Explore the vast range of titles available.

This book explores California's prison system in the context of vocational education reform. For prisons in the early twenty-first century, ideologies of evidence-based management meant that reform efforts to change the purpose of prisons from punishment to rehabilitation through vocational education required “evidence” to justify policy prescriptions. Yet who determines what constitutes evidence? In political environments, solutions are typically pre-conceived, which means that the nature of the evidence collected is also preconceived. As a result, key assumptions about outcomes are often wished away to show improvement and be accountable. Through a detailed analysis interspersed with stories from the authors' experiences “behind the wall” among California's prison population, the authors challenge the nature of evidence-based research as used in the prison environment. In the process they describe the thorny problems facing reformers. Summary from publisher

The World Health Organization defines interprofessional education (IPE) as a process in which students from different health care programs work together to provide effective care while deepening their knowledge of each other's roles. Previous literature shows a strong argument for early exposure to IPE as a facilitator for high quality patient care. The goal of IPE is to improve interprofessional collaboration (IPC), the \"gold standard\" of care to enhance patients' quality of life, functional ability, and health status, especially for patients who require expertise from a variety of health care professionals. IPC has shown improvements in quality of life, functional ability, and health status. IPE can occur in the form of structured interventions or spontaneously in student placements. Literature has demonstrated that IPE facilitates skill, knowledge development, teamwork, communication skills, and mutual respect among health care professional students. This systematic review aims to examine IPE outcomes, including readiness for IPC, IPE perceptions, attitudes toward collaborative learning, student confidence, practice efficiency, and team dynamics after IPE interventions in rehabilitation science students. The study will be conducted as outlined by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews and will be reported per the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting of Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2015 guidelines. Students have performed literature searches across the databases MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC, Web of Science, and AMED. Studies will be included if their IPE intervention included multiple prelicensure health care professional students in a health care or health care education setting. Based on timelines presented in the Institute of Medicine's report on the impacts of IPE, relevant studies from 2016 to the present will be included. The Risk of Bias 2 tool will be used to study sources of bias. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) working group's methods will be used to evaluate the quality of the evidence presented. The final 3 authors are assisting as supervisors, providing oversight and feedback as needed. Any deviations from this protocol will be reported in the final paper. The search strategy was finalized and searched across the databases by March 8, 2024. The systematic review was registered with PROSPERO on March 31, 2024. A total of 10,692 citations were retrieved for abstract and title screening, beginning in March 2024, and 756 were eligible for full-text screening in April 2024. Six articles were considered for inclusion and data extraction, which began in July 2024. Finalization of the extracted data and paper will occur in September 2024. This systematic review will provide a summary of the effects of IPE interventions in prelicensure rehabilitation science students. It will provide educators, health care providers, and students with valuable information for understanding the relevance of IPE. It will also shed light on research gaps and highlight areas for further study. PROSPERO CRD42024506081; https://tinyurl.com/3tf2h9er. PRR1-10.2196/60830.

Objective Manual therapy is a crucial component in rehabilitation education, yet there is a lack of models for evaluating learning in this area. This study aims to develop a foundational evaluation model for manual therapy learning among rehabilitation students, based on the Delphi method, and to analyze the theoretical basis and practical significance of this model. Methods An initial framework for evaluating the fundamentals of manual therapy learning was constructed through a literature review and theoretical analysis. Using the Delphi method, consultations were conducted with young experts in the field of rehabilitation from January 2024 to March 2024. Fifteen experts completed three rounds of consultation. Each round involved analysis using Dview software, refining and adjusting indicators based on expert opinions, and finally summarizing all retained indicators using Mindmaster. Results The effective response rates for the three rounds of questionnaires were 88%, 100%, and 100%, respectively. Expert familiarity scores were 0.91, 0.95, and 0.95; coefficient of judgment were 0.92, 0.93, and 0.93; authority coefficients were 0.92, 0.94, and 0.94, respectively. Based on three rounds of consultation, the model established includes 3 primary indicators, 10 secondary indicators, 17 tertiary indicators, and 9 quaternary indicators. A total of 24 statistical indicators were finalized, with 8 under the Cognitive Abilities category, 10 under the Practical Skills category, and 6 under the Emotional Competence category. Conclusion This study has developed an evaluation model for manual therapy learning among rehabilitation students, based on the Delphi method. The model includes multi-level evaluation indicators covering the key dimensions of Cognitive Abilities, Practical Skills, and Emotional Competence. These indicators provide a preliminary evaluation framework for manual therapy education and a theoretical basis for future research.

