Reconceptualizing the value of ‘active’ and ‘passive’ treatment classification in rehabilitation: a critical appraisal and person-centered treatment planning framework

Key Points

1. Categorizing interventions as “active” or “passive” creates a false dichotomy that is not supported by evidence and is not helpful for clinical reasoning.

All key points available for members only

Start free trial

Or log in here

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE

Interventions in rehabilitation are often categorized as “active” or “passive”, with “active” interventions commonly favored for their positive impact on self-efficacy, self-management, and overall better outcomes (1,2). In this critical appraisal of practice, it is proposed that “active” versus “passive” categorization is unhelpful as these terms are not well-defined and do not acknowledge the continuum of patient and clinician participation in each intervention.

The authors aimed to present an argument for eliminating the binary categorization of interventions as active or passive and to promote clinical interactions that consider patient empowerment and person-centered care.

“Active” interventions are commonly favored for their positive impact on self-efficacy, self-management, and overall better outcomes.

Avoiding passive vs active labels can improve collaboration and support better long-term outcomes between patient and clinician.

METHODS

The literature regarding the definition of “active” vs “passive” interventions was discussed, and the authors make an argument that since there is no agreed-upon definition of either active or passive intervention, a continuum from passive to active was proposed for

Start free trial

to unlock full access to this review and 1301 more

Or log in here