The Redesigning of Neurorehabilitation in Denmark and Norway

  • Marte FeiringEmail author
  • Inge Storgaard Bonfils


This chapter examines how Danish and Norwegian authorities have designed political technologies of guidelines and guides for rehabilitating brain injury survivors. Contemporary reforms to health services, including the Danish Structural Reform and Norwegian Coordination Reform, provide the national structures for framing rehabilitation services as composite practices. Engaging critical discourse analysis, we address these changes by adopting the twin perspectives of intertextuality and interdiscursivity. First, this study outlines how documents such as clinical guidelines and service guides are in dialogue with each other and with other political, legal, and professional texts. Second, focusing on the language of coordination on transferring brain-injured patients between hospitals and municipalities, we identify interdiscursivity between three broad areas of procedures and devices in both countries: inter-institutional agreements, interprofessional communication, and individual rehabilitation plans. The main recommendations in the guidelines and service guides regarding these three areas are characterized by a mixture of languages, combining scientific evidence, legal obligations, citizens’ rights, and patients’ wishes.


  1. Bonfils, I. S. (2003). Historiske spor og nutidige udfordringer i handicappolitikken [Historical paths and contemporary challenges in disability policy]. In S. Bengtsson, I. S. Bonfils, & L. Olsen (Eds.), Handicap, kvalitetsudvikling og brugerinddragelse [Disability, quality development and user involvement] (pp. 13–36). København: Anvendt KommunalForskning.Google Scholar
  2. Bonfils, I. S., & Berger, N. P. (2010). Specialiserede tilbud til borgere med handicap—efter reformen [Specialized services for people with disabilities—After the reform]. København: AKF Forlag.Google Scholar
  3. Bowen, A., James, M., & Young, G. (Eds.). (2016). National clinical guideline for stroke. Prepared by the Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party. London: Royal College of Physicians.Google Scholar
  4. Byrkjeflot, H. (2011). Healthcare states and medical professions: The challenges from NPM. In T. Christensen & P. Lægreid (Eds.), The Ashgate research companion to new public management. Farnham: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  5. Directorate of Health. (2017a). Veileder for utvikling av kunnskapsbaserte retningslinjer [Guide to the development of knowledge-based guidelines] (IS-1870). Oslo: The Directorate of Health.Google Scholar
  6. Directorate of Health. (2017b). Veileder om rehabilitering, habilitering, individuell plan og koordinator [Guide to rehabilitation, habilitation, individual care plan and coordinator]. Oslo: The Directorate of Health.Google Scholar
  7. Directorate of Health. (2017c). Nasjonal faglig retningslinje for behandling og rehabilitering ved hjerneslag [National clinical guideline for treatment and rehabilitation after stroke]. Oslo: The Directorate of Health.Google Scholar
  8. Fairclough, N. (2000). Discourse, social theory, and social research: The discourse of welfare reform. Journal of SocioLinguistics, 4(2), 163–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Feiring, M. (2012). Rehabilitation—Between management and knowledge practices: An historical overview of Norwegian welfare reforms. Policy and Society, 31, 119–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Feiring, M. (2016). Rehabiliteringsfeltet i Danmark—En begrebshistorie [The field of rehabilitation in Denmark—A history of concept]. Tidsskrift for professionsstudier [Journal for Professional Studies], 24(1), 86–97.Google Scholar
  12. Greenhalgh, T., & Russell, J. (2009). Evidence-based policymaking: A critique. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 52(2), 304–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Greenhalgh, T., Snow, R., Ryan, S., Rees, S., & Salisbury, H. (2015). Six ‘biases’ against patients and carers in evidence-based medicine. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hammell, K. W. (2006). Perspectives on disability & rehabilitation: Contesting assumptions; challenging practice. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier.Google Scholar
  15. Hammersley, M. (2001, September 13–15). Some questions about evidence-based practice in education. The annual conference of the British Educational Research Association: Evidence-based practice in education. Paper presented at the symposium on University of Leeds.Google Scholar
  16. Ministry of Health and Care Services. (2009). Report no. 47 (2008–2009) to the Storting: The coordination reform—Proper treatment—At the right place and right time. Oslo: The Ministry.Google Scholar
  17. Ministry of Health and Care Services. (2011). ACT 24/06/2011 no. 30: ACT relating to municipal health and care services etc. Health and Care Services Act. Oslo: The Ministry.Google Scholar
  18. Ministry of Internal and Health Affairs. (2008). Sundhedsloven [The health act]. Copenhagen: The Ministry.Google Scholar
  19. Ministry of Internal and Health Affairs, Ministry of Social Affairs, Ministry of Work, & Ministry of Education. (2011). Vejledning om kommunal rehabilitering [Guidance on municipal rehabilitation]. Copenhagen: The Ministries.Google Scholar
  20. National Board of Health. (2011a). Hjerneskaderehabilitering—en medicinsk teknologivurdering [Brain injury rehabilitation—A health technology assessment: Summary]. Copenhagen: The National Board.Google Scholar
  21. National Board of Health. (2011b). Forløbsprogram for rehabilitering af voksne med erhvervet hjerneskade [Disease management programme for rehabilitation in adult acquired brain injury]. Copenhagen: The National Board.Google Scholar
  22. Olsen, L. (2008). Ny kommunal struktur og opgavefordeling—en vej til lige muligheder? [New municipal structure and division of tasks—A path to equal opportunities?]. In S. Bengtsson, I. S. Bonfils, & L. Olsen (Eds.), Handicap og ligebehandling i praksis [Disability and equal opportunities in practice] (pp. 63–83). København: Socialforskningsinstituttet.Google Scholar
  23. Røberg, A.-S., Feiring, M., & Romsland, G. (2016). Norwegian rehabilitation policies and the coordination Reform’s effect: A critical discourse analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 19(1), 56–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rose, N. (1999). Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rose, N. (2006). Governing “advanced” liberal democracies. In A. Sharma & A. Gupta (Eds.), The anthropology of the state: A reader (pp. 144–162). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. Rose, N., & Miller, P. (2010). Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government. British Journal of Sociology, 61(S1), 271–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. WHO. (2017). Rehabilitation in health systems. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhysiotherapyOslo Metropolitan UniversityOsloNorway
  2. 2.Department of Social WorkUniversity College CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations