Abstract
Background: Various terms are used interchangeably to describe health care services that focus on supporting functional recovery after experiencing a health event. Previous literature has identified these terms as the 4R’s: rehabilitation, reablement, reactivation, and restorative health care services. However, there lacks a clear understanding and delineation between these concepts, making it difficult to measure the efficacy of each program type. This study protocol proposes a bibliometric and content analysis to map the current scientific literature within each 4R term. Methods: Using a predefined search strategy, we will identify and retrieve publications from databases Scopus and PubMed between the years 1924-2024 for each 4R concept. Two independent researchers will screen articles for eligibility. Bibliometric analyses will be conducted using RStudio software and Bibliometrix and Biblioshiny extensions. Bibliometric analyses will each include a performance analysis, citation analysis, co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and co-word analysis to identify key research connections and emerging trends temporally and geographically. Bibliometric indicators of interest will include total publications, yearly output, author names, and countries, among others. In addition, we will also perform a qualitative content analysis to provide a more in-depth examination of the characteristics of each program type. Implications: Our line of inquiry intends to clarify the similarities and differences among the 4R terms to conceptualize each definition. Findings from this study have several implications for research, practice, and policy within the 4Rs, and can overall help to delineate these concepts and facilitate decision-making and resource allocation for these health care services. This study will reveal citation patterns, research connections, and foundation themes that can inform the suitability of practice transfer and resource allocation within and between rehabilitation fields. A methodological understanding of the 4R service types can inform decision-making on the patient, healthcare professional, and system level for each service.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.
