Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33264470›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2021

Public perspectives on acquired brain injury rehabilitation and components of care: A Citizens' Jury.

Natasha A Lannin, Megan Coulter, Kate Laver, Nerida Hyett, Julie Ratcliffe, Anne E Holland, Libby Callaway, Coralie English, Peter Bragge, Sophie Hill and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Public perspectives on acquired brain injury rehabilitation and components of care: A Citizens' Jury.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Natasha A LanninDepartment of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Clayton, Vic., Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2066-8345
Megan CoulterOccupational Therapy Department, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.
Kate LaverFlinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0259-2209
Nerida HyettLa Trobe Rural Health School, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0554-1773
Julie RatcliffeCollege of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7365-1988
Anne E HollandCentral Clinical School, Monash University, Clayton, Vic., Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2061-845X
Libby CallawayMonash University, Clayton, Vic., Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3127-6312
Coralie EnglishSchool of Health Sciences, Priority Research Centre for Stroke and Brain Injury, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5910-7927
Peter BraggeBehaviourWorks Australia, Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University, Clayton, Vic., Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0745-5131
Sophie HillCentre for Health Communication and Participation and School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1715-5338
Carolyn A UnsworthDepartment of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Clayton, Vic., Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6430-2823

Funding

Evaluation of obstructive sleep apnea with long range 3D endoscopic FDOCTK25HL102055 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI ZHANG, JUN · 2011 to 2014
$495k
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBrain injury rehabilitation is an expensive and long-term endeavour. Very little published information or debate has underpinned policy for service delivery in Australia. Within the context of finite health budgets and the challenges associated with providing optimal care to persons with brain injuries, members of the public were asked 'What considerations are important to include in a model of care of brain injury rehabilitation?'

methodsQualitative study using the Citizen Jury method of participatory research. Twelve adult jurors from the community and seven witnesses participated including a health services funding model expert, peak body representative with lived experience of brain injury, carer of a person with a brain injury, and brain injury rehabilitation specialists. Witnesses were cross-examined by jurors over two days.

resultsKey themes related to the need for a model of rehabilitation to: be consumer-focused and supporting the retention of hope; be long-term; provide equitable access to services irrespective of funding source; be inclusive of family; provide advocacy; raise public awareness; and be delivered by experts in a suitable environment. A set of eight recommendations were made.

conclusionInstigating the recommendations made requires careful consideration of the need for new models of care with flexible services; family involvement; recruitment and retention of highly skilled staff; and providing consumer-focused services that prepare individuals and their carers for the long term. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: As jury members, the public deliberated information provided by expert witnesses (including a person with a head injury) and wrote the key recommendations.

Indexed as

Brain InjuriesDecision MakingAdultAustraliaHumansQualitative ResearchResearch Designconsumer participationdecision makingdeliberative methodshealth policytraumatic brain injury

Identifiers

PMID33264470
PMCPMC8077088

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.