Search published articles
Showing 4 results for Rehabilitation
Mohammadjavad Hosseinabadi Farahani,
Volume 17, Issue 0 (12-2024)
Volume 17, Issue 0 (12-2024)
Abstract
Ethical challenges and concerns have long been a part of healthcare, primarily focusing on acute care or end-of-life decisions. However, with the growing elderly population and society's emphasis on restoring patients to the highest possible level of functioning, ethical dilemmas in rehabilitation care have garnered increasing attention. Ethical decisions are a routine part of rehabilitation care. While some are straightforward, such as obtaining informed consent for therapeutic and rehabilitation procedures, others are far more complex. Among the most significant challenges are resource allocation and the selection of patients for rehabilitation services. The process of selecting patients for admission to rehabilitation centers is typically carried out by specialist physicians. However, many centers face demand that exceeds their capacity, necessitating difficult decisions about patient prioritization. Although some centers may have clear guidelines, patient selection is often subjective, involving multiple factors such as:
- Clinical considerations: Diagnosis, prognosis, secondary complications, and learning ability.
- Non-clinical factors: Social, occupational, personal, and financial circumstances.
This subjectivity in patient selection raises several ethical concerns. The rights, duties, and responsibilities of both patients and physicians must be carefully weighed. The potential for injustice exists when decisions become overly subjective, leading to possible inequities in resource allocation. Balancing the ethical principles of beneficence (acting in the patient’s best interest) and justice (fair distribution of resources) is essential but can be challenging, as these principles may occasionally conflict. To address these issues, members of the rehabilitation team, particularly physicians, must strive to minimize subjectivity in their decisions. Additionally, it is important to implement follow-up mechanisms for patients initially denied admission, ensuring that any changes in their condition are reevaluated. Medical and rehabilitation ethicists should prioritize the development of clear, evidence-based guidelines for patient selection and admission. These guidelines should be made accessible to the rehabilitation team to promote fairness, transparency, and consistency in decision-making, ultimately ensuring that resources are allocated equitably to those in need.
Mohammad Javad Hosseinabadi Farahani,
Volume 17, Issue 0 (12-2024)
Volume 17, Issue 0 (12-2024)
Abstract
Rehabilitation in disaster contexts, as part of the overall medical response, faces unique challenges, particularly during the early stages of post-disaster intervention. This is largely due to the relatively new integration of rehabilitation into disaster management. The four principles of bioethics—autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice—are essential considerations in immediate post-disaster relief efforts and in the subsequent long-term rehabilitation processes. This review study involved a purposeful search of reliable databases using predetermined keywords, covering the period from 2000 to 2024. The reviewed studies highlight several ethical dilemmas in delivering rehabilitation services after crises and disasters. These challenges arise due to factors such as:
· Resource limitations,
· Insufficient focus on rehabilitation within health systems,
· Shortages of rehabilitation specialists,
· Inadequate follow-up cares post-discharge,
· Limited awareness of the significance of rehabilitation, and
· Stigma associated with disability.
Despite these challenges, it is critical to uphold the four principles of biomedical ethics even in crisis situations. Adhering to these principles ensures that rehabilitation services align with professional norms, ethical standards, and the medical aspects of the local culture. Furthermore, policies aimed at enhancing the status and importance of rehabilitation immediately after crises and disasters must emphasize the equitable distribution of resources.
· Resource limitations,
· Insufficient focus on rehabilitation within health systems,
· Shortages of rehabilitation specialists,
· Inadequate follow-up cares post-discharge,
· Limited awareness of the significance of rehabilitation, and
· Stigma associated with disability.
Despite these challenges, it is critical to uphold the four principles of biomedical ethics even in crisis situations. Adhering to these principles ensures that rehabilitation services align with professional norms, ethical standards, and the medical aspects of the local culture. Furthermore, policies aimed at enhancing the status and importance of rehabilitation immediately after crises and disasters must emphasize the equitable distribution of resources.
Mohammad Javad Hosseinabadi Farahani,
Volume 17, Issue 0 (12-2024)
Volume 17, Issue 0 (12-2024)
Abstract
Rehabilitation in disaster contexts, as part of the overall medical response, faces unique challenges, particularly during the early stages of post-disaster intervention. This is largely due to the relatively new integration of rehabilitation into disaster management. The four principles of bioethics—autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice—are essential considerations in immediate post-disaster relief efforts and in the subsequent long-term rehabilitation processes. This review study involved a purposeful search of reliable databases using predetermined keywords, covering the period from 2000 to 2024. The reviewed studies highlight several ethical dilemmas in delivering rehabilitation services after crises and disasters. These challenges arise due to factors such as:
· Resource limitations,
· Insufficient focus on rehabilitation within health systems,
· Shortages of rehabilitation specialists,
· Inadequate follow-up cares post-discharge,
· Limited awareness of the significance of rehabilitation, and
· Stigma associated with disability.
Despite these challenges, it is critical to uphold the four principles of biomedical ethics even in crisis situations. Adhering to these principles ensures that rehabilitation services align with professional norms, ethical standards, and the medical aspects of the local culture. Furthermore, policies aimed at enhancing the status and importance of rehabilitation immediately after crises and disasters must emphasize the equitable distribution of resources.
