Individualised Care and Rehabilitation

  • Lena von KochEmail author


In this chapter individualised rehabilitation is referring to the process of returning to, or maintaining, a meaningful everyday life, valued activities and roles in the context of an illness or a health condition. Rehabilitation usually involves at least two perspectives, i.e. that of the individual person who has a health condition or an illness and that of the enablers, e.g. health service workers. In individualised rehabilitation, the medical diagnosis itself is not enough for the understanding of the individual person’s situation nor for his/her needs of rehabilitation. Instead, a wider framework is useful such as the biopsychosocial model in which the state of health is seen as an interaction between biological, psychological, and social factors as outlined in WHO’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Health can be promoted by creating environments where people in need of rehabilitation are active participating actors, who are supported to identify their internal and external resources and learn how to use and reuse them to reach vital goals in their everyday lives. Individualised rehabilitation entails a problem-solving process of interrelated phases performed by the individual in partnership with health professionals in a rehabilitation team. The process entails to establish a shared understanding; identify, negotiate and agree on short-term and long-term goals; together plan interventions required to reach the goals; put the plan into action; and evaluate and reflect on goal attainment.


Activities Everyday life Functioning Goals Health promotion Participation Shared decision-making 


  1. 1.
    Coran JJ, Koropeckyj-Cox T, Arnold CL. Are physicians and patients in agreement? Exploring dyadic concordance. Health Educ Behav. 2013;40(5):603–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tistad M, Ytterberg C, Tham K, et al. Poor concurrence between disabilities as described by patients and established assessment tools three months after stroke: a mixed methods approach. J Neurol Sci. 2012;313(1-2):160–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wade DT. Stroke: rehabilitation and long-term care. Lancet. 1992;339(8796):791–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    World Health Organisation. Towards a common language for functioning, disability and health. International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Geneva: WHO; 2001 Accessed 3 Oct 2017.
  5. 5.
    Engel GL. The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Science. 1977;196(4286):129–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wade DT, Halligan PW. The biopsychosocial model of illness: a model whose time has come. Clin Rehabil. 2017;31(8):995–1004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    World Health Oragnization. How to use the ICF. A practical manual for using the international classification of functioning, Disability and Health (ICF); 2013. Accessed 3 Jan 2018.
  8. 8.
    Wade DT, Halligan PW. Do biomedical models of illness make for good healthcare systems? BMJ. 2004;329(7479):1398–401.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Antonovsky A. Unraveling the mystery of health: how people manage stress and stay well. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1987.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    WHO. Milestones in health promotion statements from global conferences, Geneva; 2009. Accessed 3 Oct 2017.
  11. 11.
    Eriksson M, Lindström B. A salutogenic interpretation of the Ottawa Charter. Health Promot Int. 2008;23(2):190–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lorig K, Holman H. Self-management education: history, definition, outcomes, and mechanisms. Ann Behav Med. 2003;26(1):1–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wade DT, Smeets RJ, Verbunt JA. Research in rehabilitation medicine: methodological challenges. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):699–704.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    von Koch L, Holmqvist LW, Wottrich AW, et al. Rehabilitation at home after stroke: a descriptive study of an individualized intervention. Clin Rehabil. 2000;14(6):574–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rogers C. Significant aspects of client-centered therapy. Class Hist Psychol. 1946;1:415–22.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang C, Burris M. Photovoice: concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs assessment. Health Educ Behav. 1997;3(3):369–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tham K, Borell L, Gustavsson A. The discovery of disability: a phenomenological study of unilateral neglect. Am J Occup Ther. 2000;54(4):398–406.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    von Koch L, Wottrich AW, Holmqvist LW. Rehabilitation in the home versus the hospital: the importance of context. Disabil Rehabil. 1998;20(10):367–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Turner B, Fleming J, Ownsworth T, et al. Perceptions of recovery during the early transition phase from hospital to home following acquired brain injury: a journey of discovery. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2011;21(1):64–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rasmussen RS, Ostergaard A, Kjaer P, et al. Stroke rehabilitation at home before and after discharge reduced disability and improved quality of life: a randomised controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2016;30(3):225–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kristensen HK, Tistad M, von Koch L, et al. The importance of patient involvement in stroke rehabilitation. PLoS One. 2016;11(6):e0157149.