Advertisement

Interdisciplinarity and Rehabilitation Research

  • Jerome BickenbachEmail author
  • Berth Danermark
Chapter

Abstract

Interest has been accelerating in the promotion of interdisciplinary research to ensure an integrative approach to health science. Perhaps no other area of health research more obviously benefits from interdisciplinary research than rehabilitation. Besides biomedical and clinical practice-oriented research, interdisciplinary research is needed for rehabilitation management within health systems. After clarifying the notion of interdisciplinarity in general, this chapter argues that rehabilitation—understood as a health strategy that primarily aims to optimize human functioning across (simple to complex) domains of action—is ideally suited to the interdisciplinary research paradigm. This is partly because rehabilitation practice fundamentally concerns ‘functioning’ (as understood in the WHO’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health).

References

  1. Barnes, M. P., & Ward, A. B. (2005). Oxford handbook of rehabilitation medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bickenbach, J. E. (2012). Ethics, law, and policy (Disability: Key issues and future directions) (Vol. 4). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Bickenbach, J. E., Chatterji, S., Badley, E. M., & Ustun, T. B. (1999). Models of disablement, universalism and the international classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps. Social Science & Medicine, 48(9), 1173–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caracheo, A., Bickenbach, J., & Stucki, G. (2018). The emergence of the rehabilitative strategy: The driving forces in the United States of America. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 97(3), 222–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Choi, B. C. K., & Pak, A. W. P. (2006). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy, 1: Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clinical and Investigative Medicine, 29(6), 351–364.Google Scholar
  6. Danermark, B. (2017). Interdisciplinary work in a critical realist perspective. In M. Kjørstad & M.-B. Solem (Eds.), Critical realism for professionals (pp. 38–56). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Savigny, D., & Adam, T. (2009). Systems thinking for health systems strengthening. Geneva: Alliance for Health Policy and System Research; World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  8. DeLisa, J. A. (Ed.). (2005). Physical medicine and rehabilitation: Principles and practice (4th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  9. Dreeben-Irimia, O. (2007). Development of the physical therapy profession. In O. Dreeben-Irimia (Ed.), Introduction to physical therapy for physical therapist assistants (pp. 3–22). Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett.Google Scholar
  10. European Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Bodies Alliance. (2018). White book on physical and rehabilitation medicine in Europe. European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 54(2), 125–155.Google Scholar
  11. Fox, F. (1917). Physical remedies for disabled soldiers. London: Bailliére, Tindale and Cox.Google Scholar
  12. Fried, L. P., Tangen, C. M., Walston, J., Newman, A. B., Hirsch, C., Gottdiener, J., et al. (2001). Frailty in older adults: Evidence for a phenotype. The Journals of Gerontology, Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 56(3), M146–M156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Greene, J. A., & Loscalzo, J. (2017). Putting the patient back together – Social medicine, network medicine, and the limits of reductivism. New England Journal of Medicine, 377(25), 2493–2499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gutenbrunner, C., Meyer, T., Melvin, J., & Stucki, G. (2011). Towards a conceptual description of physical and rehabilitation medicine. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 43(9), 760–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holland, G. (2014). Integrating knowledge through interdisciplinary research: Problems of theory and practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Institute of Medicine. (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  17. Laxe, S., Zasler, N., Selb, M., Tate, R., Tormos, J. M., & Bernabeu, M. (2013). Development of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health core sets for traumatic brain injury: An international consensus process. Brain Injury, 27, 379–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marmot, M. (2008). Social resources and health. In P. Kessel, L. Rosenfield, & N. B. Anderson (Eds.), Expanding the boundaries of health and social science: Case studies in interdisciplinary innovation (pp. 292–321). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Marmot, M. G., & Wilkinson, R. G. (Eds.). (1999). Social determinants of health. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Meyer, T., Gutenbrunner, C., Bickenbach, J., Cieza, A., Melvin, J., & Stucki, G. (2011). Towards a conceptual description of rehabilitation as a health strategy. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 43, 765–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Meyer, T., Gutenbrunner, C., Kiekens, C., Skempes, D., Melvin, J. L., Schedler, K., et al. (2014). ISPRM discussion paper: Proposing a conceptual description of health-related rehabilitation services. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 46, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, & Institute of Medicine. (2004). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  23. National Institutes of Health. (1998). Rehabilitation of persons with traumatic brain injury. NIH consensus statement online. National Institutes of Health. https://consensus.nih.gov/1998/1998traumaticbraininjury109html.htm. Accessed 29 Jan 2019.
  24. National Institutes of Health. (2001). The NIH common fund. http://commonfund.nih.gov/interdisciplinary/overview.aspx. Accessed 29 Jan 2019.
  25. Negrini, S., Kiekens, C., Levack, W., Grubisic, F., Gimigliano, F., Ilieva, E., & Thorsten, M. (2016). Cochrane physical and rehabilitation medicine: A new field to bridge between best evidence and the specific needs of our field. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 97(8), 1226–1227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Neumann, V., Gutenbrunner, C., Fialka-Moser, V., Christodoulou, N., Varela, E., Giustini, A., & Delarque, A. (2010). Interdisciplinary team working in physical and rehabilitation medicine. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 42(1), 4–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rowe, J. (2008). Introduction: Approaching interdisciplinary research. In P. Kessel, L. Rosenfield, & N. B. Anderson (Eds.), Expanding the boundaries of health and social science: Case studies in interdisciplinary innovation (pp. 3–9). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Scott, C. M., & Hofmeyer, A. T. (2007). Acknowledging complexity: Critically analyzing context to understand interdisciplinary research. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 21(5), 491–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Serrett, K. D. (1985). Philosophical and historical roots of occupational therapy. Philadelphia: Haworth Press.Google Scholar
  30. Stokols, D., Hall, K., Taylor, B., & Moser, R. P. (2008). The science of team science overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2S), S77–S89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stucki, G. (2016). Olle Höök Lectureship 2015: The World Health Organization’s paradigm shift and implementation of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health in rehabilitation. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 48, 486–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stucki, G., & Melvin, J. (2007). The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: A unifying model for the conceptual description of physical and rehabilitation medicine. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 39, 286–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stucki, G., Rubinelli, S., Reinhardt, J. D., & Bickenbach, J. E. (2016). Towards a common understanding of the health sciences. Gesundheitswesen, 78(8), e78–e82.Google Scholar
  34. Stucki, G., Bickenbach, J., & Melvin, J. (2017). Strengthening rehabilitation in health systems worldwide by integrating information on functioning in national health information systems. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 96(9), 677–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stucki, G., Bickenbach, J., Gutenbrunner, C., & Melvin, J. (2018). Rehabilitation: The health strategy of the 21st century. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 50(4), 309–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wagner, C. S., Roessner, J. D., Bobb, K., Klein, J. T., Boyack, K. W., Keyton, J., et al. (2011). Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. World Health Organization. (1978). Declaration of Alma-Ata. WHO Chronicle, 32(11), 428–430. http://www.who.int/publications/almaata_declaration_en.pdf?ua=1. Accessed 29 Jan 2019.Google Scholar
  38. World Health Organization. (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/. Accessed 29 Jan 2019.Google Scholar
  39. World Health Organization. (2018). International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems (ICD-11). http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/. Accessed 29 Jan 2019.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Swiss Paraplegic ResearchNottwilSwitzerland
  2. 2.The Swedish Institute for Disability Research, School of Health SciencesÖrebro UniversityÖrebroSweden

Personalised recommendations