Background Insufficient wheelchair training among rehabilitation professionals has been identified as an important factor that hinders access to appropriate wheelchair services. The aim of this study was to develop a toolkit to promote the integration of wheelchair education into academic curricula of rehabilitation programs. Methods A participatory action research design was carried out in three phases: (1) development of the Initial and Alpha Versions involving secondary analyses of surveys ( n = 72), interviews ( n = 14), and academic training partners meeting presentations ( n = 16); (2) development of the Beta Version based on feedback from collaborators ( n = 21); and (3) development of the Launch Version based on feedback from participants attending presentations of the Beta Version at conferences, symposiums, and webinars ( n = 94). Results Over 100 individuals participated in reviews of the Seating and Mobility Academic Resource Toolkit (SMART). Initial development addressed modifiable factors that perpetuate insufficient wheelchair education in academic curricula (e.g., limited awareness, limited expertise). Internal feedback on the web-based Alpha Version resulted in modifications of appearance and multimedia, structure and design, and navigation. External feedback then led primarily to fine-tuning the navigation of SMART. Positive reviews were received from global wheelchair professionals (i.e., educators, researchers, clinicians). The Launch Version of the SMART ( smart.wheelchairnetwork.org ) provides a forum for sharing and accessing resources to inform the integration and enhancement of wheelchair content into university rehabilitation programs. Conclusions As an open-source open-access online “living document,” SMART has the potential to promote the integration of wheelchair service provision education into academic curricula of rehabilitation programs. Future studies will explore the ease of use and the effectiveness of the SMART.

Falls are the most frequent adverse events that are reported in hospitals. We examined the effectiveness of individualised falls-prevention education for patients, supported by training and feedback for staff, delivered as a ward-level programme. Eight rehabilitation units in general hospitals in Australia participated in this stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised study, undertaken during a 50 week period. Units were randomly assigned to intervention or control groups by use of computer-generated, random allocation sequences. We included patients admitted to the unit during the study with a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of more than 23/30 to receive individualised education that was based on principles of changes in health behaviour from a trained health professional, in addition to usual care. We provided information about patients' goals, feedback about the ward environment, and perceived barriers to engagement in falls-prevention strategies to staff who were trained to support the uptake of strategies by patients. The coprimary outcome measures were patient rate of falls per 1000 patient-days and the proportion of patients who were fallers. All analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials registry, number ACTRN12612000877886). Between Jan 13, and Dec 27, 2013, 3606 patients were admitted to the eight units (n=1983 control period; n=1623 intervention period). There were fewer falls (n=196, 7·80/1000 patient-days vs n=380, 13·78/1000 patient-days, adjusted rate ratio 0·60 [robust 95% CI 0·42–0·94], p=0·003), injurious falls (n=66, 2·63/1000 patient-days vs 131, 4·75/1000 patient-days, 0·65 [robust 95% CI 0·42–0·88], p=0·006), and fallers (n=136 [8·38%] vs n=248 [12·51%] adjusted odds ratio 0·55 [robust 95% CI 0·38 to 0·81], p=0·003) in the intervention compared with the control group. There was no significant difference in length of stay (intervention median 11 days [IQR 7–19], control 10 days [6–18]). Individualised patient education programmes combined with training and feedback to staff added to usual care reduces the rates of falls and injurious falls in older patients in rehabilitation hospital-units. State Health Research Advisory Council, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia.

Health professionals that act as lecturers in higher education necessitate the acquisition of pedagogical skills along with clinical ones. Consequently, pedagogical training courses have been introduced as part of professional development or within university curricula. While several studies explored the experiences of attending courses on pedagogical methodology, there is a notable gap in the literature within the rehabilitation field. Hence, this qualitative study explored the experience of Italian postgraduate health professionals in rehabilitation about the experience of attending pedagogical methodology courses in their postgraduate education. A qualitative focus group study was carried out. Specifically, the authors purposefully recruited participants with different professional backgrounds (physiotherapy, speech therapy, and others) with or without lecturing experience. Recent graduates and students of the Master of Science in 'Rehabilitative Sciences of the Health Professions' at the University of Verona (Verona, Italy) were recruited. The focus groups were analysed following a 'Reflexive Thematic Analysis' by Braun & Clarke within a social constructionist framework. Three focus groups were conducted with seventeen Italian participants (age: 33 ± 9; 71% women, n = 12; 29% men, n = 5). The analysis identified three main themes: 1) \"A Brave New Pedagogical World,\" reflecting participants' exposure to innovative teaching approaches; 2) \"Becoming a Cutting-Edge Lecturer,\" highlighting skills acquired for delivering inspiring lectures; and 3) \"Something Beyond Pedagogy,\" where participants reported skills applicable to other professional contexts, including clinical practice. The results of this study showed that pedagogical courses provide a positive learning experience for rehabilitation health professionals, helping them develop relevant pedagogical skills. Although our findings suggest the potential benefits of these courses in preparing healthcare professionals for teaching roles, further studies are needed to evaluate their direct impact on educational practices and patient outcomes.