The value of the Rehabilitation Activities Profile (RAP) as a quality sub-system in rehabilitation medicine

Disability and Rehabilitation

Volumn 26, Issue 7, 2004, Pages 387-400

  Beckerman, Heleen ^a,b   Roelofsen, Eline E ^a,b   Knol, Dirk L ^a,b   Lankhorst, Gustaaf J ^a,b  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AVERAGING; BELGIUM; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HOSPITAL DISCHARGE; HOSPITAL PATIENT; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LEG AMPUTATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; NETHERLANDS; NEUROMUSCULAR DISEASE; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; OUTPATIENT DEPARTMENT; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT MOBILITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; REHABILITATION CENTER; REHABILITATION MEDICINE; SCORING SYSTEM; SPINAL CORD INJURY; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; STROKE; TEAMWORK;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; AGED; BELGIUM; DISABLED PERSONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LENGTH OF STAY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATIENT CARE TEAM; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE;

EID: 2342658472     PISSN: 09638288     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09638280410001662941     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Eldar R. A conceptual proposal for the study of the quality of rehabilitation care. Disability and Rehabilitation 2000; 22: 163-169.
2. Wade DT. Research into the black box of rehabilitation: the risks of a type III error. Clinical Rehabilitation 2001; 15: 1-4.
3. Jelles F, Van Bennekom CAM, Lankhorst GJ. The interdisciplinary team conference in rehabilitation medicine. A commentary. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1995; 74: 464-465.
4. Roelofsen EE, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM. Team conferences in paediatric rehabilitation: organization, satisfaction and aspects eligible for improvement. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research 2000; 23: 227-232.
5. Heruti RJ, Ohry A. The rehabilitation team. A commentary. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1995; 74: 464-465.
6. Klazinga N. Commentary on 'A conceptual proposal for the study of the quality of rehabilitation care'. Disability and Rehabilitation 2001; 23: 217-218.
7. Holmqvist LW, Koch L von. Environmental factors in stroke rehabilitation. Being in hospital itself demotivates patients. British Medical Journal 2001; 322: 1501-1502.
8. Van Bennekom CAM, Jelles F, Lankhorst GJ. Rehabilitation Activities Profile: the ICIDH as a framework for a problem-oriented assessment method in rehabilitation medicine. Disability and Rehabilitation 1995; 17: 169-175.
9. Lankhorst GJ, Jelles F, Van Bennekom CAM. Rehabilitation Activities Profile, manual and description. Amsterdam: VU University Press, 1995.
10. Jelles F, Van Bennekom CAM, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM, Kuik DJ. Introducing an innovative method in team conferences. Disability and Rehabilitation 1996; 18: 374-379.
11. Jelles F, Van Bennekom CAM, Lankhorst GJ. Instruments to structure interdisciplinary team conferences in rehabilitation medicine: added value of the Rehabilitation Activities Profile. Journal of Rehabilitation Sciences 1995; 8: 51-58.
12. Wagner C, De Bakker DH, Groenewegen PP. A measuring instrument for evaluation of quality systems. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 1999; 11: 119-130.
13. Moos RH, Insel PM, Humphrey B. Preliminary manual for Family Environment Scale, Work Group Environment Scale, Group Environment Scale. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press Inc, 1974.
14. Moos RH. Group Environment Scale manual. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press Inc, 1981.
15. Halstead LS, Rintala DH, Kanellos M, Griffin B, Higgins L, Rheinecker S, Whiteside W, Healy J. The innovative rehabilitation team: an experiment in team building. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1986; 67: 357-361.
16. Strasser DC, Falconer JA, Martino-Saltzmann D. The rehabilitation team: staff perceptions of the hospital environment, the interdisciplinary team environment, and interprofessional relations. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1994; 75: 177-182.
17. Van Boxel YJJM, Bergen MP, Roest FHJ, Stam HJ. Characteristics of patients from hospital-based in-patient rehabilitation in The Netherlands. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research 1995; 18: 245-257.
18. Collin C, Wade DT, Davies S, Horne V. The Barthel ADL Index: a reliability study. International Disability Studies 1988; 10: 61-63.
19. Wade DT, Collin C. The Barthel ADL Index: a standard measure of physical disability? International Disability Studies 1988; 10: 64-67.
20. De Haan R, Limburg M, Schuling J, Broeshart J, Jonkers L, Van Zuylen P. Klinimetrische evaluatie van de Barthel-index. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde 1993; 137: 917-921.
21. Van Bennekom CAM, Jelles F, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM. The Rehabilitation Activities Profile: a validation study of its use as disability index with stroke patients. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1995; 76: 501-507.
22. Van Bennekom CAM, Jelles F, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM. Responsiveness of the Rehabilitation Activities Profile and the Barthel Index. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1996; 49: 39-44.
23. Erdman RAM, Passchier J, Kooijman M, Stronks DL. The Dutch version of the Nottingham Health Profile: investigations of psychometric aspects. Psychological Reports 1993; 72: 1027-1035.
24. Kersten P, Mullee MA, Smith JAE, McLellan L, George S. Generic health status measures are unsuitable for measuring health status in severely disabled people. Clinical Rehabilitation 1999; 13: 219-228.