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Locke EA, Latham GP. Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. A 35-year odyssey. Am Psychol. 2002;57(9):705–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Flink M, Bertilsson AS, Johansson U, et al. Training in client-centeredness enhances occupational therapist documentation on goal setting and client participation in goal setting in the medical records of people with stroke. Clin Rehabil. 2016;30(12):1200–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bertilsson AS, Ranner M, von Koch L, et al. A client-centred ADL intervention: three-month follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Scand J Occup Ther. 2014;21(5):377–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Guidetti S, Ranner M, Tham K, et al. A “client-centred activities of daily living” intervention for persons with stroke: one-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. J Rehabil Med. 2015;47:605–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bertilsson AS, Eriksson G, Ekstam L, et al. A cluster randomized controlled trial of a client-centred, activities of daily living intervention for people with stroke: one year follow-up of caregivers. Clin Rehabil. 2016;30(8):765–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bertilsson AS, von Koch L, Tham K, Johansson U, et al. Client-centred ADL intervention after stroke: significant others’ experiences. Scand J Occup Ther. 2015;22(5):377–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Levack WM, Weatherall M, Hay-Smith EJ, et al. Goal setting and strategies to enhance goal pursuit for adults with acquired disability participating in rehabilitation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;7:CD009727.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bovend'Eerdt TJ, Botell RE, Wade DT. Writing SMART rehabilitation goals and achieving goal attainment scaling: a practical guide. Clin Rehabil. 2009;23(4):352–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nelson EC, Eftimovska E, Lind C, et al. Patient reported outcome measures in practice. BMJ. 2015;350:g7818.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Doig E, Fleming J, Kuipers P, et al. Clinical utility of the combined use of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure and Goal Attainment Scaling. Am J Occup Ther. 2010;64(6):904–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kiresuk TJ, Sherman RE. Goal attainment scaling: a general method for evaluating comprehensive community mental health programs. Community Ment Health J. 1968;4(6):443–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kiresuk TJ, Lund SH, Larsen NE. Measurement of goal attainment in clinical and health care programs. Drug Intell Clin Pharm. 1982;16(2):145–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Moorhouse P, Theou O, Fay S, et al. Treatment in a Geriatric Day Hospital improve individualized outcome measures using Goal Attainment Scaling. BMC Geriatr. 2017;17(1):9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Law M, Baptiste S, McColl M, et al. The Canadian occupational performance measure: an outcome measure for occupational therapy. Can J Occup Ther. 1990;57(2):82–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Law M, Polatajko H, Pollock N, et al. Pilot testing of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: clinical and measurement issues. Can J Occup Ther. 1994;61(4):191–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yang SY, Lin CY, Lee YC, et al. The Canadian occupational performance measure for patients with stroke: a systematic review. J Phys Ther Sci. 2017;29(3):548–55.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Asenlof P, Siljeback K. The Patient Goal Priority Questionnaire is moderately reproducible in people with persistent musculoskeletal pain. Phys Ther. 2009;89(11):1226–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gustavsson C, von Koch L. A 9-year follow-up of a self-management group intervention for persistent neck pain in primary health care: a randomized controlled trial. J Pain Res. 2017;10:53–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bring A, Asenlof P, Soderlund A. What is the comparative effectiveness of current standard treatment, against an individually tailored behavioural programme delivered either on the Internet or face-to-face for people with acute whiplash associated disorder? A randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2016;30(5):441–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kim H, Xie B. Health literacy in the eHealth era: a systematic review of the literature. Patient Educ Couns. 2017;100(6):1073–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hayes SC, Strosahl KD, Wilson KG. Acceptance and commitment therapy: an experiential approach to behavior change. New York: Guilford Press; 1999.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yu L, Norton S, McCracken LM. Change in “Self-as-Context” (“Perspective-Taking”) occurs in acceptance and commitment therapy for people with chronic pain and is associated with improved functioning. J Pain. 2017;18(6):664–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84:191–215.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bandura A, Adams NE, Beyer J. Cognitive processes mediating behavioral change. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1977;35(3):125–39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Karolinska InstitutetSolnaSweden

Personalised recommendations