ArticleJournal of patient experience2026
Evaluation of Patient Experience in Inpatient Rehabilitation Setting: An Australian Perspective.
Article in Journal of patient experience, 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
This study evaluated patient experience in an Australian inpatient rehabilitation cohort in a tertiary hospital. Fifty-one consecutive patients admitted to an inpatient rehabilitation unit were recruited to evaluate their experience using the Australian Modified Client-Centred Rehabilitation Questionnaire (AM-CCRQ) across seven domains: decision-making, education, outcome evaluation, family involvement, emotional support, physical comfort, and continuity/coordination of care. Participants' functional outcomes before and after rehabilitation were evaluated using validated Clinical Functioning Information Tool (ClinFIT) and Functional Independence Measure (FIM) tools. The median age of participants was 68 years (range 27-91), with the majority being female (54.9%). The most common conditions were orthopaedic (29.4%) and stroke (23.5%), with most participants reporting at least one issue in ClinFIT categories. Emotional support, decision-making and education AM-CCRQ domains received the highest positive ratings, while family involvement domain was rated the 'lowest.' The participants demonstrated significant functional improvement at discharge across ClinFIT categories and FIM subscales (p <0.001 for all). The AM-CCRQ can be a useful system-level indicator of quality and safety when used in conjunction with routine rehabilitation outcome tools.
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.