Refine
Document Type
Has Fulltext
- no (29)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (29)
Keywords
- ICF (12)
- Rehabilitation (7)
- Classification (4)
- Disability and health (4)
- outcome assessment (4)
- Cohort study (3)
- Health information systems (3)
- Health status measurements (3)
- Rasch analysis (3)
- Functional status (2)
Institute
- Fakultät für Angewandte Gesundheits- und Sozialwissenschaften (29) (remove)
In this methodological note on applying the ICF in rehabilitation, we introduce suitable tools that allow us to document comprehensively and systematically the lived experience of health to guide clinical practice, the management of services, evidence-informed policy and scientific inquiry.
The objective of this methodological note is to present the currently available tools with respect to four questions: 1) what ICF domains to document; 2) what perspective to take; 3) what data collection tools to apply; and 4) which approach to use for reporting. The application of these tools is illustrated using the Swiss Spinal Cord Injury (SwiSCI) Cohort Study.
Existing ICF Sets provide a practical approach for identifying the domains to document. One can document from the perspective of biological health, lived health, and appraised health. For identifying suitable data collection tools, either existing tools can be linked to the ICF or available ICF-based data collection tools can be used.
For reporting, an interval scale metric is suggested. The four step approach presented provides users with a logical sequence to follow when planning the documentation of functioning using the ICF as a health information reference system in practice and research.
As part of international efforts to develop and implement national models including the specification of ICF-based clinical data collection tools, the Italian rehabilitation community initiated a project to develop simple, intuitive descriptions of the ICF Rehabilitation Set, highlighting the core concept of each category in user-friendly language.
This paper outlines the Italian experience in developing simple, intuitive descriptions of the ICF Rehabilitation Set as an ICF-based clinical data collection tool for Italy.Consensus process.Expert conference.
Multidisciplinary group of rehabilitation professionals.The first of a two-stage consensus process involved developing an initial proposal for simple, intuitive descriptions of each ICF Rehabilitation Set category based on descriptions generated in a similar process in China.
Stage two involved a consensus conference. Divided into three working groups, participants discussed and voted (vote A) whether the initially proposed descriptions of each ICF Rehabilitation Set category was simple and intuitive enough for use in daily practice.
Afterwards the categories with descriptions considered ambiguous i.e. not simple and intuitive enough, were divided among the working groups, who were asked to propose a new description for the allocated categories. These proposals were then voted (vote B) on in a plenary session.
The last step of the consensus conference required each working group to develop a new proposal for each and the same categories with descriptions still considered ambiguous.
Participants then voted (final vote) for which of the three proposed descriptions they preferred.Nineteen clinicians from diverse rehabilitation disciplines from various regions of Italy participated in the consensus process. Three ICF categories already achieved consensus in vote A, while 20 ICF categories were accepted in vote B.
The remaining 7 categories were decided in the final vote.The findings were discussed in light of current efforts toward developing strategies for ICF implementation, specifically for the application of an ICF-based clinical data collection tool, not only for Italy but also for the rest of Europe.
Promising as minimal standards for monitoring the impact of interventions and for standardized reporting of functioning as a relevant outcome in rehabilitation.
Objective: The aims of this study were to evaluate the feasibility of using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Generic Set in routine clinical practice, and of creating a functioning score based on it, and, subsequently, to examine its sensitivity to change.
Methods: In this prospective cohort study, data from 761 adult inpatients from 21 Chinese hospitals were analysed. Each patient was assessed at admission and discharge. Feasibility was evaluated by analysing mean assessment time. The Rasch model was used to create a metric of functioning. Sensitivity to change was analysed with mixed-effects regression and by calculating standardized effect size based on Cohen's f2.
Results: Mean duration of assessment was 5.3 min, with a significant decrease between admission and discharge. After removal of the item remunerative employment, the remaining ICF Generic Set categories fitted the Rasch model well. With a mean improvement in functioning of 12.1 (95% confidence interval (95% CI): 11.5–12.6), this metric proved sensitive to change, both in terms of statistical significance (p < 0.001) and standardized effect size (Cohen's f2 = 2.35).
