ArticleHealth (London, England : 1997)2026
Implementation of patient participation in rehabilitation: An approach caught between different ideologies.
Article in Health (London, England : 1997), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The definition of specialised rehabilitation in Europe has changed from a focus on patients' bodily functions and work tasks to a patient-centred focus prioritising patients' wishes, allowing patients to actively collaborate and set their own goals. This study aimed to explore interprofessional healthcare teams' discursive practice regarding the implementation of patient participation in specialised rehabilitation units in Norway. Data were collected from three focus groups with seven different health professions, totalling 18 healthcare professionals. A corpus-assisted critical discourse analysis outlined by Fairclough was used to analyse the data. Three interdiscursive discourses based on different and opposing ideologies were found: (1) the discourse of standardisation, in which healthcare professionals used international models for rehabilitation goal setting; (2) the discourse of interprofessional experts, in which healthcare professionals constructed themselves as experts; and (3) the discourse of patient responsibility, in which the patients were constructed as having rights and autonomy. The sociocultural practice of implementing patient participation in specialised rehabilitation in Norway highlighted a hegemonic struggle between standardisation; paternalistic and autonomy ideologies; ethical dilemmas between healthcare professionals' knowledge and use of standardised goals; and patients' autonomy, knowledge, and will.
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.