This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 0269215509338125v1 23/10/938    most recent References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by van Twillert, S. Articles by Lettinga, A. T PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by van Twillert, S. Articles by Lettinga, A. T Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Improving rehabilitation treatment in a local setting: a case study of prosthetic rehabilitation

Center for Rehabilitation, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands, S.van.Twillert{at}cvr.umcg.nl

Klaas Postema

Center for Rehabilitation, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands

Jan HB Geertzen

Center for Rehabilitation, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands

Titia Hemminga

Center for Rehabilitation, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands

Ant T Lettinga

Center for Rehabilitation, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands

Objective: To contribute to the discussion on the research—practice gap by illustrating obstacles and opportunities that arise in an evidence-informed improvement process of prosthetic rehabilitation in a local setting.

Setting: Dutch rehabilitation centre.

Presupposition: The improvement process was considered as a two-way translation process rather than a unidirectional process of knowledge transfer between science and practice.

Method: Case study and participatory research methods comprising documentary analysis, treatment observations, individual and focus groups interviews, and literature studies. A qualitative software program (Atlas-ti) was used to triangulate the collected data.

Results: The main concern of local practitioners was identified to be the post-discharge decline in functional capacity in elderly amputees. This was related to a predominantly biomedical and biomechanical approach, and accompanying traditional therapist—patient interactions. The content and underpinnings of prosthetic treatments were scarcely specified in either the scientific literature or the local setting. Generic principles and practices from other fields were useful for treatment innovation for post-discharge problems, such as task- and context-specific training and self-management education. A circuit training focused on motor learning and a problem-solving training focused on social learning were developed by integrating amputation-specific knowledge.

Conclusion: Improving rehabilitation practice with the use of available evidence is a heterogeneous and multifaceted scientific enterprise. Such an enterprise requires as much self-reflexivity from researchers as from practitioners.

This version was published on October 1, 2009

Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 23, No. 10, 938-947 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/0269215509338125


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?