Graduates of doctoral level programs are the stewards of their profession. Historically, doctoral dissertation research has been summarized as a service to improve research accessibility, analyze research trends, and suggest potential areas for future inquiry. The current review analyzes 99 doctoral dissertations from recognized rehabilitation counseling programs for the years 2005 through 2007. Departing from previous inquiries, the present study analyzed the methodology employed, the research model, and the type of statistical analyses implemented to answer the research questions posed by the dissertator. These additional points were included to reflect the growing emphasis in the field of rehabilitation counseling on evidence-based practice. A description of the methodology utilized to develop the reference citations, content summaries, observations, trends, and the annotated bibliography is provided. Potential implications for the practice of rehabilitation counseling, teaching, and future research are discussed.

No abstract

Background Injury can greatly impact patients’ long-term quality of life. Resilience refers to an individual’s ability to positively adapt after facing stress or trauma. The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between pre-injury resiliency scores and quality of life after injury. Methods 225 adults admitted with an injury severity score > 10 but without neurological injury were included. The SF-36 was administered at the time of admission and repeated at 1, 2, 4 and 12 months after injury. The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale was completed at admission and scores were categorized into high resiliency or not high resiliency. Group based trajectory modeling was used (GBTM) to identify distinct recovery trajectories for physical component scores (PCS) and mental component scores (MCS) of the SF-36. Multinomial logistic regression was used to determine whether baseline resiliency scores were predictive of PCS and MCS recovery trajectories. Results Age, race, gender, mechanism of injury, Charlson Comorbidity Index, Injury Severity Score, presence of hypotension on admission, and insurance status were not associated with High Resiliency. Compared to those who made <$10,000 per year, those who made more than $50,000 per year had higher odds of being in the High Resilience group (OR 10.92, 95% CI 2.58–46.32). Three PCS and 5 MCS trajectories were identified. There was no relationship between resilience and PCS trajectory. However, patients with high resiliency scores were 85% less likely to belong to trajectory 1, the trajectory that had the lowest mental health scores over the course of the study. Follow-up for the study was 93.8% for month 1, 82.7% for month 2, 69.4% for month 4 and 63.6% for month 12. Conclusion Patient resiliency predicts quality of life after injury in regards to mental health with over 25% of patients suffering poor mental health outcome trajectories. Efforts to teach resiliency skills to injured patients could improve long-term mental health for injured patients. Trauma centers are well positioned to carry out such interventions. Level of Evidence Level III