{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2025,10,29]],"date-time":"2025-10-29T13:05:35Z","timestamp":1761743135659,"version":"3.38.0"},"reference-count":6,"publisher":"SAGE Publications","issue":"4","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[1997,11,1]],"date-time":"1997-11-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":878342400000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/page\/policies\/text-and-data-mining-license"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Clin Rehabil"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[1997,11]]},"abstract":"<jats:p> Objective: To ascertain which standardized instruments are currently most commonly used as outcome measures for rehabilitation in routine clinical practice in the UK. <\/jats:p><jats:p> Design: The study used a postal questionnaire which was sent out to members of two major societies of rehabilitation professionals in the UK. <\/jats:p><jats:p> Results: Of 182 rehabilitation centres represented by respondents, 140 (77%) collected at least one standardized measure and 42 did not. Principal reasons for not recording measures were lack of time and not knowing what to collect. As had been anticipated, a very wide range of different measures were used by different centres, however some clear favourites emerged including the 10 m Walk, the Motricity Index and the Nine-hole Peg Test. One hundred and twenty-three centres used one or more global disability measure of which the commonest were the Barthel Index or one of its modifications and the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and\/or Functional Assessment Method (FAM). Among units that used handicap or extended activities of daily living (EADL) scales, the Nottingham EADL, the London Handicap Scale and the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-22 or 12) were most popular. Outside neurorehabilitation, the Harold Wood\/Stanmore mobility grades were used by 10\/18 amputee rehabilitation centres and the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) was used by 15\/48 units providing musculoskeletal rehabilitation. <\/jats:p><jats:p> Conclusions: It is clear that no one measure is suitable in all settings and services, but the most popular measures from this survey may reasonably form the basis for a 'basket of recommended instruments' that may help to guide units wishing to collect outcome data but not knowing which to choose. <\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1177\/026921559701100407","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2008,7,28]],"date-time":"2008-07-28T22:06:09Z","timestamp":1217282769000},"page":"306-313","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":63,"title":["The use of standardized outcome measures in rehabilitation centres in the UK"],"prefix":"10.1177","volume":"11","author":[{"given":"Lynne","family":"Turner-Stokes","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Regional Rehabilitation Unit, Northwick Park Hospital, Harrow"}]},{"given":"Tabitha","family":"Turner-Stokes","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Regional Rehabilitation Unit, Northwick Park Hospital, Harrow"}]}],"member":"179","published-online":{"date-parts":[[1997,11,1]]},"reference":[{"volume-title":"Measurement in neurological rehabilitation","year":"1992","author":"Wade DT","key":"atypb1"},{"key":"atypb2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.3109\/09638289509166622"},{"key":"atypb3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/00001199-199308020-00008"},{"key":"atypb4","first-page":"61","volume":"14","author":"Mahoney FI","year":"1965","journal-title":"Md State Med J"},{"key":"atypb5","first-page":"145","volume":"60","author":"Granger CV","year":"1979","journal-title":"Arch Phys Med Rehabil"},{"key":"atypb6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/0895-4356(89)90065-6"}],"container-title":["Clinical Rehabilitation"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1177\/026921559701100407","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1177\/026921559701100407","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,3,2]],"date-time":"2025-03-02T23:37:06Z","timestamp":1740958626000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/026921559701100407"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[1997,11]]},"references-count":6,"journal-issue":{"issue":"4","published-print":{"date-parts":[[1997,11]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1177\/026921559701100407"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/026921559701100407","relation":{},"ISSN":["0269-2155","1477-0873"],"issn-type":[{"type":"print","value":"0269-2155"},{"type":"electronic","value":"1477-0873"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[1997,11]]}}}