Developing the International Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (ISPRM): Following through

Supporting government policies to embed and expand rehabilitation in health systems in Europe: A framework for action

Investment in action is vital to confront the challenges associated with chronic diseases and disability facing European health systems. Although relevant policy responses are being increasingly developed, most of them fail to recognize the role of rehabilitation services in achieving public health and social goals. Comprehensive guidance is thus urgently needed to support rehabilitation policy development and expand access to rehabilitation care to meet population needs effectively. This paper describes a framework to guide policy action for rehabilitation in Europe. The framework was developed in collaboration with the European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine based on a focused literature review and expert consultations. A review in PubMed and grey literature sources identified 458 references and resulted in 135 relevant documents published between 2006 and 2019. Thematic analysis of extracted information helped summarize the findings and develop the draft policy action framework. This was circulated to a wider group of experts and discussed in three workshops in 2018-2019. The framework was revised according to their feedback. The proposed framework contains 48 options for policy action organized in six domains and twelve subdomains that address several areas of health programming. The proposed framework provides a structure to understand the policy terrain related to rehabilitation in Europe and the measures required for translating aspirational political pronouncements into targeted programmatic action and tangible health and social outcomes.

Facilitators and Barriers to the Rehabilitation Workforce Capacity Building in Low- to Middle-Income Countries

An increase in population and chronic conditions leading to disability require increasing emphasis on rehabilitation and health intervention. Poorer countries do not usually have the rehabilitation workforce needed to promote societal inclusion and participation. The roles of the rehabilitation workforce were often not clearly defined, leading to task shifting among rehabilitation professionals. Barriers to capacity building were poor availability of human resources and insufficient training program/supports for their professional development. Facilitators were local government support and international non-governmental organizations collaboration. Recommendations for capacity building effort are for collaboration with the developed nations to encourage funding, training, education, and sharing of resources.

All talk, no action?: the global diffusion and clinical implementation of the international classification of functioning, disability, and health

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to review the global diffusion and clinical implementation of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) endorsed by the World Health Assembly in 2001.

DESIGN

First, we analyzed the diffusion process of the ICF, with a special focus on clinical rehabilitation. This was done by researching the spread of ICF-related terms in Pubmed and Google from 2001 to 2010. Second, we examined the clinical implementation of the ICF in rehabilitation settings by a systematic review of the literature in the databases Pubmed and Embase. Eligible were studies evaluating the current application and impact of the ICF in the daily practice of clinical rehabilitation.

RESULTS

We found that the diffusion of the ICF as a mere term and concept in the area of rehabilitation is successful. However, the implementation in clinical rehabilitation practice is highly idiosyncratic and rarely evaluated appropriately. The question arises whether this idiosyncratic implementation can be regarded as a process toward standardization at all. Evidence of concrete benefits of a clinical ICF implementation for team members or even patients is at best weak.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest more comprehensive and comparable multicenter studies to solve the urgent need for best practice recommendations on ICF implementation in clinical rehabilitation.