WadeDT. Moving on. A farewell from the last Editor-in-Chief who says: ‘Rehabilitation is a way of thinking, not a way of doing’. Clin Rehabil2022. DOI: 10.1177/02692155221131248.
2.
WadeDT. What is rehabilitation? An empirical investigation leading to an evidence-based description. Clin Rehabil2020; 34: 571–583.
3.
RuskHA. A world to care for: The autobiography of Howard A. Rusk, M.D. New York: Random House, 1972. Quoted in Lanska, DJ (2014) The Historical Origins of Stroke Rehabilitation. In Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation 2nd Ed. Eds. Stein, J, Harvey, RL, Winstein, CJ et al. Springer Publishing Company, New York.
4.
MaslowA. A theory of human motivation. Psych Review1943; 50: 370–396.
5.
SivanMPhillipsMBaguleyI, et al.Concepts of rehabilitation. In: Oxford Handbook of Rehabilitation Medicine. 3rd ed. Sivan, Phillips, Baguley, Nott, Eds. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press,2019, pp. 20–37 (accessed 18 October 2022).
6.
WadeDTHalliganPW. The biopsychosocial model of illness: a model whose time has come. Clin Rehabil2017; 31: 995–1004.
7.
ClarkBWhitallJKwakkelG, et al.The effect of time spent in rehabilitation on activity limitation and impairment after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2021;CD012612. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012612.pub2.
8.
KwakkelGWagenaarRCTwiskJW, et al.Intensity of leg and arm training after primary middle-cerebral-artery stroke: a randomised trial. Lancet1999; 354: 191–196.
9.
WadeD. Rehabilitation therapy after stroke. Lancet1999; 354: 176–177.
10.
McNaughtonHWeatherallMTaylorW, et al.Stroke rehabilitation. Lancet1999; 354: 1642–1643.
11.
McNaughtonHWeatherallMTaylorW, et al.Factors influencing rate of Barthel Index change in hospital following stroke. Clin Rehabil2001; 15: 422–427.
12.
KwakkelGKollenBJWagenaarRC. Long term effects of intensity of upper and lower limb training after stroke: a randomised trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry2002; 72: 473–479.
13.
LanghornePWilliamsBOGilchristW, et al.Do stroke units save lives?Lancet1993; 342: 395–398.
14.
Stroke Unit Trialists’ Collaboration. Collaborative systematic review of the randomised trials of organised inpatient (stroke unit) care after stroke. Br Med J1997; 314: 1151–1159.
15.
SwannCJackmanPCLawrenceA, et al. The (over)use of SMART goals for physical activity promotion: A narrative review and critique. Health Psych Rev2022. DOI: 10.1080/17437199.2021.2023608.
16.
RosewilliamSRoskellCAPandyanAD. A systematic review and synthesis of the quantitative and qualitative evidence behind patient-centred goal setting in stroke rehabilitation. Clin Rehabil2011; 25: 501–514.
17.
VeerbeekJMvan WegenEvan PeppenR, et al.What is the evidence for physical therapy poststroke? A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One2014; 9: e87987.
18.
SchneiderEJLanninNAAdaL, et al.Increasing the amount of usual rehabilitation improves activity after stroke: a systematic review. J Physiother2016; 62: 182–187.
19.
LohseKRLangCEBoydLA. Is more better? Using metadata to explore dose-response relationships in stroke rehabilitation. Stroke2014; 45: 2053–2058.
IoannidisJPA. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med2005; 2: e124.
22.
EnglishCBernhardtJCrottyM, et al.Circuit class therapy or seven-day week therapy for increasing rehabilitation intensity of therapy after stroke (CIRCIT): a randomized controlled trial. Int J Stroke2015; 10: 594–602.
23.
RodgersHBosomworthHKrebsHI, et al.Robot assisted training for the upper limb after stroke (RATULS): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet2019; 394: 51–62.
24.
DuncanPWSullivanKJBehrmanAL, et al.Body-weight-supported treadmill rehabilitation after stroke. N Engl J Med2011; 364: 2026–2036.
25.
WinsteinCJWolfSLDromerickAW, et al.Interdisciplinary comprehensive arm rehabilitation evaluation (ICARE) investigative team. Effect of a task-oriented rehabilitation program on upper extremity recovery following motor stroke: the ICARE randomized clinical trial. JAMA2016; 315: 571–581.
26.
ATTEND Collaborative Group. Family-led rehabilitation after stroke in India (ATTEND): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet2017; 390: 588–599.
27.
AVERT Trial Collaboration Group. Efficacy and safety of very early mobilisation within 24 h of stroke onset (AVERT): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet2015; 386: 46–55.
28.
LundströmEIsakssonENäsmanP, et al.Safety and efficacy of fluoxetine on functional recovery after acute stroke (EFFECTS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Neurol2020; 19: 661–669.
29.
DennisMMeadGForbesJ, et al.Effects of fluoxetine on functional outcomes after acute stroke (FOCUS): a pragmatic, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet2019; 393: 265–274.
30.
HankeyGJHackettMLAlmeidaOP, et al.Safety and efficacy of fluoxetine on functional outcome after acute stroke (AFFINITY): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Neurol2020; 19: 651–660.
31.
FuVWeatherallMMcPhersonK, et al.Taking charge after stroke: a randomized controlled trial of a person-centered, self-directed rehabilitation intervention. Int J Stroke2020; 15: 954–964.
32.
Royal College of Physicians Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party. National Clinical Guidelines for Stroke. 5th ed.London: Royal College of Physicians, 2016.
33.
TeasellRSalbachNMFoleyN, et al.Canadian Stroke best practice recommendations: rehabilitation, recovery, and community participation following stroke. Part one: rehabilitation and recovery following stroke; 6th edition update 2019. Int J Stroke2020; 15: 763–788.
34.
WinsteinCJSteinJArenaR, et al.Guidelines for adult stroke rehabilitation and recovery: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American heart association/American stroke association. Stroke2016; 47: e98–e169.
35.
HarwoodMLN. Understanding and improving stroke recovery for Māori and their Whānau. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Otago, 2012.
36.
ICF. International classification of functioning, disability, and health. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2001.
37.
HarwoodMWeatherallMTalemaitogaA, et al.Taking charge after stroke: promoting self-directed rehabilitation to improve quality of life–a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil2012; 26: 493–501.
38.
StinearCMByblowWDAckerleySJ, et al.PREP2: a biomarker-based algorithm for predicting upper limb function after stroke. Ann Clin Transl Neurol2017; 4: 811–820.
39.
FuVWeatherallMMcNaughtonH. Estimating the minimal clinically important difference for the physical component summary of the short form 36 for patients with stroke. J Int Med Res2021; 49: 03000605211067902.
40.
EmbersonJLeesKRLydenP, et al.Effect of treatment delay, age, and stroke severity on the effects of intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase for acute ischaemic stroke: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials. Lancet2014; 384: 1929–1935.
41.
Te AoBHarwoodMFuV, et al.Economic analysis of the 'Take charge' intervention for people following stroke: results from a randomised trial. Clin Rehabil2022; 36: 240–250.
42.
PopperK. The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Basic Books, 1959.
43.
DekkerJde GrootVter SteegAM. Setting meaningful goals in rehabilitation: rationale and practical tool. Clin Rehabil2020; 34: 3–12.
44.
WadeDT. Goal setting in rehabilitation: an overview of what, why and how. Clin Rehabil2009; 23: 291–295.