ArticleFrontiers in neurology2025
Implementing the WHO rehabilitation competency framework in undergraduate medical education: a context-specific adaptation for neurorehabilitation training.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) released the Rehabilitation Competency Framework (RCF) in 2020, encompassing five core domains-Practice, Professionalism, Learning and Development, Management and Leadership, and Research-along with cross-cutting values and beliefs that establish international standards for rehabilitation education. However, current neurorehabilitation training in Chinese clinical undergraduate programs lacks a competency-oriented structure. For example, Peking University's existing curriculum includes only 8 lecture h and an optional 2-week practicum, with assessment predominantly based on written examinations rather than competency evaluation. Methods: Curriculum Design: We employed a Delphi method (involving 3 rounds with 13 experts) to construct an RCF-based curriculum system, defining entry-level proficiency competencies (e.g., Practice P1-P4 and Core Values V1-V4). Implementation: We delivered an 8-h RCF theory plus 2-h case-based learning (CBL) to 36 eight-year program undergraduates. We conducted paired t-tests to evaluate competency changes before and after the intervention. The Rehabilitation Physician Competence Questionnaire was used as the core assessment tool. Paired t-tests were conducted to compare the 13 competence indicators before and after the curriculum reform to verify the effectiveness of the competence-oriented teaching method. Results: Curriculum Framework: Four modules-Professionalism, Foundations, Core Competencies, and Intensive Practicum-covering all RCF domains were developed. The Core Competencies module emphasized "Assessment Skills (P3)" and "Evidence-Based Decision Making (R1)." Outcomes: A total of 13 of 15 competencies showed significant improvement post-intervention ( Conclusion: This study established a closed-loop system of "contextualized competency framework → curriculum development → multidimensional evaluation," demonstrating RCF's effectiveness in enhancing undergraduate rehabilitation competencies. It provides a paradigm for rehabilitation education aligned with Chinese characteristics.
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.