Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
ObjectiveTo investigate whether rehabilitation data share common characteristics across different health conditions and care settings within the EU Horizon PREPARE project.DesignQualitative content analysis, with a comparative study of existing clinical databases.Subjects/patientsIndividuals with hand and wrist disorders, idiopathic scoliosis, intermittent claudication, lower limb amputation, Parkinson's disease or Parkinsonism, hip or knee replacement, and temporomandibular disorders.MethodsSeven rehabilitation-oriented clinical databases were analysed using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework. Variables were categorized as outcomes, modifiers, or baseline measurements. Commonalities and differences across data domains were identified through iterative consensus meetings among PREPARE partners.ResultsSubstantial heterogeneity was observed in data type and depth. Pain and quality of life were the most commonly reported outcomes, whereas discharge status and participation-related measures were rarely reported. The most prevalent modifiers were pharmacological treatments, orthoses or prostheses, and exercise-based interventions. All databases reported baseline information on diagnosis, anthropometry, and demographics; however, assessments of gait autonomy and daily activities were inconsistently documented.ConclusionDespite some overlapping domains, rehabilitation data collection remains fragmented and predominantly focused on biomedical aspects. Greater standardization and systematic inclusion of psychosocial and contextual variables are needed for robust predictive modelling and personalized rehabilitation.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.