ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Consensus-Driven Evaluation of Current Practices and Innovation Feasibility in Chronic Brain Injury Rehabilitation.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChronic Brain Injury (CBI) is a lifelong condition requiring continuous adaptation by patients, families, and healthcare professionals. Transitioning rehabilitation toward patient-centered and self-management approaches is essential, yet remains limited in Spain.
methodsWe conducted a two-phase consensus study in collaboration with the Spanish Society of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (SERMEF) and the Spanish Federation of Brain Injury (FEDACE). In Phase 1, surveys were distributed to patients (214 invited; 95 complete responses, 44.4%) and physiatrists (256 invited; 106 valid responses, 41.4%) to capture perceptions of current rehabilitation practices, including tele-rehabilitation. Differences and convergences between groups were analyzed using a Synthetic Factor (F). In Phase 2, a panel of 21 experts applied a real-time eDelphi process (SmartDelphi) to assess the feasibility of proposed innovations, rated on a six-point Likert scale.
resultsPatients and professionals showed both alignment and divergence in their views. Patients reported lower involvement of rehabilitation teams and expressed more reluctance toward replacing in-person care with telemedicine. However, both groups endorsed hybrid models and emphasized the importance of improved communication tools. Expert consensus prioritized feasible interventions such as online orthopedic renewal services, hybrid care models, and educational video resources, while less feasible options included informal communication platforms (e.g., WhatsApp) and bidirectional teleconsultations. Recommendations were consolidated into five domains: (R1) systemic involvement of rehabilitation teams in chronic care, (R2) patient and caregiver education, (R3) self-management support, (R4) communication tools, and (R5) socialization strategies.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates the value of combining patient and professional perspectives through digital Delphi methods to co-design innovation strategies in CBI rehabilitation. Findings highlight the need to strengthen communication, provide structured education, and implement hybrid care models to advance patient-centered rehabilitation. The methodology itself fostered engagement and consensus, underscoring its potential as a tool for participatory healthcare planning.
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.