I got an email from an author the other day. He’s written a book about stroke recovery. He said that he’d heard that I did “...not like presenting other peoples' work as helpful for stroke survivors." I explained to him my position this way:
I work in rehab research; have since the 90's. All of that research has been stroke-specific. One of the things I've learned is that clinicians had made the mistake over and over and over (for decades) of buying into completely ineffective treatment options. They did this for 2 reasons:
1. The treatment had/has a charismatic leader
2. Clinicians in rehab don't typically read research.
I actually promote (when appropriate) a bunch of people and ideas. But anything endorsed is evidenced based and what that means is very specific: Has the treatment option reached meta-analysis and did that meta-analysis show efficacy? If it has and it does I'm all in.
If not, I let people know.
What I find from survivors is that they want us to hash this stuff out. They want us to have these discussions and not just stick with the same old because it’s what we feel comfortable.
I work in rehab research; have since the 90's. All of that research has been stroke-specific. One of the things I've learned is that clinicians had made the mistake over and over and over (for decades) of buying into completely ineffective treatment options. They did this for 2 reasons:
1. The treatment had/has a charismatic leader
2. Clinicians in rehab don't typically read research.
 |
So even if large studies came out and say "Those things don't work" clinicians just kept/keep on doing (and promoting, and selling books about, and teaching) them. And then there are categories of "treatments" that have no research (standardized, controlled trials) at all supporting them. So in my talks (I do many) I start by saying "Most of what has been used for stroke recovery is ineffective or untested. Here's what we think we know…” And most clinitians get it. They're pros. They want better tools.
I actually promote (when appropriate) a bunch of people and ideas. But anything endorsed is evidenced based and what that means is very specific: Has the treatment option reached meta-analysis and did that meta-analysis show efficacy? If it has and it does I'm all in.
If not, I let people know.
What I find from survivors is that they want us to hash this stuff out. They want us to have these discussions and not just stick with the same old because it’s what we feel comfortable.
1 comment:
I regret to say that old school therapists won't get it.They are afraid to step out of their comfort zone.They don't have time at rehab clinics to make patients do thousands of repetitions.All my 3 years at the rehab, 20-30 reps is max.
Post a Comment