ReviewSpinal cord2022
Comprehensive and person-centred approach in research: what is missing?
Review in Spinal cord, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Twenty-five years after publication of the "International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health"-what research and practice can learn from each other].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026Article
- The voice of caregivers of children and adolescents with spinal cord injuries: A scoping review.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2024Article
- A Co-Created Assessment Framework to Measure Inclusive Health and Wellbeing in a Vulnerable Context in the South of Europe.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Priorities, needs and willingness of use of nerve stimulation devices for bladder and bowel function in people with spinal cord injury (SCI): an Australian survey.Spinal cord series and cases · 2024Article
- Consumer engagement in doctoral research - what difference does it make?Spinal cord · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The concept of a comprehensive and person-centred approach in healthcare is not new and it is the basic principle that is embedded in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework. However, the implementation of a comprehensive and person-centred approach has not been fully translated into research development in people living with spinal cord injuries (SCI). This approach in research is important as the perspectives of persons living with SCI should be equally valued drivers in any research intended to provide a direct or indirect outcome to people living with a SCI. This perspective paper will discuss some of the limiting factors and provide some examples of previous and current successful steps being taken towards the worldwide implementation of this approach. Finally, this paper will suggest some of the steps needed to implement this person-centred model in research in people with SCI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34975156What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.