The patient's active participation in treatment and rehabilitation represents a cultural change in clinical practice as well as a major change in physiotherapist and patient roles. This article presents findings from a study aimed at gaining a better understanding of how physiotherapists in actual practice understand their interactions with patients during the treatment process. This article reports on the findings from focus-group interviews with physiotherapists working in three different settings. Analyses of the interview data identified three modes of physiotherapy practice. In one, physiotherapists educate their patients to be self-managing in conducting exercise programs based on sound evidence. Educational films available on the Internet are included in these efforts to teach patients. In another, physiotherapists emphasize the importance of a close relationship to the patient. A good personal chemistry is believed to improve the treatment process. And finally, what physiotherapists learn about the living conditions and the biographies of their patients was shown to be very important. Understanding the importance of the life-world and taking this into consideration in the treatment process were factors considered to be central to good practice. The article concludes with a discussion linking these findings to those of other studies identifying those factors contributing to our knowledge of what is involved in biopsychosocial practice in physiotherapy.

No abstract

The changing social position of people with disabilities can be studied through the changing importance of three discourses: (1) normality/deviance, (2) equality/ inequality, and (3) us/them. The normality/deviance discourse represents questions about rehabilitation and integration. The equality/inequality discourse represents the struggle for economic welfare and equal rights. Finally, the us/them discourse represents a valuing of disability as a basis for identity formation and as a question of ethnicity. The situation for deaf people will serve as an empirical case for outlining the theory of the three discourses. The discussion points out that the us/the outsiders discourse is underdeveloped in disability theory, and possible strategies for development are outlined The Emergence of an Us and Them Discourse in Disability Theory

No abstract

Purpose: EU policy documents and health scholars point out that in order to understand the complexity of modern health systems, as well as to devise appropriate policy responses, considering micro, meso and macro levels is indispensable. This article aims to develop an analytical framework for how rehabilitation as an interdisciplinary field can be framed in such a three level framework. Methods: This is a conceptual paper based on recent contributions to the development of a theory of rehabilitation. The paper applies sociological theory to build an analytical framework for a holistic understanding of rehabilitation. Results: Three groups of agents in the field of rehabilitation are identified: individuals with disabilities, professionals, and governmental authorities. The paper systematizes how these agents are positioned and act at micro, meso and macro levels. In the intersection between the three levels of society and the three groups of actors, a nine-cell table emerges. In the cells of the

The purpose of this study was to evaluate support groups among divorced people. Eleven females and seven males participated in three groups. The participants were interviewed, and some themes were considered. Among these were what it had meant for the subjects to participate in a group, what were the most important functions of the group, and if the participants had benefited psychologically from participating in the group. Four therapeutic factors seemed to be of particular importance. First, meeting people with the same thoughts and feelings, and increased insight of themselves and others. Further, feeling accepted and supported, and expressing difficult feelings were important factors. Group participation increased the subjects' well-being, for example, they felt more normal and less depressed. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail address: getinfo@haworthpressinc.com ]

How disabled people gather and share common experiences is empirically not a well-addressed issue in discussions about disability identity and unity. Among Deaf people, there is a long tradition for meeting in transnational contexts. Based on an intensive multi sited fieldwork at several transnational events, the article presents some examples of how Deaf people negotiate social positions as Deaf that value difference. They gather as a community of communicators, marked by an identification founded on sharing one another's languages, common histories and through strong similarities in terms of culture and feeling oppressed by the hearing society. The identity negotiations taking place at these meeting places prove relevant to disabled people in the way they explore pressing issues such as accessibility and conflicting perspectives on what a disability shall mean in the lives of people affected by impairment. Politics of disabilitySince the 1960s, inclusion and integration policies have gained prominence in the disability field.According to this position, disabled people should be educated in ordinary schools and participate alongside any other citizen in all of society's institutions. The goal of disability politics should be to make disability as irrelevant as possible, with an implicit degradation of the disabled body as less-than-normal.Opposed to this perspective we find a position whereby disability is defined as a difference alongside any other bodily difference. Based on this notion of a non-pathological body, disabled people will gain from building coalitions based on shared positions and experiences and come together as an interest group.According to this perspective, the nurturing of a disability identity is important. The goal of assimilating into normality, inherent in discussions on integration and inclusion, is challenged. A space for difference, for alternative normalities, is opened (Stiker 1999;Swain, French and Cameron 2003;Shakespeare 2006; Siebers 2008). However, how disabled people gather together and form common experiences is empirically not a well-addressed issue in discussions about disability identity and unity. To understand

No abstract