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.
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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.