SynthesisBMJ open2024
Patient-report and caregiver-report measures of rehabilitation service use following acquired brain injury: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo review patient-report/caregiver-report measures of rehabilitation service use following acquired brain injury (ABI). DATA SOURCES: Medline, APA PsycINFO, Embase and CINAHL were searched on November 2021 and November 2022. Authors were contacted if measures were not included in manuscripts/appendices. STUDY SELECTION: Included articles were empirical research or a research protocol, available in English and described measures of patient report/caregiver report of rehabilitation service use post-ABI via quantitative or qualitative methods. Two reviewers independently screened 5290 records using DistillerSR. Discrepancies were resolved by team adjudication. DATA EXTRACTION: Data extraction was piloted with high levels of agreement (k=.94). Data were extracted by a single member with team meetings to seek guidance as needed. Data included administration characteristics (reporter, mode of administration, recall period), psychometric evidence and dimensions assessed (types of services, setting, frequency, duration, intensity, qualitative aspects). DATA SYNTHESIS: One hundred and fifty-two measures were identified from 85 quantitative, 56 qualitative and 3 psychometric studies. Psychometric properties were reported for four measures, all of which focused on satisfaction. Most measures inquired about the type of rehabilitation services used, with more than half assessing functional (eg, physical therapy) and behavioural health rehabilitation services, but fewer than half assessing community and academic reintegration (eg, special education, vocational rehabilitation) or cognitive (eg, neuropsychology) services. Fewer than half assessed qualitative aspects (eg, satisfaction). Recall periods ranged from 1 month to 'since the ABI event' or focused on current use. Of measures that could be accessed (n=71), many included a limited checklist of types of services used. Very few measures assessed setting, frequency, intensity or duration.
conclusionsDespite widespread interest, the vast majority of measures have not been validated and are limited in scope. Use of gold-standard psychometric methods to develop and validate a comprehensive patient-report/caregiver-report measure of rehabilitation service use would have wide-ranging implications for improving rehabilitation research in ABI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.