People with disabilities may be disproportionally affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We synthesize the literature on broader health and social impacts on people with disabilities arising from lockdown-related measures. Methods: Scoping review with thematic analysis. Up to mid-September 2020, seven scientific databases and three pre-print servers were searched to identify empirical or perspective papers addressing lockdown-related disparities experienced by people with disabilities. Snowballing searches and experts’ consultation also occurred. Two independent reviewers took eligibility decisions and performed data extractions. Results: Out of 1026 unique references, 85 addressed lockdown-related disparities experienced by people with disabilities. Ten primary and two central themes were identified: (1) Disrupted access to healthcare (other than for COVID-19); (2) Reduced physical activity leading to health and functional decline; (3) From physical distance and inactivity to social isolation and loneliness; (4) Disruption of personal assistance and community support networks; (5) Children with disabilities disproportionally affected by school closures; (6) Psychological consequences of disrupted routines, activities, and support; (7) Family and informal caregiver burden and stress; (8) Risks of maltreatment, violence, and self-harm; (9) Reduced employment and/or income exacerbating disparities; and (10) Digital divide in access to health, education, and support services. Lack of disability-inclusive response and emergency preparedness and structural, pre-pandemic disparities were the central themes. Conclusions: Lockdown-related measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic can disproportionally affect people with disabilities with broader impact on their health and social grounds. Lack of disability-inclusive response and emergency preparedness and pre-pandemic disparities created structural disadvantages, exacerbated during the pandemic. Both structural disparities and their pandemic ramifications require the development and implementation of disability-inclusive public health and policy measures.

People with disabilities face challenges accessing basic rehabilitation health care. In 2006, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) outlined the global necessity to meet the rehabilitation needs of people with disabilities, but this goal is often challenged by the undersupply and inequitable distribution of rehabilitation workers. While the aggregate study and monitoring of the physical rehabilitation workforce has been mostly ignored by researchers or policy-makers, this paper aims to present the ‘challenges and opportunities’ for guiding further long-term research and policies on developing the relatively neglected, highly heterogeneous physical rehabilitation workforce. The challenges were identified through a two-phased investigation. Phase 1: critical review of the rehabilitation workforce literature, organized by the availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality (AAAQ) framework. Phase 2: integrate reviewed data into a SWOT framework to identify the strengths and opportunities to be maximized and the weaknesses and threats to be overcome. The critical review and SWOT analysis have identified the following global situation: (i) needs-based shortages and lack of access to rehabilitation workers, particularly in lower income countries and in rural/remote areas; (ii) deficiencies in the data sources and monitoring structures; and (iii) few exemplary innovations, of both national and international scope, that may help reduce supply-side shortages in underserved areas. Based on the results, we have prioritized the following ‘Six Rehab-Workforce Challenges’: (1) monitoring supply requirements: accounting for rehabilitation needs and demand; (2) supply data sources: the need for structural improvements; (3) ensuring the study of a whole rehabilitation workforce (i.e. not focused on single professions), including across service levels; (4) staffing underserved locations: the rising of education, attractiveness and tele-service; (5) adapt policy options to different contexts (e.g. rural vs urban), even within a country; and (6) develop international solutions, within an interdependent world. Concrete examples of feasible local, global and research action toward meeting the Six Rehab-Workforce Challenges are provided. Altogether, these may help advance a policy and research agenda for ensuring that an adequate rehabilitation workforce can meet the current and future rehabilitation health needs.

Background: To inform global health policies and resources planning, this paper analyzes evolving trends in physical rehabilitation needs, using data on Years Lived with Disability (YLDs) from the Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD) 2017. Methods: Secondary analysis of how YLDs from conditions likely benefiting from physical rehabilitation have evolved from 1990 to 2017, for the world and across countries of varying income levels. Linear regression analyses were used. Results: A 66.2% growth was found in estimated YLD Counts germane to physical rehabilitation: a significant and linear growth of more than 5.1 billion YLDs per year (99% CI: 4.8–5.4; r² = 0.99). Low-income countries more than doubled (111.5% growth) their YLD Counts likely benefiting from physical rehabilitation since 1990. YLD Rates per 100,000 people and the percentage of YLDs likley benefiting from physical rehabilitation also grew significantly over time, across locations (all p > 0.05). Finally, only in high-income countries did Age-standardized YLD Rates significantly decrease (p < 0.01; r² = 0.86). Conclusions: Physical rehabilitation needs have been growing significantly in absolute, per-capita and in percentage of total YLDs. This growth was found globally and across countries of varying income level. In absolute terms, growths were higher in lower income countries, wherein rehabilitation is under-resourced, thereby highlighting important unmet needs.

