Finkenflügel Harry, Wolffers Ivan, Huijsman Robbert
Institute for Health Policy and Management, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Int J Rehabil Res. 2005 Sep;28(3):187-201. doi: 10.1097/00004356-200509000-00001.
Literature on community-based rehabilitation (CBR) published between 1978 and 2002 is reviewed to assess the evidence base for CBR. There were 128 articles found that met the criteria set by the authors. The articles have been classified according to the methodology used and the key aspects studied. The review showed an ever-increasing number of publications on CBR. Theory papers and descriptive studies are the most common types of papers in CBR literature. Intervention studies and case reports are relatively rare. No systematic review has yet been carried out although reviews on specific aspects of CBR have become available. The key aspects of 'implementation' and 'stakeholders' are relatively well presented but the numbers of articles on 'participation' and 'use of local resources' are noticeably low. This study reveals that there is no real focus of research in CBR and therefore the evidence base for CBR is fragmented and incoherent on almost all aspects of CBR. It is recommended that comprehensive review studies should be carried out on key aspects of CBR projects. This should be supported by systematic research in CBR projects in order to establish evidence-based practices.
对1978年至2002年间发表的关于社区康复(CBR)的文献进行综述,以评估CBR的证据基础。共发现128篇符合作者设定标准的文章。这些文章已根据所使用的方法和所研究的关键方面进行了分类。综述显示,关于CBR的出版物数量不断增加。理论论文和描述性研究是CBR文献中最常见的论文类型。干预研究和病例报告相对较少。尽管已经有关于CBR特定方面的综述,但尚未进行系统综述。“实施”和“利益相关者”的关键方面有相对较好的阐述,但关于“参与”和“利用当地资源”的文章数量明显较少。本研究表明,CBR没有真正的研究重点,因此CBR的证据基础在CBR的几乎所有方面都是零散和不连贯的。建议对CBR项目的关键方面进行全面综述研究。这应该得到CBR项目系统研究的支持,以便建立循证实践。