25. Post MWM, Gerritsen J, Van Leusen NDM, Paping MA, Prevo AJH. Adapting the Nottingham Health Profile for use in people with severe physical disabilities. Clinical Rehabilitation 2001; 15: 103-110.
26. Van Sonderen E. Het meten van sociale steun met de Sociale Steun Lijst-Interacties (SSL-I) en Sociale Steun Lijst-Discrepanties (SSL-D). Een handleiding. Groningen: Noordelijk Centrum voor Gezondheidsvraagstukken, 1993.
27. Van Sonderen E, Ormel J. Het meten van aspecten van sociale steun en hun relatie met welbevinden. Een onderzoek naar de bruikbaarheid van de SSL-I en de SSL-D. Gedrag & Gezondheid 1997; 25: 190-200.
28. Bridges KR, Sanderman R, Van Sonderen E. An English language version of the social support list: preliminary reliability. Psychological Reports 2002; 90(3 pt 1): 1055-1058.
29. Wallston KA, Wallston BS, De Vellis R. Development of the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control (MHLC) Scales. Health Education Monographs 1978; 6: 160-171.
30. Halfens R, Visser APh. De beheersingsoriëntatie van gezondheid en ziekte. Tijdschrift voor Sociale Gezondheidszorg 1988; 66: 397-398.
31. Halfens R, Philipsen H. Een gezondheidspecifieke beheersingsoriëntatieschaal. Validiteit en betrouwbaarheid van de MHLC. Tijdschrift voor Sociale Gezondheidszorg 1988; 66: 399-403.
32. Snijders TAB, Bosker RJ. Multilevel analysis. An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling. London: Sage Publications Ltd, 2000.
33. Kreft I, De Leeuw J. Introducing Multilevel Modeling. London: Sage Publications Ltd, Series ISM Introducing Statistical Methods, 1998.
34. Rasbash J, Browne W, Goldstein H, et al. A user's guide to MLwiN (version 2.1c). London: Centre for Multilevel Modelling, Institute of Education, University of London, 2001.
35. Leung KW, Elashoff RM, Afifi AA. Censoring issues in survival analysis. Annual Review of Public Health 1997; 18: 83-104.
36. Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group (EPOC). The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group Data Collection Checklist. Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen, 2002.
37. Powell JM, Temkin NR, Machamer JE, Dikmen SS. Nonrandomized studies of rehabilitation for traumatic brain injury: can they determine effectiveness? Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2002; 83: 1235-1244.
38. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. New England Journal of Medicine 2000; 342: 1887-1892.
39. Davenport RJ, Dennis MS, Warlow CP. Effect of correcting outcome data for case mix: an example from stroke medicine. British Medical Journal 1996; 312: 1503-1505.
40. Diez-Roux AV. Bringing context back into epidemiology: variables and fallacies in multilevel analysis. American Journal of Public Health 1998; 88: 216-222.
41. Mant J. Process versus outcome indicators in the assessment of quality of health care. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2001; 13: 475-480.
42. Schmitt MH, Farrell MP, Heinemann GD. Conceptual and methodological problems in studying the effects of interdisciplinary geriatric teams. Gerontologist 1988; 28: 753-764.
43. Rushton PW, Miller WC. Goal attainment scaling in rehabilitation of patients with lower-extremity amputations: a pilot study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2002; 83: 771-775.
44. Stolee P, Stadnyk K, Myers AM, Rockwood K. An individualized approach to outcome measurement in geriatric rehabilitation. Journal of Gerontolology, series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 1999; 54: M641-M647.
45. Roelofsen EE, The BAM, Beckerman H, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM. Development and implementation of the Rehabilitation Activities Profile for children: impact on the rehabilitation team. Clinical Rehabilitation 2002; 16: 441-453.
46. Berman S, Miller AC, Rosen C, Bicchieri S. Assessment training and team functioning for treating children with disabilities. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2000; 81: 628-633.
47. De Moor J, Didden R, Nuis M, Van de Ven G. Assessing needs for interdisciplinary team training in children's rehabilitation: a pilot study. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research 1999; 22: 93-100.
48. Wressle E, Lindstrand J, Neher M, Marcusson J, Henriksson C. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure as an outcome measure and team tool in a day treatment programme. Disability and Rehabilitation 2003; 25: 497-506.
49. Schoppen T, Boonstra A, Groothoff JW, De Vries J, Göeken LNH, Eisma WH. Employment status, job characteristics, and work-related health experience of people with a lower limb amputation in The Netherlands. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2001; 82: 239-245.
50. Grol RTPM, Wensing MJP (eds). Implementatie, Effectieve Verandering in de Patiëntenzorg. Maarssen: Elsevier Gezondheidszorg, 2001.
51. Rosen C, Miller C, Pit-ten Cate IM, Bicchieri S, Gordon RM, Daniele R. Team approaches to treating children with disabilities: a comparison. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1998; 79: 430-434.
52. Wheelan SA, Hochberger JM. Assessing the functional level of rehabilitation teams and facilitating team development. Rehabilitation Nursing 1996; 21: 75-81.
53. Strasser DC, Smits SJ, Falconer JA, Herrin JS, Bowen SE. The influence of hospital culture on rehabilitation team functioning in VA hospitals. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 2002; 39: 115-125.
54. Rentsch HP, Bucher P, Dommen Nyffeler I, et al. The implementation of the ' International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health' (ICF) in daily practice of neurorehabilitation: an interdisciplinary project at the Kantonsspital of Lucerne, Switzerland. Disability and Rehabilitation 2003; 25: 411-421.
55. Nabitz U, Klazinga N, Walburg J. The EFQM excellence model: European and Dutch experiences with the EFQM approach in health care. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2000; 12: 191-201.