Background:~Prior rehabilitation outcome studies had many weaknesses. They had: a) evaluated rehabilitation effects only in isolated subgroups, b) focused on functional ability rather than on quality of life, c) not used randomized control groups, and d) had inadequate sample sizes. Differences in methodological approaches have resulted in inconsistent findings. The lack of long-term benefits suggests that services may need to be continued at home or in subacute care settings to optimize their effectiveness. Unfortunately, prior research did not include behavioral outcomes. The potential benefits of rehabilitative care could thus not be evaluated by these studies in more meaningful detail, and they did not accurately reflect the psychosocial objectives of rehabilitation.~Objectives:~The goal of this study was to measure the additive effect of outpatient, subacute rehabilitation as follow-up services to acute, inpatient rehabilitation on adults diagnosed with a disabling disorder in four major diagnostic groups (nervous, circulatory, musculoskeletal, and injury).~Methods:~A randomized clinical trial was conducted to determine the effects of subacute rehabilitative care on: 1) physical function, 2) health and mental health, 3) mortality, 4) family function, 5) personal adjustment, and 6) use of health care resources. Patients hospitalized for the first time with a disabling condition [n=180] were provided inpatient rehabilitation and then randomly assigned to either subacute rehabilitation at home [n=90] or to usual outpatient follow-up [n=90] in which only medical services were provided but no scheduled rehabilitative therapies were offered. To compare the two groups, analysis of covariance was conducted for the outcome variables. The between subjects factor was subacute rehabilitative care versus usual medical services as an outpatient.~Status:~Complete.
Prior rehabilitation outcome studies had many weaknesses. They had: a) evaluated rehabilitation effects only in isolated subgroups, b) focused on functional ability rather than on quality of life, c) not used randomized control groups, and d) had inadequate sample sizes. Differences in methodological approaches have resulted in inconsistent findings. The lack of long-term benefits suggests that services may need to be continued at home or in subacute care settings to optimize their effectiveness. Unfortunately, prior research did not include behavioral outcomes. The potential benefits of rehabilitative care could thus not be evaluated by these studies in more meaningful detail, and they did not accurately reflect the psychosocial objectives of rehabilitation.