Rehabilitation spans physical, speech, occupational and other services that help people recover or adapt after illness, injury or disability. The statistics below distinguish estimated need from actual service use and separate survey measures from clinical trial outcomes.
Key Rehabilitation Statistics
The following figures summarize the scale, reach and measured outcomes of rehabilitation:
- In 2019, an estimated 2.41 billion people worldwide had a health condition that could benefit from rehabilitation.
- Between 1990 and 2019, estimated global rehabilitation need increased 63%, from 1.48 billion to 2.41 billion people.
- In 2019, conditions benefiting from rehabilitation were associated with an estimated 310 million years lived with disability worldwide.
- In some low- and middle-income countries, as many as 50% of people needing rehabilitation did not receive it during the reported policy-evidence period.
- In 2019, about 394 million people in the WHO European Region had a condition amenable to rehabilitation at some point during its course.
- In the United States in 2019–2020, 13.6% of veterans aged 25–64 received one of four therapy types in the prior year.
- In the same U.S. period, 9.0% of nonveterans aged 25–64 received one of those therapies.
- Among U.S. veterans aged 25–64 in 2019–2020, 33.6% of those with a disability received therapy in the prior year, compared with 11.7% without disability.
- Among U.S. nonveterans aged 25–64 in 2019–2020, 23.9% of those with a disability received therapy, compared with 8.0% without disability.
- U.S. veteran therapy receipt in 2019–2020 ranged from 17.5% in nonmetropolitan areas to 10.3% in large central metropolitan areas.
- A 2024 review of geriatric rehabilitation included 29 studies and 7,999 adults aged 65 or older.
- At longest follow-up in that review, geriatric rehabilitation was associated with lower mortality, RR 0.84 (95% CI 0.76–0.93).
- In geriatric inpatient rehabilitation trials, discharge nursing-home admission was lower with RR 0.64 (95% CI 0.51–0.81).
- ICU active mobilisation and rehabilitation improved muscle strength at ICU discharge by 8.62 MRC sum-score points (95% CI 1.39–15.86).
- ICU rehabilitation increased the odds of walking without assistance at hospital discharge to OR 2.13 (95% CI 1.19–3.83).
- A recent ICU meta-analysis found mechanical ventilation 1.32 days shorter (95% CI 0.65–1.98 days shorter).
- Very early stroke rehabilitation improved daily-living ability at three months by 4.26 points (95% CI 0.17–8.35).
- In cardiac-rehabilitation trials, exercise training was associated with lower all-cause mortality, HR 0.75 (95% CrI 0.60–0.92).
Contents
- Global rehabilitation need and long-term trends
- Rehabilitation therapy use by veteran status, sex and age
- Rehabilitation participation by education, disability and place
- Geriatric rehabilitation outcomes
- Clinical rehabilitation outcomes in ICU, stroke and cardiac care
Global Rehabilitation Need and Long-Term Trends
The World Health Organization’s GBD 2019-based estimate measures people with conditions that could benefit from rehabilitation, not people who necessarily received a service. It estimated 2.41 billion people worldwide in 2019, about one-third of the global population, compared with 1.48 billion in 1990.
That change represents a 63% increase from 1990 to 2019. The same estimate linked conditions benefiting from rehabilitation with 310 million years lived with disability in 2019; YLDs describe disability burden, not utilization or treatment effect. WHO, “Global estimates of the need for rehabilitation”
| Measure | Period | Estimate | Scope |
|---|---|---|---|
| People with conditions benefiting from rehabilitation | 1990 | 1.48 billion | Worldwide, GBD estimate |
| People with conditions benefiting from rehabilitation | 2019 | 2.41 billion | Worldwide, GBD estimate |
| Change in estimated need | 1990–2019 | 63% increase | Worldwide |
| Years lived with disability | 2019 | 310 million | Conditions benefiting from rehabilitation |
Stroke alone accounted for an estimated 86 million people needing rehabilitation in the GBD 2019 estimate. That figure is a condition-specific component and should not be added to the global total without accounting for overlap.
