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.
Barry, C.A., Stevenson, F.A., Britten, N., Barber, N., & Bradley, C.P. (2001). Giving voice to the lifeworld. More humane, more effective medical care? A qualitative study of doctor-patient communication in general practice. Social Science & Medicine, 54, 487-505.
2.
Benner, P., & Tanner, C. (1987). Clinical judgment: How expert nurses use intuition . American Journal of Nursing, 87(1), 23-31.
3.
Cohn, E.S. (1989). Fieldwork education: Shaping a foundation for clinical reasoning. American Journal of Occupational Therapy , 43(4), 240-244.
4.
Coles, R. (1989). The call of stories. Boston : Houghton Mifflin Company.
5.
Creswell, J.W., Fetters, M.D., & Ivankova, N.V. (2004). Designing a mixed methods study in primary care. Annals of Family Medicine, 2(1), 7-12.
6.
Crow, L. (Ed.). (1996). Chapter 4: Including all of our lives: Renewing the social model of disability . In Exploring the divide. Leeds: Disability Press.
7.
Dreyfus, H. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the ear of the computer. New York: Free Press.
8.
Feffer, M., & Jahelka, M. (1968). Implications of the decentering concept for the structuring of projective content. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32(4), 434-441.
9.
Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
10.
Good, B.J., & DelVecchio Good, M.J. (2000). "Fiction" and "historicity" in doctors' stories: Social and narrative dimensions of learning medicine . In C. M. L. C. Garro (Ed.), Narrative and the cultural construction of illness and healing (pp. 50-69). Berkeley : University of California Press
11.
Good, M., & Good, B. (1989). Disabling practitioners: Hazards of learning to be a doctor in American medical education. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59(2), 303-309.
12.
Granger, C.V., Hamilton, B.B., Keith, R.A., Zielezny, M., & Sherwin, F. (1986). Advances in functional assessment for medical rehabilitation. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation, 1, 59-74.
13.
Hamilton, B.B., Granger, C.V., Sherwin, F.S., Zielezny, M., & Tashman, J.S. (1987). A uniform national data system for medical rehabilitation . In M. J. Fuhrer (Ed.), Rehabilitation outcomes: Analysis and measurement. Baltimore , MD: Paul H. Brookes.
14.
Jensen, G.M., Shepard, K.F., & Hack, L.M. (1990). The novice versus the experienced clinician: Insights into the work of the physical therapist. Physical Therapy , 70(5), 314-323.
15.
Klienman, A. (1980). Patients and healers in the context of culture . Los Angeles: University of California Press.
16.
Kurz, A.E., Saint-Louis, N., Burke, J.P., & Stineman, M.G. (2008). Exploring the personal reality of disability and recovery: A tool for empowering the rehabilitation process. Qualitative Health Research, 18(1), 90-105.
17.
Lutz, B.J., & Bowers, B.J. (2005). Disability in everyday life. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1037-1054.
18.
Mattingly, C., & Fleming, M.H. (1994). Clinical reasoning forms of inquiry in a therapeutic practice. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis .
19.
National Institutes of Health Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research. (1999). Qualitative methods in health research: Opportunities and considerations in application and review, organized by the NIH culture and qualitative research interest group. Retrieved October 18, 2004, from http://obssr.od.nih.gov/Documents/Publications/Qualitative.PDF
20.
Neistadt, M.E., & Seymour, S.G. (1995). Treatment activity preferences of occupational therapists in adult physical dysfunction settings. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 49(5), 437-443.
21.
Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
22.
Qualis Research Associates. (2001). Ethnograph Version 5.08 [computer software]. Available from www.QualisResearch.com
23.
Rist, P., Freas, D., Maislin, G., & Stineman, G. (2008). An analysis of recovery preference exploration: Rehabilitation professionals' beliefs about recovery. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 89, 1600-1606.
24.
Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
25.
Sox, H.C., Blatt, M.A., Higgins, M.C., & Marton, K.I. (1988). Medical decision making. Boston : Butterworth.
26.
Stewart, D., & Mickunas, A. (1990). Exploring phenomenology: A guide to the field and its literature. Athens: Ohio University Press.
27.
Stineman, M.G. (2000). Medical humanism and empowerment in medicine. Disability Studies Quarterly, 20(1), 11-16.
28.
Stineman, M.G. (2001). A model of health environmental integration. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 8(2), 34-45.
29.
Stineman, M.G., Maislin, G., Nosek, M., Fiedler, R., & Granger, C.V. (1998). Comparing consumer and clinician values for alternative functional states: Application of a new feature trade-off consensus building tool. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 79, 1522-1529.
30.
Stineman, M.G., Ross, R.N., Maislin, G., & Gray, D. (2007). Population-based study of home accessibility features and the activities of daily living: Clinical and policy implications. Disability & Rehabilitation, 29, 1165-1175.
31.
Stineman, M.G., Ross, R.N., Maislin, G., Marchuk, N., Hijirida, S., & Weiner, M. (2007). Recovery preference exploration. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 86(4), 272-281.
32.
Van de Ven, A.H., & Delbecq, A.L. (1972). The nominal group as a research instrument for exploratory health studies. American Journal of Public Health , 62(3), 337-342.
33.
Whitman, N. (1993). A review of constructivism: Understanding and using a relatively new theory. Family Medicine, 25(8), 517-521.
34.
World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. Geneva: Author.
