Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40891785›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of translational myology2025

What matters in rehabilitation: a mixed methods study of critical success factors from the perspectives of patients and healthcare professionals.

Špela Matko, Chiara Vetrano, Delia Cristea, Patricia Riedl, Ferdinand Prüfer, Michael J Fischer, Bibiane Steinecker-Frohnwieser, Tanja Stamm, Vincent Grote

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of translational myology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Špela MatkoLudwig Boltzmann Institute for Rehabilitation Research, Vienna, Austria; Institute for Outcomes Research, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna.ORCID 0009-0005-1513-1358
Chiara VetranoLudwig Boltzmann Institute for Rehabilitation Research, Vienna, Austria; University Hospital of Psychiatry II, Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, Psychosomatics and Medical Psychology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck.
Delia CristeaLudwig Boltzmann Institute for Rehabilitation Research, Vienna, Austria; Rehabilitation Center Kitzbühel, Kitzbühel.
Patricia RiedlLudwig Boltzmann Institute for Rehabilitation Research, Vienna, Austria; Rehabilitation Center Kitzbühel, Kitzbühel.
Ferdinand PrüferLudwig Boltzmann Institute for Rehabilitation Research, Vienna.ORCID 0009-0000-9400-8473
Michael J FischerLudwig Boltzmann Institute for Rehabilitation Research, Vienna, Austria; Rehabilitation Center Kitzbühel, Kitzbühel.ORCID 0000-0002-6345-0813
Bibiane Steinecker-FrohnwieserLudwig Boltzmann Institute for Arthritis and Rehabilitation, Vienna, Austria; Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Graz.
Tanja StammInstitute for Outcomes Research, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Arthritis and Rehabilitation, Vienna.
Vincent GroteLudwig Boltzmann Institute for Rehabilitation Research, Vienna.ORCID 0000-0002-4421-2449

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The success of rehabilitation is usually assessed based on the results reported by patients and physicians. However, these assessments often vary and frequently fail to take psychosocial and contextual factors into account. This study investigated how Patient Researchers (PRs) and Healthcare Professional Researchers (HPRs) perceive rehabilitation outcomes and which Critical Success Factors (CSFs) they consider most influential. Using a participatory mixed-methods design, 90 anonymized patient records were evaluated and divided into groups based on good, poor, and conflicting outcomes. The participants - 3 PRs and 24 HPRs - assessed the success of rehabilitation and the potential significance of previously identified CSFs. In contrast to the HPRs, the PRs attributed greater influence to psychosocial factors. The HPRs generally provided a more accurate assessment of the outcome ratings in the patient records, correctly classifying 54.5% vs. 47.7%. Ultimately, the most important CSFs were incorporated into the Rehabilitation Expectation and Perception Scale (REPS), a screening instrument for identifying context-sensitive factors that influence rehabilitation success. This new approach supports personalized, context-sensitive rehabilitation planning, aiming to optimize treatment and facilitate a more nuanced assessment of rehabilitation success.

Identifiers

PMID40891785
PMCPMC12536671

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.