WHO also reported that as many as 50% of people needing rehabilitation in some low- and middle-income countries did not receive it. This is an upper-bound example for some countries, not a universal rate for all low- and middle-income settings.
In the WHO European Region, about 394 million people had a condition amenable to rehabilitation during its course in 2019. The European report considered 25 disease causes, impairments and sequelae across its inclusion set, and the estimate represents potential amenability rather than current service need. WHO Europe, “The need for rehabilitation services in the WHO European Region”
Rehabilitation Therapy Use by Veteran Status, Sex and Age
U.S. National Health Interview Survey data for 2019–2020 measured self-reported receipt of physical, speech, rehabilitative or occupational therapy during the prior 12 months among adults aged 25–64. The measure combines four therapy categories and covers the civilian noninstitutionalized population; 2020 data collection was disrupted by COVID-19.
| U.S. population aged 25–64 | Therapy in prior 12 months, 2019–2020 |
|---|---|
| Veterans | 13.6% |
| Nonveterans | 9.0% |
| Veteran men | 13.4% |
| Nonveteran men | 7.3% |
| Veteran women | 14.8% |
| Nonveteran women | 10.5% |
NCHS did not find the veteran sex difference statistically significant, while the nonveteran difference between women and men was statistically significant. Among veterans, the age pattern was 12.4% at ages 25–34, 11.9% at ages 35–49 and 15.2% at ages 50–64; NCHS reported that this trend was not statistically significant.
Among nonveterans, therapy receipt rose from 5.2% at ages 25–34 to 8.5% at ages 35–49 and 12.3% at ages 50–64, a significant increasing age trend reported by NCHS. CDC/NCHS, “Physical, Speech, Rehabilitative, or Occupational Therapy Use Among Adults Aged 25–64, by Veteran Status: United States, 2019–2020”
Rehabilitation Participation by Education, Disability and Place
Education and disability status were associated with different levels of reported therapy use in the same U.S. survey. Among veterans aged 25–64, receipt was 11.5% for people with a high-school education or less, 13.1% with some college and 16.2% with a college degree or higher; NCHS reported an increasing education trend.
Among nonveterans, the corresponding figures were 7.9%, 9.4% and 9.8%. These percentages describe past-year receipt of any of the four therapy types, not a single rehabilitation program.
Disability status showed a larger separation:
- Among veterans with a disability, 33.6% received therapy in the prior year, compared with 11.7% of veterans without a disability.
- Among nonveterans with a disability, 23.9% received therapy, compared with 8.0% of nonveterans without a disability.
The survey defined disability as substantial difficulty or inability in at least one of six functioning domains. CDC/NCHS, “Physical, Speech, Rehabilitative, or Occupational Therapy Use Among Adults Aged 25–64, by Veteran Status: United States, 2019–2020”
Place also mattered for veterans. Reported therapy receipt fell across the NCHS urban–rural categories from 17.5% in nonmetropolitan areas to 10.3% in large central metropolitan areas, with 13.8% in large fringe metropolitan areas and 14.2% in medium or small metropolitan areas; NCHS reported a significant linear relationship.
For nonveterans, the figures were 9.0% in large central metropolitan areas, 8.8% in large fringe metropolitan areas, 8.9% in medium or small metropolitan areas and 9.2% in nonmetropolitan areas. NCHS found no significant nonveteran urbanicity trend. CDC/NCHS, “Physical, Speech, Rehabilitative, or Occupational Therapy Use Among Adults Aged 25–64, by Veteran Status: United States, 2019–2020”
Geriatric Rehabilitation Outcomes: Function, Mortality and Long-Term Care
A 2024 systematic review of adults aged 65 or older included 29 studies and 7,999 patients through September 30, 2022. The evidence base contained 23 inpatient randomized controlled trials with 6,428 patients and six geriatric day-hospital trials with 1,571 patients.
At longest follow-up, geriatric rehabilitation was associated with mortality RR 0.84 (95% CI 0.76–0.93), long-term-care-home admission RR 0.86 (95% CI 0.75–0.98), and functional status SMD 0.09 (95% CI 0.02–0.16). MMSE scores favored rehabilitation by 0.97 points (95% CI 0.35–1.60), based on five studies reporting cognition.
