Outcome measures and research in the community

Michael P. Barnes; Harriet Radermacher

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511544859.006

6 - Outcome measures and research in the community

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 August 2009

Michael P. Barnes and

Harriet Radermacher

Show author details

Michael P. Barnes: Affiliation:
University of Newcastle upon Tyne
Harriet Radermacher: Affiliation:
University of Newcastle upon Tyne

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Introduction

Measurement and research are key components in the rehabilitative engine. Their ongoing contribution feeds the knowledge base, which not only informs practice and attempts to improve upon it, but also raises the profile of rehabilitation within the medical spectrum, and ultimately wider society. Where it is used as an assessment of efficacy and evaluation, it can justify a need for a specific intervention and monitor progress over time. Such results can satisfy audit criteria, reassure providers and funders of services, as well as aid resource allocation.

As well as being useful, research is essential towards establishing, developing and maintaining effective rehabilitative services. Research and measurement can be carried out in numerous ways and at many different levels. With the steady transition of rehabilitation services into the community, many traditional forms of research and outcome measure are no longer appropriate. It is for this reason that it is necessary to examine the different forms of research and measurement in rehabilitation today, and how they can be applied to the community setting. Some outcome measures have been specifically designed for application in the community, but widescale use is in its infancy. This chapter aims to discuss some of the issues surrounding measurement and research in the community.

Qualitative and quantitative research

The word qualitative implies an emphasis on processes and meanings that are not rigorously examined, or measured (if measured at all), in terms of quantity, amount, intensity, or frequency. Qualitative researchers stress the socially constructed nature of reality, the intimate relationship between the researcher and what is studied, and the situational constraints that shape inquiry … In contrast, quantitative studies emphasise the measurement and analysis of causal relationships between variables, not processes.

(Denzin and Lincoln, 1994)

Type: Chapter
Information: Community Rehabilitation in Neurology , pp. 90 - 112

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511544859.006 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barnes, C. (1992). Qualitative research: valuable or irrelevant. Disability Handicap and Society 7, 115–24CrossRef Google Scholar

Bogdan, R. and Biklen, S. (1982). Qualitative Research for Education: an Introduction to Theory and Methods. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon

Branfield, F. (1998). What are you doing here? ‘Non-disabled’ people and the disability movement: a response to Robert F. Drake. Disability and Society 13, 143–4CrossRef Google Scholar

Britten, N. (1995). Qualitative interviews in medical research. British Medical Journal 311, 251–3CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Bruster, S., Jarman, B., Bosanquet, N. et al. (1994). National survey of hospital patients. British Medical Journal 309, 1542–6CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Condeluci, A., Ferris, L. L. and Bogdan, A. (1992). Outcome and value: the survivor perspective. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation 7, 37–45CrossRef Google Scholar

Cummins, R. A. (1993). The Comprehensive Quality of Life Scale – Adult, 4th edn (ComQol – A4). Melbourne: School of Psychology, Deakin University

Cummins, R. A. (1997). Assessing quality of life. In Quality of Life for People with Disabilities, 2nd edn, ed. R. Brown, pp. 116–50. Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes

Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Introduction: entering the field of qualitative research. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, ed. N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, pp. 1–17. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Dijkers, M. P. J. M., Whiteneck, G. G. and El-Jaroudi, R. (2000). Measures of social outcomes in disability research. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 81 (Suppl. 2), S63–80CrossRef Google Scholar

Duckett, P. S. (1998). What are you doing here? ‘Non disabled’ people and the disability movement: a response to Fran Branfield. Disability and Society 13, 625–8CrossRef Google Scholar

Ferris, L. (1992). The Outcome Rating Scale: a Survivor Perspective. Pittsburgh, PA: United Cerebral Palsy

Fielding, N. and Schreier, M. (2001). Introduction: on the compatibility between qualitative and quantitative research methods. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 2 (1)Google Scholar

Jones, J. and Hunter, D. (1995). Consensus methods for medical and health services research. British Medical Journal 311, 376–80CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Jones, R. (1995). Why do qualitative research?British Medical Journal 311, 2CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Keen, J. and Packwood, T. (1995). Case study evaluation. British Medical Journal 311, 444–6CrossRef Google Scholar

Kitzinger, J. (1995). Introducing focus groups. British Medical Journal 311, 299–302CrossRef Google Scholar

Mays, N. and Pope, C. (1995a). Rigour and qualitative research. British Medical Journal 311, 109–12CrossRef Google Scholar

Mays, N. and Pope, C. (1995b). Observational methods in health care settings. British Medical Journal 311, 182–4CrossRef Google Scholar

McColl, M. A., Davies, D. and Carlson, P. (1999). Transitions to independent living after ABI. Brain Injury 13, 311–30CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Miller, W. L. and Crabtree, B. F. (1994). Clinical research. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, ed. N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, pp. 340–52. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Moore, M., Beazley, S. and Maelzer, J. (1998). Researching Disability Issues. Buckingham: Open University Press

Nyein, K., Turner-Stokes, L. and Robinson, I. (1999). The Northwick Park Care Needs Assessment (NPCNA): a measure of community care needs: sensitivity to change during rehabilitation. Clinical Rehabilitation 13, 482–91CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Pandyan, A. D., Johnson, G. R., Price, C. I. M. et al. (1999). A review of the properties and limitations of the Ashworth and modified Ashworth Scales. Clinical Rehabilitation 13, 373–83CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Papastrat, L. A. (1992). Outcome and value following brain injury: A financial provider's perspective. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation 7, 11–23CrossRef Google Scholar

Pope, C. and Mays, N. (1995). Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. British Medical Journal 311, 42–5CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Pound, P. and Ebrahim, S. (1995). National survey of hospital patients. British Medical Journal 310, 938–9Google Scholar

Semlyen, J. K., Summers, S. J. and Barnes, M. P. (1998). Traumatic brain injury: efficacy of multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabililitation 79, 678–83CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Stilwell, P., Stilwell, J., Hawley, C. and Davies, C. (1998). Measuring outcome in community-based rehabilitation services for people who have suffered traumatic brain injury: the Community Outcome Scale. Clinical Rehabilitation 12, 521–31CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Turner-Stokes, L. and Turner-Stokes, T. (1997). The use of standardised outcome measures in rehabilitation centres in the UK. Clinical Rehabilitation 11, 306–13CrossRef Google Scholar

Turner-Stokes, L., Nyein, K. and Halliwell, D. (1999). The Northwick Park Care Needs Assessment (NPCNA): a directly costable outcome measure in rehabilitation. Clinical Rehabilitation 13, 253–67CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Tyerman, A. (1999). Outcome measurement in a community head injury service. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation 9, 481–91CrossRef Google Scholar

Wade, D. T. (1992). Measurement in Neurological Rehabilitation. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Whiteneck, G. G. (1994). Measuring what matters: key rehabilitation outcomes. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 75, 1073–6CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Whiteneck, G. G., Charlifue, S. W., Gerhart, K. A. et al. (1992). Quantifying handicap: a new measure of long-term rehabilitation outcomes. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 73, 519–26Google Scholar PubMed

Willer, B., Ottenbacher, K. J. and Coad, M. L. (1994). The Community Integration Questionnaire: a comparative examination. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 73, 103–11CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

World Health Organization (1980). International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps: a Manual of Classification Relating to the Consequences of Disease. Geneva: WHO.

Wood, R. L. and Worthington, A. D. (1999). Outcome in community rehabilitation: measuring the social impact of disability. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation 9, 505–16CrossRef Google Scholar

Book contents

6 - Outcome measures and research in the community

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive