Back to all available

Post-discharge outcome measurement tools in occupational therapy for people with acquired brain injury in Japan: a scoping review

cognitive-disorders
neurology
healthcare-services
rehabilitation

Abstract

Purpose: Outcome measurement is central to rehabilitation practice, yet tools used in occupational therapy after Acquired Brain Injury (ABI) may not fully capture the complex needs of individuals with ABI living in the community. This review synthesised outcome measures employed in post-discharge occupational therapy in Japan and identified the core concepts they assess.

Method: A comprehensive search of nine databases was conducted without restrictions on publication year or language. Search strategies were developed using relevant keywords, and four independent reviewers applied predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure methodological rigour.

Results: Of 1,188 abstracts screened, 42 studies met the eligibility criteria, yielding 32 distinct outcome measures. The Functional Independence Measure (FIM) was most frequently applied, followed by the Frenchay Activities Index (FAI), Life Space Assessment (LSA), and Barthel Index (BI). Categorisation of the 11 most frequent tools using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) revealed a strong emphasis on mobility and self-care.

Discussion: These findings reflect both the influence of Japan’s ageing population on assessment priorities, and a critical gap, wherein participation, cognition, and broader psychosocial outcomes remain underrepresented. Broader assessment strategies are needed to address the diverse realities of community life after ABI.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].