Developmental neurorehabilitation.

In 2001 the editors and format of Pediatric Rehabilitation were changed, but the original title retained. Our revised aims were to ‘. . . encompass current practice and new developments in research and service delivery, together with historical, theoretical, ethical and legal perspectives, covering a wide range of animal and human fields . . . (and) stimulate greater interdisciplinary understanding and collaboration in theory, research and practice, leading to the design and implementation of effective interventions for all childhood disorders . . .’ (Editorial, 2001, 4(1), 1–3). We are pleased to report that there has since been a marked improvement in the quality and quantity of papers submitted, an increase in page numbers and a refinement of the editorial board. A wide range of subjects has been covered, from therapeutic gardening (Soderback, 2004, 7(4), 245–260) to animal models of non-accidental injury (Bonnier, 2004, 7(3), 165–171). However, there has been relatively little advance in coverage of basic science or translational research, despite the fundamental importance of these areas to our aims. Thus, ‘There is enormous potential from this interaction of basic science and clinical practice . . . (but) . . .what lags seriously behind is any attempt by clinicians and educators to embrace that potential and move forward . . .’ (Editorial, 2003, 6(1), 1–2). Another gap that needs attention is the lack of a truly developmental perspective; that is, the longitudinal consequences of neurological insult during childhood (Bernstein, 2000,) and the impact of such injury in later life. Initially, by adopting the term ‘Pediatric’, we had hoped to ‘. . . embrace all ages and stages of development from foetus to mature organism, to include the adult survivors of childhood disorders . . .’. However, the subject matter of submissions has led to a predominant focus in childhood neurological disorders and treatment. Given the breadth of the association with the WFNR, the wide scope of developmental neuroscience and its relation/importance to pediatrics and our own current marketing information, we have reviewed the aims and focus of the journal. We are well aware that the incidence of neurological injury in childhood remains high and is the primary cause of impairment, disability and handicap in later life. Thus, the need for enhancing recovery and rehabilitation in children with brain injury remains high and requires more research and study in basic as well as clinical science. It is our belief that ‘. . . the process of rehabilitation, of improving recovery and outcome, should be dynamic and at the frontiers of science and practice . . .’. We think that models of rehabilitation (e.g. von Steinbuchel and Poppel, Behav Brain Res. 1993 Jul 30: 56(1): 1–10.), and the ‘. . . experimental animal literature offer(s) considerable help in rehabilitation . . . (providing) the theoretical and experimental evidence to guide and support clinical intervention . . .’. The original goals of Pediatric Rehabilitation were to facilitate advancement in the field by ‘. . . creating an international vehicle for improving scientific awareness, communication and knowledge about recovery, development and outcome in childhood disorders . . .’. Our association with the World Federation for Neurorehabilitation (WFNR) has ensured greater coverage for the journal, expanded our perspective and highlighted the need for a more comprehensive approach to meet our mission and goals. To achieve the aims of the journal and best serve clinicians and researchers, we propose that it should include a more equal representation of basic and translational research on development, recovery and rehabilitation. Knowledge must continually informs our experience and guides our practice, but we must actively pursue the interchange of ideas, research and problems connecting basic and clinical scientists. From 2007, the journal will be renamed ‘Developmental Neurorehabilitation’ to encompass factors of lifespan, neurological recovery and intervention at experimental, clinical and theoretical levels. David Johnson and Donald Stein become co-editors.