Lessons learnt on the meaning of involvement and co-creation in developing community-based rehabilitation

References

• Johansen JS, Mygind O. SPARK – Marselisborg centre. Aarhus, Denmark: Marselisborg centre; Prospect. 2015.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization (WHO). Community-based rehabilitation CBR guidelines. Introductory booklet. Malta, Europe: WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization (WHO). World report on disability. Malta, Europe: World Health Organization (WHO); 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Abrahamson V, Jensen J, Springett K, et al. Experiences of patients with traumatic brain injury and their carers during transition from in-patient rehabilitation to the community: a qualitative study. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39:1683–1694.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wade D. Rehabilitation - a new approach. Part four: a new paradigm, and its implications. Clin Rehabil. 2016;30:109–118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beswick AD, Rees K, Dieppe P, et al. Complex interventions to improve physical function and maintain independent living in elderly people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2008;371:725–735.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barker RN, Sealey CJ, Polley ML, et al. Impact of a person-centred community rehabilitation service on outcomes for individuals with a neurological condition. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39:1136–1142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kendall E, Buys N, Larner J. Community-based service delivery in rehabilitation: the promise and the paradox. Disabil Rehabil. 2000;22:435–445.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsen EL, Stock C. Capturing contrasted realities: integrating multiple perspectives of Danish community life in health promotion. Health Promot Int. 2011;26:14–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forster R, Gabe J. Voice or choice? Patient and public involvement in the National Health Service in England under New Labour. Int J Health Serv. 2008;38:333–356.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Handberg C, Beedholm K, Bregnballe V, et al. Reflections on patient involvement in research and clinical practice: a secondary analysis of women’s perceptions and experiences of egg aspiration in fertility treatment. Nurs Inq. 2017;25:e12210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paul C, Holt J. Involving the public in mental health and learning disability research: can we, should we, do we? J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2017;24:570–579.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacristan JA, Aguaron A, Avendano-Sola C, et al. Patient involvement in clinical research: why, when, and how. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:631–640.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:14–89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, et al. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities. Patient. 2014;7:387–395.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, et al. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2014;17:637–650.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Central Denmark region: municipality of Aarhus, local government Denmark. Aarhus, Denmark: Marselisborg Centre Charter; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Thorne S. Interpretive description: qualitative research for applied practice. New York (NY): Routledge; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Blumer H. Symbolic interactionism: perspective and method. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press; 1969.
   Google Scholar
• Sandelowski M. What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Res Nurs Health. 2010;33:77–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Handberg C. Male cancer patients and healthcare professionals at hospitals: an interpretive description of men’s barriers to participation in municipal cancer rehabilitation [PhD dissertation]. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Handberg C, Thorne S, Midtgaard J, et al. Revisiting symbolic interactionism as a theoretical framework beyond the grounded theory tradition. Qual Health Res. 2014;25:1023–1032.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammersley M, Atkinson P. Ethnography: principles in practice. Milton Park, Abingdon: Taylor & Francis, Taylor & Francis e-Library; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Spradley JP. Participant observation. New York (NY): Holt Rinehart and Winston; 1980.
   Google Scholar
• Justesen L, Mik-Meyer N. Qualitative research methods in organisation studies. Copenhagen, Denmark: Hans Reitzels Forlag; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Handberg C, Lomborg K, Nielsen CV, et al. Understanding male cancer patients’ barriers to participating in cancer rehabilitation. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2015;24:801–811.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johansen JS, Rahbek J, Møller K, et al. The white paper - rehabilitation in Denmark [rehabilitering i Danmark - hvidbog om rehabiliteringsbegrebet]. Marselisborg centret, rehabiliteringsforum Danmark og marselisborg centret. Aarhus, Denmark: Marselisborg centret; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Greenhalgh T, Jackson C, Shaw S, et al. Achieving research impact through co-creation in community-based health services: literature review and case study. Milbank Q. 2016;94:392–429.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zanetti CA, Taylor N. Value co-creation in healthcare through positive deviance. Healthcare. 2016;4:277–281.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bamm EL, Rosenbaum P, Wilkins S, et al. Exploring client-centered care experiences in in-patient rehabilitation settings. Glob Qual Nurs Res. 2015;2:2333393615582036.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institutes of Health Medical Rehabilitation Coordinating Committee. National Institutes of Health research plan on rehabilitation. Rehabil Psychol. 2017;62:397–400.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finkenflugel H, Wolffers I, Huijsman R. The evidence base for community-based rehabilitation: a literature review. Int J Rehabil Res. 2005;28:187–201.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solvang PK, Hanisch H, Reinhardt JD. The rehabilitation research matrix: producing knowledge at micro, meso, and macro levels. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39:1983–1989.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornielje H, Velema JP, Finkenflugel H. Community based rehabilitation programmes: monitoring and evaluation in order to measure results. Lepr Rev. 2008;79:36–49.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malterud K. Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet. 2001;358:483–488.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar