Rehabilitation outcomes: values, methodologies and applications

Abstract

Background. Just what defines a ‘good’ outcome in rehabilitation has been a much-debated issue. Indeed, this question remains a major focus in research, clinical practice and policy (with funding in many countries now being linked to outcomes achieved rather than outputs or services provided). Despite this rather constant attention, complexity, contention and confusion remain.

Purpose. This special issue presents 10 papers that take a fresh look at some of the long-standing problems concerning rehabilitation outcomes and, proposes novel ways to reconsider things and move forward.

Results. In this article, we provide a brief commentary on key issues raised by authors all of which focus on one or more of the following three key themes: the place of values in selecting and targeting outcomes; novel methodologies that may usefully inform measurement of outcome and finally; application of the thinking about outcomes in specific examples.

Conclusion. The papers in this special issue address a number of key issues concerning the evaluation of outcomes in rehabilitation. In so doing, some of the prevalent assumptions underpinning common approaches are questioned and novel ways forward are proposed.

Keywords:

• Methods
• values
• ethics
• measurement
• concepts

Acknowledgements

This Special Issue was part-funded and supported by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), Wellington, New Zealand. Views and/or conclusions in this article are those of the authors and may not reflect the position of ACC. We are grateful to all the participants who worked with us on the 2-day workshop that informed this work: Ian Cameron, Jackie Fawcett, Valery Feigin, Sara Georgeson, Gill Hall, Matire Harwood, Paula Kersten, William Levack, Nicola Kayes, Harry McNaughton, Philip Patson, Richard Siegert, Gerold Stucki, Julian Verkaaik and Gale Whiteneck. We also thank Professor Dave Muller and the team at Disability and Rehabilitation.