ArticleFujita medical journal2025
Design and implementation of a community-based rehabilitation curriculum for training multidisciplinary rehabilitation teams to serve people aging with disabilities.
Article in Fujita medical journal, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: We aimed to design and implement a community-based rehabilitation (CBR) curriculum to promote community engagement by multidisciplinary teams. Methods: Participants in this prospective interventional study at a rehabilitation institution for people aging with disabilities included learners, the chief executive officer of the institution, program auditors, and community members. A customized CBR curriculum was developed using systems thinking design. Thirty-five learners were trained through 36 instructional contact hours and 60 hours of guided self-directed learning. Learners completed pre-training self-reported questionnaires regarding knowledge and experience of CBR. During training, learners were evaluated continuously through observation, assignments, self-reported feedback questionnaires, and CBR projects. The chief executive officer was interviewed during the study. The program auditors were interviewed and wrote reports on the curriculum and observations regarding the CBR projects. Learners reported on community participation in these projects. Results: Thirty-three of 35 learners completed the program, 31 (94%) of whom had no prior knowledge of CBR. Learners implemented nine community engagement CBR projects, in which 1,293 community members participated. The auditors commended the curriculum content and its positive impact on learners and the community. The chief executive officer implemented inclusive community engagement at work. A CBR curriculum was dynamically developed for multidisciplinary rehabilitation team training to promote community engagement. Conclusions: The custom-designed CBR curriculum enabled multidisciplinary teams to practice community engagement at work. Equipped with CBR knowledge and skills, teams engaged with multiple sectors of the community to enhance patients' rehabilitation potential and increase public awareness through the implemented projects.
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.