The pooled estimates were relative to usual care and combined inpatient and day-hospital evidence where specified. The small standardized functional effect and varied instruments matter when interpreting the results. PubMed, “Effectiveness of geriatric rehabilitation in inpatient and day hospital settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis”
A 2010 meta-analysis included 17 geriatric rehabilitation trials with 4,780 participants. At discharge, functional outcome favored inpatient rehabilitation with OR 1.75 (95% CI 1.31–2.35), nursing-home admission was lower with RR 0.64 (95% CI 0.51–0.81), and mortality was lower with RR 0.72 (95% CI 0.55–0.95).
At the end of follow-up in that review, function favored rehabilitation with OR 1.36 (95% CI 1.07–1.71), nursing-home admission was lower with RR 0.84 (95% CI 0.72–0.99), and mortality was lower with RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.77–0.97). Follow-up duration varied among trials. PubMed, “Inpatient rehabilitation specifically designed for geriatric patients: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials”
Clinical Rehabilitation Outcomes in ICU, Stroke and Cardiac Care
In critically ill adults, an earlier systematic review found that active mobilisation and rehabilitation improved MRC muscle strength at ICU discharge by 8.62 points (95% CI 1.39–15.86). It also increased the odds of walking without assistance at hospital discharge, OR 2.13 (95% CI 1.19–3.83), and increased days alive and out of hospital to day 180 by 9.69 days (95% CI 1.70–17.66).
A recent ICU rehabilitation meta-analysis synthesizing 40 randomized controlled trials found improved muscle strength with SMD 0.26 (95% CI 0.05–0.46) and lower ICU-acquired weakness with OR 0.62 (95% CI 0.43–0.87). Barthel Index scores improved with SMD 0.62 (95% CI 0.21–1.03), while SF-36 physical function improved with SMD 0.53 (95% CI 0.26–0.81).
The same analysis estimated mechanical ventilation 1.32 days shorter (95% CI 0.65–1.98) and ICU stay 1.41 days shorter (95% CI 0.78–2.03). Hospital stay was estimated 1.29 days shorter (95% CI 0.01–2.59), but that evidence was low certainty and the interval nearly included no difference.
Mortality was not significantly reduced: OR 0.93 (95% CI 0.76–1.15), based on 27 studies and 4,282 participants, with low-certainty evidence. Heterogeneity was I²=70% for muscle strength, 34% for ICU-acquired weakness, 85% for Barthel Index, 81% for SF-36 physical function, 66% for ventilation duration and 44% for ICU stay. PubMed Central, “Systematic review and meta-analysis of physical rehabilitation on functional recovery in critically ill patients” PubMed, “The effects of active mobilisation and rehabilitation in ICU on mortality and function: a systematic review”
For acute ischemic stroke, very early rehabilitation improved daily-living ability at three months by 4.26 points (95% CI 0.17–8.35). It was associated with lower late adverse-event risk at three and 12 months, RR 0.86 (95% CI 0.74–0.99), but also with increased stroke severity during hospitalization by 0.81 points (95% CI 0.01–1.61), a countervailing pooled finding that may reflect protocol or baseline differences.
In a cardiac-rehabilitation network meta-analysis among people with coronary heart disease, psychosocial management was associated with lower all-cause mortality, HR 0.68 (95% CrI 0.54–0.85), and exercise training with HR 0.75 (95% CrI 0.60–0.92). Psychosocial management was also associated with lower myocardial infarction risk, HR 0.76 (95% CrI 0.57–0.99), while exercise training was associated with HR 0.75 (95% CrI 0.56–0.99).
These cardiac figures are component-specific estimates from a network model, not guarantees for every complete cardiac rehabilitation program. The stroke estimates likewise come from a systematic-review context in which scales, timing and protocols varied. PubMed, “Comparative Effectiveness of the Core Components of Cardiac Rehabilitation on Mortality and Morbidity: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis”