ArticleBMJ public health2024
Rehabilitation needs screening to identify potential beneficiaries: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ public health, 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.
- A Work-Related Health Check to Identify the Need for Rehabilitation and Preventive Care (Check-Up 45+): A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial in General Practice (PReHa45).Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: The aim is to identify and compare the content of screening tools and needs assessments used to select rehabilitation beneficiaries and to describe the context of their use. Design: Scoping review. Data sources: We systematically searched five indexed databases for studies published from 1 January 2010 to 3 February 2023. Eligibility criteria: We searched for papers published in English only. Papers describe a screening tool or needs assessment aiming to prospectively select potential beneficiaries of rehabilitation services based on a cut-off score or classification system. Data extraction and synthesis: We charted the evidence according to the characteristics of the paper, rehabilitation needs screening context, screening tool and content of the screening tool. A descriptive synthesis is provided for screening methodology, settings, target populations, rehabilitation need types and phases of care. The WHO International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health is used to categorise screening items. Results: We identified 24 tools that use a range of screening methodologies, but mostly questionnaires that are used by health workers. Most tools have been proposed for the identification of a rehabilitation beneficiary among people with selected health conditions assessing the need to access a specific rehabilitation intervention, programme or occupational group. The majority of tools screen for current functioning limitations, and this is often the only screening component. When mapping screening items with the WHO International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), almost all ICF chapters for body functions and activities and participation have been included across screening tools, with the following most frequently included ICF categories: emotional functions (b152), acquiring, keeping and terminating a job (d845), sensation of pain (b280) and carrying out daily routine (d230). Conclusions: Rehabilitation need screening tools commonly include the screening for current functioning limitations among people with selected health conditions. A screening tool that is applicable across health conditions and settings is not available.
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.