MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3010024502 · doi:10.1097/hcr.0000000000000484

Rehabilitation Is a Global Health Priority

2020· article· en· W3010024502 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Allen W. Heinemann, Michael Feuerstein, Walter R. Frontera, Steven A. Gard, Leonard A. Kaminsky, Stefano Négrini, Lorie Richards, Catherine Vallée, Maria Zalm

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueChronic Disease Management Strategies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRehabilitationAction planHealth careMedicinePublic relationsWorkforceNursingPolitical sciencePhysical therapyManagement

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The World Health Organization (WHO) launched an initiative in 2017 to promote universal access to rehabilitation when it hosted “Rehabilitation 2030: A Call for Action”1 (Figure 1). Attended by more than 200 rehabilitation experts from 46 countries, this meeting highlighted the unmet need for rehabilitation services and called for coordinated action and joint commitments by all stakeholders to raise the profile of rehabilitation. WHO and its partners committed to improving rehabilitation management and investment, building a high-quality rehabilitation workforce and services, and enhancing data collection.Figure 1.: Logo for Rehabilitation 2030.The World Health Organization convened a Second Global Rehabilitation 2030 Meeting in July 2019 that brought together stakeholders, including Member States, international and professional organizations, non-government organizations, rehabilitation service users, and rehabilitation experts – including journal editors. The first two days included presentations on the current state of affairs of rehabilitation services in various countries and efforts made by several Member States to integrate rehabilitation into their health care systems. Further, participants discussed strategies to make rehabilitation a political priority. Over the next two days, WHO's staff, together with the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, initiated a planning process for a health policy and research agenda related to rehabilitation. The objectives of this companion meeting were to (1) agree on a health policy and systems research framework for rehabilitation, (2) identify initial research questions, and (3) delineate enablers and barriers to building health systems and policy research capacity in rehabilitation. Alarcos Cieza, PhD, WHO's Coordinator for Blindness and Deafness Prevention, and Disability and Rehabilitation, wrote in Rehabilitation the Health Strategy of the 21st Century, Really?2 that rehabilitation stakeholders must adopt a unified message that emphasizes the importance of functioning in order for it to become a political priority worldwide. She argues that coordinated advocacy by rehabilitation professional groups, subspecialties, and users is required to achieve this goal. Her message highlights the critical work undertaken by the WHO to enhance access to rehabilitation, particularly in low- and middle income countries. Accessible and affordable rehabilitation services are critical for people with chronic health conditions to maintain or increase their independence, participate in their communities, improve their economic productivity, and enhance their quality of life. The aging population not only represents a major challenge to high-income nations but to low and middle-income nations as well. The co-morbid increase in the prevalence of chronic conditions and the aging of the world's population contribute to an increasing number of people who experience declines in functioning. It is now recognized that optimizing functioning at all ages is a major global public health goal. Recent estimates of the global impact of rehabilitation on persons with health conditions is estimated to be much higher than the 1 billion people in the World Report on Disability published in 2011.3 Rehabilitation is unique in its contribution to this public health agenda because of its focuses on optimizing function. In fact, Jesus and colleagues4 reported that needs for physical medicine and rehabilitation services have been increasing significantly in per capita terms as is the percentage of total years lived with disability globally and across countries of varying income levels. These authors also highlighted that this growth was greater in lower income countries where rehabilitation is under-resourced, emphasizing the pressing needs in these countries. It is now essential to include data on functioning in health information systems in addition to the typical morbidity and mortality outcomes. These data can help us make better-informed decisions for increased demand of rehabilitation services to enhance function as well as assist in the planning of health care systems for future expansion into these types of services. It is evident to us that rehabilitation must be integrated fully into a nation's health system and be strengthened specifically at the primary care level in order to increase access and achieve its full potential. As the WHO highlighted, we agree that health systems must be strengthened to assure that everyone who needs rehabilitation receives it. Equity should be a fundamental goal regardless of one's social, economic, demographic or geographic situation. WHO Member States must also find solutions to the paucity of trained rehabilitation professionals and mechanisms to pay for the implementation of such services. As editors-in-chief of rehabilitation journals, we unanimously accepted the invitation to participate in WHO's Rehabilitation 2030 meetings and we embrace the concept of function as WHO's third health indicator5 along with mortality and morbidity. We recognize the increasing importance of health policy planning in improving access to rehabilitation services. In addition, we recognize that health policy requires a foundation of evidence on which health policy planning can build cost-effective systems and services. The emphasis of our journals vary widely and it is our diversity that supports the accumulating evidence base on which health policy planners, rehabilitation providers, users of rehabilitation services, and other stakeholders depend. We encourage authors to consider the global health policy implications of their research when they prepare their research reports for publication and to make these implications explicit. Together, we can fulfill a responsibility to enhance population health including enhanced function. Allen W. Heinemann, PhD, ABRP, FACRM Co-Editor-in-Chief Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Michael Feuerstein, PhD, MPH, ABPP Editor-in-Chief Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Walter R. Frontera, MD, PhD, FRCP Editor-in-Chief American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Steven A. Gard, PhD Editor-in-Chief Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics Leonard A. Kaminsky, PhD, FAACVPR, FAHA, FACSM Editor-In-Chief Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention Stefano Negrini, MD Chief-Editor European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Lorie Gage Richards, PhD, OTR/L, FAOTA, FAHA Editor-in-Chief The American Journal of Occupational Therapy Catherine Vallée, PhD Editor-in-Chief Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy Maria Zalm, PhD Editor BMC Health Services Research

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,011
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,050
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,169

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0110,010
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0060,007
Communication savante0,0120,012
Science ouverte0,0020,012
Intégrité de la recherche0,0130,014
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0500,011

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,024
Tête enseignante GPT0,354
Écart entre enseignants0,330 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and PreventionMême sujetChronic Disease Management StrategiesTravaux en français237 207