· Resource limitations,
· Insufficient focus on rehabilitation within health systems,
· Shortages of rehabilitation specialists,
· Inadequate follow-up cares post-discharge,
· Limited awareness of the significance of rehabilitation, and
· Stigma associated with disability.
Despite these challenges, it is critical to uphold the four principles of biomedical ethics even in crisis situations. Adhering to these principles ensures that rehabilitation services align with professional norms, ethical standards, and the medical aspects of the local culture. Furthermore, policies aimed at enhancing the status and importance of rehabilitation immediately after crises and disasters must emphasize the equitable distribution of resources.
Shima Shirozhan ,
Volume 17, Issue 0 (12-2024)
Volume 17, Issue 0 (12-2024)
Abstract
The rising prevalence of disabilities worldwide has drawn significant attention to the need for effective measures in preventing disabilities, managing existing conditions, and rehabilitating individuals with disabilities. These efforts can only be effective if grounded in evidence derived from high-quality research. A fundamental aspect of ensuring research quality in rehabilitation is adherence to ethical principles, which not only improve the study's quality but also safeguard the rights and address the needs of individuals with disabilities. Despite its importance, ethical considerations in rehabilitation research have received insufficient attention, and there is a lack of comprehensive insights into the challenges and ethical principles specific to this field. This study aims to review the concerns, challenges, and ethical principles pertinent to rehabilitation research.
This narrative review synthesizes existing evidence on ethics in rehabilitation research. A systematic search was conducted using English keywords such as "Ethics," "Rehabilitation," "People with Disabilities," "Disability," "Research," "Study," "Code of Conduct," "Challenge," "Issue," and "Concern" in databases including PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science up to the year 2024. Additional searches were performed via Google Scholar and the reference lists of relevant articles and key journals. From 150 extracted studies, 21 articles were selected for full-text review after initial screening. Ultimately, nine studies meeting inclusion criteria (relevance, English language, and full-text access) were included in the final analysis. The findings revealed that ethical principles and guidelines in rehabilitation research receive less attention compared to research involving other vulnerable groups. In addition to the four primary ethical principles, rehabilitation research requires greater focus on specific areas, such as assessing the decision-making capacity of individuals with disabilities for voluntary participation and obtaining informed consent. Challenges including cognitive impairments, speech disorders, and the complexity of symptoms and their effects create difficulties for researchers in study design and execution, thereby impacting research quality. A critical ethical concern in rehabilitation research is the potential decline in research quality due to inherent challenges in conducting studies with individuals with disabilities. Researchers must be aware of these challenges before initiating their studies and approach rehabilitation research with a strong commitment to ethical practices. Establishing standards and ethical guidelines for this vulnerable population, along with oversight by ethics committees, can significantly enhance the ethical standards and quality of rehabilitation research. The findings of this review can assist researchers, managers, and policymakers in addressing these issues. Future efforts should prioritize the development of robust ethical frameworks for rehabilitation research.
This narrative review synthesizes existing evidence on ethics in rehabilitation research. A systematic search was conducted using English keywords such as "Ethics," "Rehabilitation," "People with Disabilities," "Disability," "Research," "Study," "Code of Conduct," "Challenge," "Issue," and "Concern" in databases including PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science up to the year 2024. Additional searches were performed via Google Scholar and the reference lists of relevant articles and key journals. From 150 extracted studies, 21 articles were selected for full-text review after initial screening. Ultimately, nine studies meeting inclusion criteria (relevance, English language, and full-text access) were included in the final analysis. The findings revealed that ethical principles and guidelines in rehabilitation research receive less attention compared to research involving other vulnerable groups. In addition to the four primary ethical principles, rehabilitation research requires greater focus on specific areas, such as assessing the decision-making capacity of individuals with disabilities for voluntary participation and obtaining informed consent. Challenges including cognitive impairments, speech disorders, and the complexity of symptoms and their effects create difficulties for researchers in study design and execution, thereby impacting research quality. A critical ethical concern in rehabilitation research is the potential decline in research quality due to inherent challenges in conducting studies with individuals with disabilities. Researchers must be aware of these challenges before initiating their studies and approach rehabilitation research with a strong commitment to ethical practices. Establishing standards and ethical guidelines for this vulnerable population, along with oversight by ethics committees, can significantly enhance the ethical standards and quality of rehabilitation research. The findings of this review can assist researchers, managers, and policymakers in addressing these issues. Future efforts should prioritize the development of robust ethical frameworks for rehabilitation research.
| Page 1 from 1 |
Related Websites
Site Keywords
Medical Ethics, Medical Ethics Professionalism, Medical Law, Bioethics, History of Medicine, Public Health Ethics,Clinical Ethics,Site Statistics
- Registered users: 2211 users
- Online users: 0 users
- Guest users: 467 users
- All visits: 5173862 visits
- Visits in 24 Hours: 20056 visits
- Total articles: 2418 articles
- Published articles: 932 articles
© 2026 , Tehran University of Medical Sciences, CC BY-NC 4.0
Designed & Developed by: Yektaweb