Clinical Rehabilitation

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wade, D. T
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wade, D. T
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 16, No. 4, 347-349 (2002)
DOI: 10.1191/0269215502cr503ed
© 2002 SAGE Publications

Editorial

Diagnosis in rehabilitation: woolly thinking and resource inequity

Derick T Wade

The diagnostic process in rehabilitation has traditionally been termed assessment. However the goals of assessment are no different to the goals of diagnosis in traditional medical practice. The purpose is, in both instances, to acquire sufficient information to understand the cause(s) of the presenting problem(s), to allow more-or-less specific intervention(s) to be undertaken and, where appropriate, to allow a prognosis to be given. The main difference is that in rehabilitation the presenting problems are limitations in activities and the main items investigated are impairment and contextual matters, whereas in medicine the presenting problems are symptoms, and the goals are the diagnosis and treatment of the underlying disease. Unfortunately it is commonly assumed that rehabilitation diagnosis is simple and unimportant. Consequently few resources are allocated by purchasers to the process of making a rehabilitation diagnosis, in comparison to the huge resources devoted to achieving disease diagnosis.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Clin RehabilHome page
A. T Lettinga, S. van Twillert, B. J. Poels, and K. Postema
Distinguishing theories of dysfunction, treatment and care. Reflections on 'Describing rehabilitation interventions'
Clinical Rehabilitation, May 1, 2006; 20(5): 369 - 374.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin RehabilHome page
D. T Wade
Describing rehabilitation interventions
Clinical Rehabilitation, August 1, 2005; 19(8): 811 - 818.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin RehabilHome page
D. Wade
Investigating the effectiveness of rehabilitation professions - a misguided enterprise?
Clinical Rehabilitation, January 1, 2005; 19(1): 1 - 3.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin RehabilHome page
D. T Wade
Assessment, measurement and data collection tools
Clinical Rehabilitation, March 1, 2004; 18(3): 233 - 237.
[PDF]