What Does It Take for Research to Be Rehabilitation Research?

Six recommendations to facilitate rehabilitation research and supplement existing research practices were identified. Rehabilitation practice requires research addressing different long-term multi-faceted needs and perspectives of end users, including service users, professionals, politicians, and administrators. Research in rehabilitation should therefore integrate different research traditions and methods. Rehabilitation research with a broad focus is sparse, and most of the research takes its starting point in the biomedical research tradition. Through a nominal group process, we developed recommendations to emphasize important issues in rehabilitation research

Detailed statistical analysis plan for the Danish Palliative care trial (DanPaCT)

Acknowledgements We wish to thank the students who sent out the questionnaires, who entered and compared all data, help with data management, made material blind to the investigators, and were/will be outcome assessors of interventions given. They were: Nicla Rohde Christensen, Ellen Lundorff, Marc Klee Olsen, Charlotte Lund Rasmussen, and Nete Skjødt. This work was funded by the Tryg Foundation [journal number 7-10-0838A] and the Danish Cancer Society [journal number R16-A695]. Other than funding the trial, the funding body had no role in the design, conduct, analysis, or reporting of the present trial.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Learning via participation - a user perspective on user involvement in mental health rehabilitation

The aim of the study is to gain insight into the user's perspective on user involvement in mental health rehabilitation. The study was designed as a field study lasting 15 months in two supported housing schemes. An ethnographic approach by James Spradley was employed, involving participant observation, informal conversations, and individual- and group-interview. A phenomenological-hermeneutic approach inspired by Paul Ricoeur's theory on text interpretation was used, including theories of situated learning. The results of the study show that the users experienced their involvement in rehabilitation to be associated with learning processes in interaction with residents as well as professionals. Learning took place via legitimate peripheral participation, via support from and negotiations with professionals and support from peer residents. Both opportunities for and limitations for learning were experienced. The transferability of knowledge and skills to life in a community was questioned, as limited access to participation was experienced

A Parkinson care-coordinator may make a difference: A scoping review on multi-sectoral integrated care initiatives for people living with Parkinson’s disease and their caregivers

Objective: To identify multi-sectoral integrated care initiatives for people with Parkinson's disease and caregivers. Method: Following the Matrix Method we created a synthesis of literature across methodological approaches. The search was conducted in four databases until June 2022, and included studies focusing on multi-sectoral integrated care initiatives, and how they helped people with Parkinson's disease and caregivers in everyday living. Results: The search yielded 5921 articles of which nine were included. We identified four topics describing characteristics of multi-sectoral integrated care initiatives: 1) Peer-support, 2) Personalised care plan, 3) One-off initiatives limited in time and 4) Presence of a coordinator. And four topics describing how the initiatives helped in everyday living: 1) Confidence, trust and support, 2) Positive changes in health outcomes, 3) Quality of life, coping skills &amp; psychosocial adjustment, and 4) A strengthened multi-agent collaboration and personalised assistance. Conclusion: Multi-sectoral integrated care initiatives should be ongoing offers, and include a Parkinson care-coordinator, who can enhance multi-sectoral communication and an individualised approach to information about resources responsive to evolving needs at different disease stages. Practice implications: Initiatives should be multidisciplinary, multi-sectoral and aimed at people with Parkinson's disease and caregivers, preferably facilitated by a care-coordinator to promote cross-sectoral communication.</p

Randomised clinical trial of early specialist palliative care plus standard care versus standard care alone in patients with advanced cancer:The Danish Palliative Care Trial

Background: Beneficial effects of early palliative care have been found in advanced cancer, but the evidence is not unequivocal. Aim: To investigate the effect of early specialist palliative care among advanced cancer patients identified in oncology departments. Setting/participants: The Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT) (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01348048) is a multicentre randomised clinical trial comparing early referral to a specialist palliative care team plus standard care versus standard care alone. The planned sample size was 300. At five oncology departments, consecutive patients with advanced cancer were screened for palliative needs. Patients with scores exceeding a predefined threshold for problems with physical, emotional or role function, or nausea/vomiting, pain, dyspnoea or lack of appetite according to the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) were eligible. The primary outcome was the change in each patient’s primary need (the most severe of the seven QLQ-C30 scales) at 3- and 8-week follow-up (0–100 scale). Five sensitivity analyses were conducted. Secondary outcomes were change in the seven QLQ-C30 scales and survival. Results: Totally 145 patients were randomised to early specialist palliative care versus 152 to standard care. Early specialist palliative care showed no effect on the primary outcome of change in primary need (−4.9 points (95% confidence interval −11.3 to +1.5 points); p = 0.14). The sensitivity analyses showed similar results. Analyses of the secondary outcomes, including survival, also showed no differences, maybe with the exception of nausea/vomiting where early specialist palliative care might have had a beneficial effect. Conclusion: We did not observe beneficial or harmful effects of early specialist palliative care, but important beneficial effects cannot be excluded. </jats:sec