Editorial: Co-design of rehabilitation programming
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This Research Topic consists of 10 articles, each describing important aspects of co-design approaches and how they can be applied in a rehabilitation setting. Among the articles, a common theme was using co-design as a method of identifying factors that may influence the success of various rehabilitation programs, educational tools, or technologies. Studies included multiple and diverse stakeholder groups in their research, demonstrating the importance of using a comprehensive approach to gather perspectives.A common theme among the original research and methods papers was the use of co-design in working towards discrete outcomes rather than impacting service delivery or governance. Reitzel et al. (2023) used a co-design approach that included caregivers, clinicians, and healthcare managers and discussed innovative solutions to enhance access and engagement in pediatric telerehabilitation. Through these discussions, they found that communication, consistency and connection were key factors that could enhance engagement in pediatric 2024) shares fundamental principles that are essential to implementing co-design approaches in a meaningful and authentic way. This article leaves readers with the challenge of progressing co-designed research towards co-production, a collaborative approach that centres equitable and ethical practices focused on reflective dialogue (Bourke et al. ( 2024)).The articles submitted to this topic were focused on the fields of pediatric and spinal cord injury rehabilitation. These populations often require extensive and ongoing rehabilitation care throughout much of their life, emphasizing the need for care to be person-centered. A systematic review found that co-design approaches are most often described in the fields of mental health, primary care, and pediatrics, and that each field is distinctive and will benefit from different implementation strategies (2). Lived experience engagement and integrated knowledge translation are also at the forefront in spinal cord injury research and practice, resulting in the recent formation of groups that are focused on bringing together people with lived experience, clinicians, and researchers to bring about change (4). Knowing that co-design approaches are impactful in any population, we encourage rehabilitation researchers and decision-makers to consider how they can best use co-design to support each unique population they support.The articles in this research topic highlight the importance of co-design methods in developing and evaluating rehabilitation programs, educational tools, and technologies. Using a co-design approach ensures rehabilitation practices are person-centered and are meeting the needs of key stakeholders, including patients, caregivers, and clinicians, as well addressing enablers and barriers within the healthcare system. It is imperative that co-design approaches are carried out intentionally and with people with lived experience at the core, in order for the field to move forwards toward co-production. As the articles in this Research Topic primarily focused on initial development of rehabilitation programs, educational tools, and technologies, it will be important for future research to use co-design to evaluate progress and person-centred outcomes, as well as to reflect on larger impacts in service delivery models and organizational structures, which typically require a higher level of engagement.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,015 | 0,073 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,016 | 0,014 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,023 | 0,008 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».