Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 249

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A conceptual review of engagement in healthcare and rehabilitation

Open access
Bright, Felicity A. S., Kayes, Nicola M., Worrall, Linda, McPherson, Kathryn M.·2015·Disability and Rehabilitation

Abstract

PURPOSE: This review sought to develop an understanding of how engagement in healthcare has been conceptualized in the literature in order to inform future clinical practice and research in rehabilitation. A secondary purpose was to propose a working definition of engagement. METHODS: EBSCO and SCOPUS databases and reference lists were searched for papers that sought to understand or describe the concept of engagement in healthcare or reported the development of a measure of engagement in healthcare. We drew on a Pragmatic Utility approach to concept analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-one articles met the criteria and were included in the review. Engagement appeared to be conceptualized in two inter-connected ways: as a gradual process of connection between the healthcare provider and patient; and as an internal state, which may be accompanied by observable behaviors indicating engagement. CONCLUSION: Our review suggests engagement to be multi-dimensional, comprising both a co-constructed process and a patient state. While engagement is commonly considered a patient behavior, the review findings suggest clinicians play a pivotal role in patient engagement. This review challenges some understandings of engagement and how we work with patients and highlights conceptual limitations of some measures. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: Engagement appears to be a multi-dimensional construct, comprising both a co-constructed process and a patient state. Conceptualizing engagement as a co-constructed process may help clinicians be more aware of their role in patient engagement and sees the responsibility to engage shift from the patient to the therapeutic dyad. Challenges in engagement may be a prompt to reflect on how the clinician is working and whether different ways of working may be beneficial.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3109/09638288.2014.933899

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 249

Metadata

Authors
Bright, F. A. S., Kayes, N. M., Worrall, L., & McPherson, K. M.
Venue
Disability and Rehabilitation
Published
2014-06-27
Volume
37
Issue
8
Pages
643-654
ISSN
  • 0963-8288 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-5165
OpenAlex
W1994640841
Cited by
249
References
4
FWCI
22.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A conceptual review of engagement in healthcare and rehabilitation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3109/09638288.2014.933899
The paper
Bright, F. A. S., Kayes, N. M., Worrall, L., & McPherson, K. M. (2015). A conceptual review of engagement in healthcare and rehabilitation. Disability and Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2014.933899

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.