IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v40y1995i12p1699-1706.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation versus medical care: A meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Evans, Ron L.
  • Connis, Richard T.
  • Hendricks, Robert D.
  • Haselkorn, Jodie K.

Abstract

Research studies in physical medicine have not demonstrated the effectiveness of inpatient rehabilitation services, primarily due to differences in methodological approaches which have led to inconsistent findings. Because of differing inclusion and outcome criteria, even meta-analyses have been inconclusive. To address this problem, research literature comparing the clinical effectiveness of rehabilitation programs with medical care was evaluated for three uniformly available outcome criteria: survival; functional ability; and discharge location. Published trials were obtained from citations in Index Medicus (Medline) and Nursing and Allied Health Abstracts covering the recent 20 year period from 1974 to 1994. We used meta-analyses to test the hypotheses that specialized rehabilitative care (vs conventional medical care) improves health outcomes. Results of our meta-analyses indicated that rehabilitation services were significantly associated with better rates of survival and improved function during hospital stay (P

Suggested Citation

  • Evans, Ron L. & Connis, Richard T. & Hendricks, Robert D. & Haselkorn, Jodie K., 1995. "Multidisciplinary rehabilitation versus medical care: A meta-analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 40(12), pages 1699-1706, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:40:y:1995:i:12:p:1699-1706
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(94)00286-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:40:y:1995:i:12:p:1699-1706. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.