Initiatives in rehabilitation research.

Federal funding of rehabilitation research depends on how much that research is valued, both within the physical therapy profession and among the external groups and individuals who have a stake in the research outcomes. To help advance rehabilitation research, the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) forges partnerships, coalitions, and collaborations for advocacy, awareness, and legislative action; promotes the appointment of physical therapists to federal panels; and fosters infrastructure and research capacity building. To further cement the physical therapy profession's relationship with policymakers, APTA also is identifying health policy questions.

The Disability and Rehabilitation Research Coalition

In the past, conversations between APTA staff and federal or private funding agencies ended when a program officer stated that "we don't deal with a single profession or discipline." To resolve this concern, APTA has begun a concerted effort to form partnerships with other rehabilitation science stakeholders. APTA recently had the opportunity to join a coalition that was created to advocate for increased funding for rehabilitation research.

This coalition grew out of an April 2005 summit on enhancing rehabilitation research capacity sponsored by the Foundation for Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Several physical therapist scientists represented the profession at the summit, including Pamela W Duncan, PT, PhD, FAPTA, Stephen M Haley, PT, PhD, Alan M Jette, PT, PhD, FAPTA, Carol Oatis, PT, PhD, R Scott Ward, PT, PhD, and Carolee Winstein, PT, PhD, FAPTA. One of the recommendations from the summit was to call for a "rehabilitation coalition" to speak with a common voice in research funding decisions.

The first, somewhat informal, "brainstorming" meeting of a steering committee of the coalition was held in Washington, DC, on September 19, 2005. Two APTA staff members participated. The meeting was beneficial because it allowed a number of professions to develop collegial relationships over the future of rehabilitation research. These relationships will give the rehabilitation professions a more unified and potentially more powerful voice when advocating for research funding.

Initially, the role of the coalition was not explicitly defined; therefore, meeting participants had flexibility in generating topics for discussion. At the conclusion of the meeting, 5 goals and objectives for the coalition were adopted. These were:

* To present a unified voice for rehabilitation research in both the legislative and appropriations processes.

* To increase funding for disability and rehabilitation research, training, and capacity building. This initiative would not be restricted to the federal level; it would include private foundations or corporate sponsors as well.

* To help shape policy as it affects the administration of rehabilitation research. This includes activities such as efforts to advocate that the relevant public and private agencies set a high priority for funding rehabilitation and disability research.

* To promote public awareness of the need for rehabilitation research.

* To promote the relevance of disability and rehabilitation research among all stakeholders.

One of the most important outcomes of the meeting was the adoption of a name for the coalition, the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Coalition. This name will provide 2 tangible benefits: first, it broadens the group because the name implies that researchers, providers, and consumers of rehabilitation services can join the coalition; second, it narrows the focus of the coalition to research. This focus may avoid peripheral, contentious clinical issues from impeding the success of the coalition.

The meeting was a very positive "first step" in formulating a plan for advocacy for research. Because the coalition represents a number of disparate groups, a number of issues still must be resolved. The initial meeting could not reach consensus on whether the coalition should be governed by a board of directors, an executive committee, or a steering committee. After discussing the feasibility of selecting a core staff or using an advocacy firm, staffing decisions also were deferred. In addition, the coalition needs to develop criteria for membership because a number of professions and consumer groups can be categorized under the disability or rehabilitation heading. The inclusion or exclusion of potential corporate members also remained to be decided.

Finally, fiscal concerns overrode all these other issues. The costs of creating this coalition are not known. Those in attendance at the meeting did not have the authority to make monetary commitments. External funding was discussed, but the time entailed in applying for a grant and awaiting the decision made this option less than optimal. Ultimately, no consensus was reached on these fiscal matters.

Despite the appearance of some obstacles to the progress of the coalition, the meeting must be described as a success. At the time of adjournment, all participants believed that the coalition would ultimately achieve its goals. A number of daunting tasks and decisions remain; however, the collegial character of the meeting and the obvious commitment of participants were gratifying and justify an expectation of success for the coalition.

Consult this column in future issues of Physical Therapy for reports on progress toward establishment of the coalition.