Dear Clinical Rehabilitation colleagues, I have just finished Malcolm Gladwell's excellent book 'Outliers' (2011) for probably the 4th time and would like to recommend such a tremendous and inspiring book to any clinical therapist or anyone working in the neuroplasticity field. I have read all Malcolm's books and in fact his most recent'Talking To Strangers' was also excellent because of the important issues it raises (I can assure everyone I am not related to Malcolm or have no vested interest in promoting his work but it introduces some really interesting psychological concepts, although as far as I'm aware Malcolm never mentions how these could possibly be applied in the clinical setting). I am interesting in getting a discussion started because I believe that there needs to be a fundamental shift in our approach to rehabilitating patients (especially neurology) towards achieving greater successful outcomes. I believe that the same psychological principles mentioned in outliers can apply to clinical rehabilitation and I would be very interested to develop this over the coming years. I have already started writing focus and editorials for journals based on his work.
As a Physical Therapist (Physiotherapist in Ireland) and now researcher who is very interested in developing and improving clinical rehabilitation post stroke etc, I would like to consider outliers in this context and would be interested if you agree. I firmly believe that a new approach to rehabilitation is required and the current 'passiveness' that takes place needs to be replaced with 'psychological education' to equip patients with the confidence for success. For me all physiotherapy is 70% psychology (partly placebo effect) and 30% physical interventions.
I believe that a lot of the psychological approaches mentioned in Malcolm's book could be applied to clinical rehabilitation and would indeed improve current outcomes. Regarding 'Outliers' can I make some observations please;
Introduction: I believe that patients rehabilitating from home rather than in a rehabilitation setting can benefit from a similar 'Rosetto Effect'.
Chapter 1 & 2: We can apply the principle of the 10,000 hour rule to rehabilitation. Success in rehabilitation is also the result of 'Cumulative Advantage' (availability of home-based rehab equipment, access to professional supervision, means of receiving real-time feedback) but in order to achieve this we need to find a way to motivate patients to do the '10,000 hours of meaningful rehabilitation'. After 30 years of experience I truly believe that almost all patients can get a successful recovery if they are willing to work really really really hard.
Chapters 3 & 4: In a similar fashion to practical intelligence that is gained from rich parents, stroke patients need to take control of their therapy and if they start to steer their therapy then they will create a neuroplasticity in their brains that will result in improved success. I believe there is an element of stereotyping that exists in elderly patients who accept 'their lot' and don't have the confidence to fight hard enough to make a full recovery.
Chapters 5 & 6: Again, emphasises the concept that hard work or 'grit' will make us successful. Same principle can be applied to rehabilitation. The ability of a patient to question their therapist/consultant and to guide treatment is probably a result of their cultural background and again this type of disadvantage can lead to poor results.
Chapters 7 & 8: The concept of Power Distance Index again fits with patient potential in rehabilitation. Medicine is general is a passive process, where the patient waits to be told what to take/do. I believe that patients need to be educated to improve confidence and realise that rehab techniques will be more successful if initiated by the patient themselves. Lets give them a menu of therapies and let the patient decide which is best suited to them. We need more of a personal approach. Again, hard work and effort important for good results.
Chapters 9 & 10: Could a new form of KIPP School be created for rehabilitation excellence where the emphasis is 70% education/psychological approach and 30% physical interventions. I believe the reverse is happening unsuccessfully at present.
Its recommended to stand on the shoulders of giants and none are greater than Malcolm Gladwells. I would be very interested in your opinion to these comments (whether you agree or disagree) and this book has inspired me so much, brought great enjoyment to my life and has been inspirational to hundreds of people like me. I think a change is needed!!
Thanks Ken
Hello Kenneth Monaghan This is very interesting. I have read Outliers but did not consider this perspective. I will go back and read the book again in light of the comments you have made. However, I can see that you have made some interesting comments.
Rosetto's effect is probably more focused on the prevention part rather than treatment. But I do feel that a good community and social support network can make a lot of positive difference in a patient undergoing rehabilitation.
Also, psychological interventions are absolutely necessary and often underutilized in rehabilitation. However, they do not supersede the physical component in my opinion, and a 70: 30 ratio might not work. It should be somewhat like 60:40 or 50:50
Dear Kenneth Monaghan , Very interesting topic you brought into light. I would love to read the book soon and will come back to you comment again.
Md. Israt Hasan thank you for getting in touch and when you read the book certainly come back to this discussion because I believe that there are a number of areas in which we should discuss how to improve rehabilitation for clinical patients. For example regarding the issue of where rehabilitation should take place;
It could be argued that the more rehabilitation takes place in the family home the better the potential for the patient for the following reasons;
Working Environment: Apparently, the environment we are in determines how we live our lives, and the influence of family, friends and neighbours needs to be appreciated and incorporated more into rehabilitation. Gladwell (2011) introduces the ‘Rosetto Effect’ (apparent cardiovascular prevention from living in a close community environment), and rehabilitation patients may also benefit from the cumulative effects of rehabilitating at home. As brain changes are context dependent (Robertson 2012), home advantage increases testosterone release due to associated cues, and the physical and social world we inhabit shape our brain. Home creates a set of smells, sounds, cues that reduce stress. Any safety signal (being at home) acts as an antidote to some of the damaging effects from the stress of being disabled and potentially losing control of independence. Furthermore, it also releases brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) a brain fertiliser that helps foster new connections in brain. Thus being at home actually inhibits stress and its toxic consequences. If home is associated with a signal that we will not be subject to stress i.e. warning signals, then does it not make sense to carry out more rehabilitation at home.
What is your opinion of this? Thanks Ken
- Badges
- Science topic