Original article
Beyond Function: Predicting Participation in a Rehabilitation Cohort

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2005.08.001Get rights and content

Abstract

Jette AM, Keysor J, Coster W, Ni P, Haley S. Beyond function: predicting participation in a rehabilitation cohort.

Objectives

To monitor participation in a rehabilitation cohort and to identify determinants of change during a 12-month period posthospitalization following the onset of one of several major disabling conditions.

Setting

Postacute care rehabilitation settings.

Participants

Adults (N=435) aged 18 years and older with complex medical, lower-extremity orthopedic, and major neurologic impairments.

Interventions

Not applicable.

Main Outcome Measures

At 1-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups, community participation and social and home participation were assessed by personal interviews using the Participation Measure for Post-Acute Care. Information on potential determinants was abstracted from the medical chart and by personal interview using standardized instruments.

Results

On average, rehabilitation patients achieved modest improvements in their levels of community participation during the first 6 months after acute hospitalization. In contrast, these same patients displayed a modest loss in social and home participation levels during the follow-up period. Activity limitations were the dominant factors that explained much of the variance in the extent of community participation achieved by patients. Personal and social environmental factors played a major role in predicting levels of social and home participation.

Conclusions

The focus of rehabilitation interventions aimed at achieving posthospital participation requires careful consideration of the specific domain of participation that is being targeted.

Section snippets

Participants

Participants were 435 adults aged 18 years and older from the Rehabilitation Outcomes Study who were recruited at discharge from a large acute care hospital or on admission to 1 of 2 rehabilitation hospitals in the greater Boston, MA, region. All subjects had a primary diagnosis of neurologic disorder, lower-extremity orthopedic trauma, or medically complex conditions. Specific inclusion criteria were that the person was currently receiving and/or about to be referred to skilled rehabilitation

Results

Table 1 displays the characteristics of the study sample. The mean age of the sample was 67.4 years, 50.8% of the patients were women, and 90.5% were white. The most prevalent impairment group was patients with complex medical conditions (42.3%) followed by lower-extremity orthopedic (33.6%), and, finally, major neurologic (24.1%). Of the 435 patients enrolled in this study, 417 (81%) completed the 1-month follow-up, 370 (72%) completed the 6-month follow-up, and 336 (65%) completed the

Discussion

This study revealed a distinct pattern of change in participation after hospitalization in the cohort of patients who received rehabilitation care. On average, patients with complex medical, lower-extremity orthopedic, and major neurologic impairments who received rehabilitation care achieved modest improvements in their levels of community participation during the first 6 months after their hospitalization. In contrast, on average, these same patients displayed a modest loss in social and home

Conclusions

The clinical implications of our findings are clear and significant. The focus of rehabilitation intervention to improve long-term participation requires careful consideration of the domain of participation of specific clinical interest. A rehabilitation intervention aimed at improving activity performance is more likely to have an effect on improving a patient’s subsequent performance of community participation roles, but not on social and home participation as measured by the PM-PAC. If the

References (37)

  • K.J. Ottenbacher et al.

    Trends in length of stay, living setting, functional outcome, and mortality following medical rehabilitation

    JAMA

    (2004)
  • M. Cardol et al.

    On autonomy and participation in rehabilitation

    Disabil Rehabil

    (2002)
  • P. Fougeyrollas et al.

    Social consequences of long term impairments and disabilitiesconceptual approach and assessment of handicap

    Int J Rehabil Res

    (1998)
  • P. Minnes et al.

    Community integrationa useful construct, but what does it really mean?

    Brain Inj

    (2003)
  • International classification of functioning, disability and health

    (2001)
  • G. Stucki et al.

    Value and application of the ICF in rehabilitation medicine

    Disabil Rehabil

    (2003)
  • R.H. Harwood et al.

    Determinants of handicap 1 and 3 years after a stroke

    Disabil Rehabil

    (1997)
  • R.H. Harwood et al.

    Associations between diagnoses, impairments, disability and handicap in a population of elderly people

    Int J Epidemiol

    (1998)
  • Cited by (82)

    • Predicting trends of community participation after hospital discharge for younger adults after stroke

      2023, Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine
      Citation Excerpt :

      Moreover, a significant regression coefficient was found for the interaction between time and covariates, which implies that the rate of change in outcome scores over time varied at different covariate levels. To attain 90% power in a 23-variable (including the interactions between covariates and the time variable) mixed-effects regression analysis, a minimum sample of 253 was required, with an expected attrition rate of 20% [41–43]. Among the 622 adults with stroke screened for eligibility, 570 met the inclusion criteria and completed the T1 assessment; 537 (94%) completed the T2 assessment, 505 (89%) the T3 assessment, and 458 (80%) the T4 assessment at 1-year follow-up (the flow chart of participant recruitment and retention is presented in Additional Material A2).

    • Towards an ecologically grounded functional practice in rehabilitation

      2017, Human Movement Science
      Citation Excerpt :

      A major source of criticism of the mechanistic view of disablement reflected in Nagi and in the ICIDH models was that they lacked constructs to identify the role of the environment in a disabling process. Interventions that improve functional outcomes by modifying environments in which people with disability live (Brush, Meehan, & Calkins, 2002; Hanft & Pilkington, 2000; Henderson, Skelton, & Rosenbaum, 2008; Jette, Keysor, Coster, Ni, & Haley, 2005; Saegert, Klitzman, Freudenberg, Cooperman-Mroczek, & Nassar, 2003; Schneidert, Hurst, Miller, & Üstün, 2003) bring the inadequacies of the Nagi and ICIDH models into sharp relief. As an alternative, a systemic view of disabling and functioning processes ought to include constructs that capture the interactive dependency between an individual and her or his environment, as well as the possibility that an individual with a disease can engage in and experience functioning (however that functioning has been transformed).

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Supported by the National Institute of Disability and Rehabilitation Research, U.S. Department of Education (grant no. H133B990005).

    No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit upon the author(s) or upon any organization with which the author(s) is/are associated.

    View full text