Published in:
Open Access
01-12-2016 | Research
Stakeholders’ perceptions of rehabilitation services for individuals living with disability: a survey study
Authors:
Andrea J. Darzi, Alana Officer, Ola Abualghaib, Elie A. Akl
Published in:
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
|
Issue 1/2016
Login to get access
Abstract
Background
The World Health Organization (WHO) was tasked with developing health system guidelines for the implementation of rehabilitation services. Stakeholders’ perceptions are an essential factor to take into account in the guideline development process.
The aim of this study was to assess stakeholders’ perceived feasibility and acceptability of eighteen rehabilitation services and the values they attach to ten rehabilitation outcomes.
Methods
We disseminated an online self-administered questionnaire through a number of international and regional organizations from the different WHO regions. Eligible individuals included persons with disability, caregivers of persons with disability, health professionals, administrators and policy makers. The answer options consisted of a 9-point Likert scale.
Results
Two hundred fifty three stakeholders participated. The majority of participants were health professional (64 %). In terms of outcomes, ‘Increasing access’ and ‘Optimizing utilization’ were the top service outcomes rated as critical (i.e., 7, 8 or 9 on the Likert scale) by >70 % of respondents. ‘Fewer hospital admissions’, ‘Decreased burden of care’ and ‘Increasing longevity’ were the services rated as least critical (57 %, 63 % and 58 % respectively).
In terms of services, ‘Community based rehabilitation’ and ‘Home based rehabilitation’ were found to be both definitely feasible and acceptable (75 % and 74 % respectively). ‘Integrated and decentralized rehabilitation services’ was found to be less feasible than acceptable according to stakeholders (61 % and 71 % respectively). As for ‘Task shifting’, most stakeholders did not appear to find task shifting as either definitely feasible or definitely acceptable (63 % and 64 % respectively).
Conclusion
The majority of stakeholder’s perceived ‘Increasing access’ and ‘Optimizing utilization’ as most critical amongst rehabilitation outcomes. The feasibility of the ‘Integrated and decentralized rehabilitation services’ was perceived to be less than their acceptability. The majority of stakeholders found ‘Task shifting’ as neither feasible nor acceptable.