This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 1049732308327853v1 19/1/17    most recent References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Stineman, M. G. Articles by Burke, J. P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Stineman, M. G. Articles by Burke, J. P. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Disabilities Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Through the Clinician's Lens: Objective and Subjective Views of Disability

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

Pamela M. Rist

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

Janice P. Burke

Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

In this study, we used recovery preference exploration (RPE) to explore how clinicians practicing in an inpatient medical rehabilitation facility assign meaning to alternative paths of recovery from profound disability. Through the RPE procedure, 33 clinicians ranked preference for recovery from 18 imagined activity limitations and provided narrative explanations for their choices. We used mixed methods, including grounded theory, to identify themes that expressed their recovery choices. Sixteen themes emerged that were classified into separate but linked procedural and conditional reasoning taxonomies. These theme taxonomies represented logical scientific inquiries vs. more phenomenological inquiries into lifeworld meanings, respectively. Just over two thirds (66.8%) of all quotes specified themes from the conditional reasoning taxonomy. The RPE procedure appeared to simulate a lived experience of imagined disability for the clinicians through which contexts and meanings began to emerge independent of the clinicians' scientific attitudes.

Key Words: disabled persons • grounded theory • health care professionals • moral perspectives • health concepts • imagination • mixed methods • phenomenology • recovery • rehabilitation • values

This version was published on January 1, 2009

Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 19, No. 1, 17-29 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/1049732308327853


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?