The COVID-19 pandemic has unleashed a deluge of publications. For this cross-sectional study we compared the amount and reporting characteristics of COVID-19-related academic articles and preprints and the number of ongoing clinical trials and systematic reviews. To do this, we searched the PubMed database of citations and abstracts for published life science journals by using appropriate combinations of medical subject headings (MeSH terms), and the COVID-19 section of the MedRxiv and BioRxiv archives up to 20 May 2020 (21 weeks). In addition, we searched Clinicaltrial.gov, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, EU Clinical Trials Register, and 15 other trial registers, as well as PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews. The characteristics of each publication were extracted. Regression analyses and Z tests were used to detect publication trends and their relative proportions. A total of 3635 academic publications and 3805 preprints were retrieved. Only 8.6% (n = 329) of the preprints were already published in indexed journals. The number of academic and preprint publications increased significantly over time (p<0.001). Case reports (6% academic vs 0.9% preprints; p<0.001) and letters (17.4% academic vs 0.5% preprints; p<0.001) accounted for a greater share of academic compared to preprint publications. Differently, randomized controlled trials (0.22% vs 0.63%; p<0.001) and systematic reviews (0.08% vs 5%) made up a greater share of the preprints. The relative proportion of clinical studies registered at Clinicaltrials.gov, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, and EU Clinical Trials Register was 57.9%, 49.5%, and 98.9%, respectively, most of which were still “recruiting”. PROSPERO listed 962 systematic review protocols. Preprints were slightly more prevalent than academic articles but both were increasing in number. The void left by the lack of primary studies was filled by an outpour of immediate opinions (i.e., letters to the editor) published in PubMed-indexed journals. Summarizing, preprints have gained traction as a publishing response to the demand for prompt access to empirical, albeit not peer-reviewed, findings during the present pandemic.

Introduction: Person-centredness is a philosophy for organising and delivering healthcare based on patients’ needs, preferences and experiences. Although widely endorsed, the concept suffers from a lack of detail and clarification, in turn accounting for ambiguous implementation and outcomes. While a conceptual framework based on a systematic review defines person/patient-centred care components (Scholl et al , 2014), it applies across healthcare contexts and may not be sensitive to the nuances of the rehabilitation of adults with physical impairments. Accordingly, this study aims to build a conceptual framework, based on existing literature, of what person-centredness means in the rehabilitation of adults with physical impairments in the clinical encounter and broader health service delivery. Methods and analysis: We will use a scoping review methodology. Searches on relevant databases will be conducted first, combining keywords for ‘rehabilitation’, ‘person-centered’ and associated terms (including patient preferences/experiences). Next, snowball searches (citation tracking, references lists) will be performed. Papers will be included if they fall within predefined selection categories (seen as most likely informative on elements pertaining to person-centred rehabilitation) and are written in English, regardless of design (conceptual, qualitative, quantitative). Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts, followed by screening of the full text to determine inclusion. Experts will then be consulted to identify relevant missing papers. This can include elements other than the peer-reviewed literature (eg, book chapters, policy/legal papers). Finally, information that helps to build the concept and practice of person-centred rehabilitation will be abstracted independently by two reviewers and analysed by inductive thematic analysis to build the conceptual framework. Dissemination: The resulting framework will aid clarification regarding person-centred rehabilitation, which in turn is expected to conceptually ground and inform its operationalisation (eg, measurement, implementation, improvement). Findings will be disseminated through local, national and international stakeholders, both at the clinical and service organisation levels.