Сonceptual model and system of performance indicators for medical rehabilitation in the Russian Federation

Background. Although regulatory requirements for assessing the efficiency of medical rehabilitation have been established in the Russian Federation, a unified, conceptually structured system of indicators consistent with international frameworks still needs to be developed. Due to the disparity of indicators across departments, regional data become difficult to compare and further integrate into international monitoring.

Objective: To develop a conceptual model and matrix of basic indicators that evaluate the performance of the medical rehabilitation system in the Russian Federation by integrating the Donabedian model, the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF), and framework documents from the World Health Organization (WHO).

Material and methods. A targeted documentary and literature review was conducted that examined the Russian regulations (GOST R 58258-2018 and GOST R 58259-2018); the 2024 methodological recommendations of the Federal Bureau of Medical and Social Expertise; the 2019 WHO documents “Rehabilitation in Health Systems: Guide for Action” and “Rehabilitation Indicator Menu” (RIM). Fifteen key publications on conceptual frameworks for assessing the quality of rehabilitation were also examined. Content analysis and coding were conducted according to Donabedian model, ICF domains, and system level.

Results. While the Russian healthcare regulatory framework has structural and effective elements, it lacks process indicators and planned monitoring of rehabilitation coverage. Three critical gaps were identified in the comparison with RIM, including the absence of patient-centered outcomes as a mandatory component, economic indicators, and national-level coverage monitoring. A conceptual, three-layer model was developed based on the Donabedian model, the ICF domain, and the system level. A matrix of 20 basic indicators was proposed, involving 5 structural, 7 process, and 8 outcome indicators.

Сonclusion. The proposed conceptual model creates a systematic basis for monitoring the efficiency of medical rehabilitation in the Russian Federation and provides conditions for harmonizing national data with international WHO standards.

1. World Health Organization. Global estimates of the need for rehabilitation. 2021 Available at: https://www.who.int/teams/ noncommunicable-diseases/sensory-functions-disability-andrehabilitation/global-estimates-of-the-need-for-rehabilitation (accessed 19.03.2026).

2. World Health Organization. Rehabilitation 2030: a call for action: 6–7 February 2017, Executive Boardroom, WHO Headquarters, meeting report. Available at: https://iris.who.int/ handle/10665/339910 (accessed 19.03.2026).

3. Gimigliano F., Negrini S. The World Health Organization “Rehabilitation 2030: a call for action”. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2017; 53 (2): 155–68. https://doi.org/10.23736/S1973-9087.17.04746-3.

4. Shcherbakova E.M. Demographic barometer. Disabled People in Russia, 2023. Demoskop Weekly. 2023; 989–991. Available at: https://publications.hse.ru/articles/841076429 (in Russ.) (accessed 19.03.2026).

5. Donabedian A. The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA. 1988; 260 (12): 1743–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/ jama.1988.03410120089032.

6. World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health. 2001. Available at: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/ handle/10665/42407/9241545429-eng.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed 19.03.2026).

7. World Health Organization. Rehabilitation in health systems: guide for action: information sheet. Available at: https://iris.who.int/ handle/10665/332444 (accessed 19.03.2026).

8. World Health Organization. Rehabilitation indicator menu: a tool accompanying the Framework for Rehabilitation Monitoring and Evaluation (FRAME). 2[nd] ed. 2023. Available at: https://www.who. int/publications/i/item/9789240076440 (accessed 19.03.2026).

9. Grant M.J., Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf Libr J. 2009; 26 (2): 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

10. Hoenig H., Lee J., Stineman M. Conceptual overview of frameworks for measuring quality in rehabilitation. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2010; 17 (4): 239–51. https://doi.org/10.1310/tsr1704-239.

11. Jesus T.S., Hoenig H. Postacute rehabilitation quality of care: toward a shared conceptual framework. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015; 96 (5): 960–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2014.12.007.

12. Cieza A., Fayed N., Bickenbach J., et al. Refinements of the ICF linking rules to strengthen their potential for establishing comparability of health information. Disabil Rehabil. 2019; 41 (5): 574–83. https://doi. org/10.3109/09638288.2016.1145258.

13. Stucki G., Cieza A., Melvin J. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF): a unifying model for the conceptual description of the rehabilitation strategy. J Rehabil Med. 2007; 39 (4): 279–85. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0041.

14. Simchenko N.A., Yanovsky T.S., Mizin V.I., Yanovskaya A.A. Review of methodological approaches for the assessment of social and medical rehabilitation in the cardio-respiratory system diseases at the post-COVID period. Problems of Balneology, Physiotherapy and Exercise Therapy. 2023; 100 (1): 54–62 (in Russ.). https://doi. org/10.17116/kurort202310001154.

15. Lutsky L., Treger Yu. Quality assessment in medical rehabilitation. Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Medical Rehabilitation. 2020; 2 (1): 39–48 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.36425/rehab19266.

16. Semenov V.A., Gromov A.N., Gornyy B.E. Objective methods for monitoring the effectiveness of rehabilitation in ischemic stroke patients. Reabilitologia / Journal of Medical Rehabilitation. 2025; 3 (3): 174–84. https://doi.org/10.17749/2949-5873/rehabil.2025.51.

17. Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership. Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme (SSNAP). Available at: https://www.hqip. org.uk/our-programmes/sentinel-stroke-national-audit-programmessnap (accessed 19.03.2026).

18. University of Wollongong. AROC Reports and Benchmarks Archive. Available at: https://www.uow.edu.au/australasian-health-outcomesconsortium/aroc/reports-archive (accessed 19.03.2026).

19. Wade D.T. What is rehabilitation? An empirical investigation leading to an evidence-based description. Clin Rehabil. 2020; 34 (5): 571–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215520905112.