Johnston MV, Wood KD, Fiedler R. Characteristics of effective and efficient rehabilitation programs. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003;84:410-18.
29. Wade DT. Selection criteria for rehabilitation services. Clin Rehabil 2003;17:115-18.