The description of case management in research and clinical practice is highly variable which impedes quality analysis, policy and planning. Case management makes a unique contribution towards the integration of health care, social services and other sector services and supports for people with complex health conditions. There are multiple components and variations of case management depending on the context and client population. This paper aims to scope and map case management in the literature to identify how case management is described in the literature for key complex health conditions (e.g., brain injury, diabetes, mental health, spinal cord injury). Following literature searches in multiple databases, grey literature and exclusion by health condition, community-based and adequate description, there were 661 potential papers for data extraction. Data from 79 papers (1988–2013) were analysed to the point of saturation (no new information) and mapped to the model, components and activities. The results included 22 definitions, five models, with 69 activities or tasks of case managers mapped to 17 key components (interventions). The results confirm the significant terminological variance in case management which produces role confusion, ambiguity and hinders comparability across different health conditions and contexts. There is an urgent need for an internationally agreed taxonomy for the coordination, navigation and management of care.

The BICM-T provides a knowledge map with the definitions and relationships between the core actions (interventions domain). Use of the taxonomy as a common language will benefit practice, quality analysis, evaluation, policy, planning and resource allocation.

Multiple regression and correlation (MRC) methods form a flexible family of statistical techniques that can address a wide variety of different types of research questions of interest to rehabilitation professionals. In this article, we review basic concepts and terms, with an emphasis on interpretation of findings relevant to research questions of interest to rehabilitation researchers. To assist readers in using MRC effectively, we review common analytical models (e.g., mediator and moderator tests) and recent thinking on topics such as interpretation of effect sizes and power analysis.

P ost-injury return to work (RTW) is an important rehabilitation outcome regardless of injury type. With Spinal Cord Injury (SCI), the odds of successful RTW are lower than for the general population of work-injured. Australians living with a SCI have a higher RTW rate than many other developed countries, including the United States. Important influences on relatively higher post-injury RTW rates in the Australian context include its universal disability care policy, Australia's suite of no-fault accident insurance systems that allow for multi-faceted rehabilitation services to be provided to eligible individuals in addition to appropriate rewards for rehabilitation service providers. A combination of these systemic factors is important when delivering comprehensive rehabilitation services to those with catastrophic injuries, such as SCI. The empirical evidence on drivers of successful RTW post SCI is, however, limited in comparison to the evidence on interventions for enhanced coping following SCI. Future studies could consider the relative merits of specific RTW interventions with SCI contrasting policy and capitation systems as well as utilising study designs that take into account pre-morbid work participation and secondary health conditions.

Purpose: This paper describes a three-year research project leading to the development of the CBR Monitoring Manual and Menu (MM&M). The MM&M is a practical toolkit that meets the needs of CBR managers and stakeholders, and is consistent with the philosophy of CBR and community-based disability-inclusive development. It is designed to produce meaningful and locally useful information and data, based on international data standards where possible, to enable aggregation at regional, national and international levels. Methods: Five complementary workstreams of research were carried out from 2011 to 2014: 1) literature review and analysis; 2) participatory action research with CBR stakeholders; 3) analysis and refinement of validity of concepts and structures; 4) consultation and review; and 5) synthesis of results. This article documents the method and key results of each of the five workstreams, and the lessons learned along the way. Results: The MM&M is now freely available on-line at http://sydney.edu.au/health-sciences/cdrp/projects/cbr-monitoring.shtml. Collaboration among members of the development team continues, chiefly via an on-line group to which new members have been welcomed. Conclusion and Implications: At the time of writing, the MM&M is the only international monitoring product, known to the authors, that consciously sets out to reflect both a ‘bottom- up’ and ‘top-down’ perspective of monitoring information and data. To achieve this for a complex programme such as CBR, and to align with its principles, it was essential to use a multi-component and multi-stage strategy for tool development, involving a diverse multidisciplinary team includingcollaboration with CBR stakeholders