Refine
Document Type
Language
- English (3) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- no (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- Comparability (3) (remove)
Purpose
The content of and methods for collecting health information often vary across settings and challenge the comparability of health information across time, individuals or populations. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) contains an exhaustive set of categories of information which constitutes a unified and consistent language of human functioning suitable as a reference for comparing health information.
Methods and results In two earlier papers, we have proposed rules for linking existing health information to the ICF. Further refinements to these existing ICF Linking Rules are presented in this paper to enhance the transparency of the linking process. The refinements involve preparing information for linking, perspectives from which information is collected and the categorization of response options. Issues regarding the linking of information not covered or unspecified within the ICF are also revisited in this paper.
Conclusion:
The ICF Linking Rules are valuable for enhancing comparability of health information to ensure that information is available in a consistent manner to serve as a foundation for evidence-based decision-making across all levels of health systems. The refinements presented in this paper enhance transparency in, and ultimately reliability of the process of, linking health information to the ICF.
Implications for Rehabilitation
The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) constitutes a unified and consistent language of human functioning suitable as a reference for comparing health information.
Comparability of information is essential to ensure that the widest range of information is available in a consistent manner for any decision-maker at all levels of the health system.
The refined ICF Linking Rules presented in this article outline the method to establish comparability of health information based on the ICF.
Objective: Functioning is an important outcome to measure in cohort studies. Clear and operational outcomes are needed to judge the quality of a cohort study. This paper outlines guiding principles for reporting functioning in cohort studies and addresses some outstanding issues.
Design: Principles of how to standardize reporting of data from a cohort study on functioning, by deriving scores that are most useful for further statistical analysis and reporting, are outlined. The Swiss Spinal Cord Injury Cohort Study Community Survey serves as a case in point to provide a practical application of these principles.
Methods and Results: Development of reporting scores must be conceptually coherent and metrically sound. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) can serve as the frame of reference for this, with its categories serving as reference units for reporting. To derive a score for further statistical analysis and reporting, items measuring a single latent trait must be invariant across groups. The Rasch measurement model is well suited to test these assumptions.
Conclusion: Our approach is a valuable guide for researchers and clinicians, as it fosters comparability of data, strengthens the comprehensiveness of scope, and provides invariant, interval-scaled data for further statistical analyses of functioning.
Background: Existing instruments measuring participation may vary with respect to various aspects. This study aimed to examine the comparability of existing instruments measuring participation based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) by considering aspects of content, the perspective adopted and the categorization of response options.
Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify instruments that have been commonly used to measure participation. Concepts of identified instruments were then linked to the ICF following the refined ICF Linking Rules. Aspects of content, perspective adopted and categorization of response options were documented.
Results: Out of 315 instruments identified in the full-text screening, 41 instruments were included. Concepts of six instruments were linked entirely to the ICF component Activities and Participation; of 10 instruments still 80% of their concepts. A descriptive perspective was adopted in most items across instruments (75%), mostly in combination with an intensity rating. An appraisal perspective was found in 18% and questions from a need or dependency perspective were least frequent (7%).
Conclusion: Accounting for aspects of content, perspective and categorization of responses in the linking of instruments to the ICF provides detailed information for the comparison of instruments and guidance on narrowing down the choices of suitable instruments from a content point of view.
Implications for Rehabilitation
For clinicians and researchers who need to identify a specific instrument for a given purpose, the findings of this review can serve as a screening tool for instruments measuring participation in terms of the following:
• Their content covered based on the ICF.
• The perspective adopted in the instrument (e.g., descriptive, need/dependency or appraisal).
• The categorization of their response options (e.g., intensity or frequency).