Discussion: The ICF Generic Set is feasible for use in routine clinical practice and is promising to serve as the basis for the development of a functioning score that is sensitive to change.
Objective
Our aim was to specify the requirements of an architecture to serve as the foundation for standardized reporting of health information and to provide an exemplary application of this architecture.
Methods
The World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) served as the conceptual framework. Methods to establish content comparability were the ICF Linking Rules. The Rasch measurement model, as a special case of additive conjoint measurement, which satisfies the required criteria for fundamental measurement, allowed for the development of a common metric foundation for measurement unit conversion. Secondary analysis of data from the North Yorkshire Survey was used to illustrate these methods. Patients completed three instruments and the items were linked to the ICF. The Rasch measurement model was applied, first to each scale, and then to items across scales which were linked to a common domain.
Results
Based on the linking of items to the ICF, the majority of items were grouped into two domains, Mobility and Self-care. Analysis of the individual scales and of items linked to a common domain across scales satisfied the requirements of the Rasch measurement model. The measurement unit conversion between items from the three instruments linked to the Mobility and Self-care domains, respectively, was demonstrated.
Conclusions
The realization of an ICF-based architecture for information on patients’ functioning enables harmonization of health information while allowing clinicians and researchers to continue using their existing instruments. This architecture will facilitate access to comprehensive and consistently reported health information to serve as the foundation for informed decision-making.
BACKGROUND: In clinical practice and research a variety of clinical data collection tools are used to collect information on people’s functioning for clinical practice and research and national health information systems. Reporting on ICF-based common metrics enables standardized documentation of functioning information in national health information systems. The objective of this methodological note on applying the ICF in rehabilitation is to demonstrate how to report functioning information collected with a data collection tool on ICF-based common metrics. We first specify the requirements for the standardized reporting of functioning information. Secondly, we introduce the methods needed for transforming functioning data to ICF-based common metrics. Finally, we provide an example.
METHODS: The requirements for standardized reporting are as follows: 1) having a common conceptual framework to enable content comparability between any health information; and 2) a measurement framework so that scores between two or more clinical data collection tools can be directly compared. The methods needed to achieve these requirements are the ICF Linking Rules and the Rasch measurement model. Using data collected incorporating the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0), and the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0 (SIS 3.0), the application of the standardized reporting based on common metrics is demonstrated.
RESULTS: A subset of items from the three tools linked to common chapters of the ICF (d4 Mobility, d5 Self-care and d6 Domestic life), were entered as “super items” into the Rasch model. Good fit was achieved with no residual local dependency and a unidimensional metric. A transformation table allows for comparison between scales, and between a scale and the reporting common metric.
CONCLUSIONS: Being able to report functioning information collected with commonly used clinical data collection tools with ICF-based common metrics enables clinicians and researchers to continue using their tools while still being able to compare and aggregate the information within and across tools.
Background: The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health is the international standard for describing and monitoring functioning. While the categories, the units of the classification, were not designed with measurement in mind, the hierarchical structure of the classification lends itself to the possibility of summating categories into some higher order domain. Focusing on the chapters of d4 Mobility, d5 Self-Care and d6 Domestic Life, this study seeks to ascertain if qualifiers rating of categories (0-No problem to 4-Complete problem) within those chapters can be summated, and whether such derived measurement is consistent with estimates obtained from well-known instruments which purport to measure the same constructs.
Methods: The current study applies secondary analysis to data previously collected in the context of validating Core Sets for stroke, rheumatoid arthritis, and osteoarthritis. Data included qualifier-based ratings of the categories in the Core Sets, and the physical functioning sub-scale of the Short-Form 36, and the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. To examine qualifier-comparator scale item agreement Kappa statistics were used. To identify whether appropriate gradients of the comparator scales were observed across qualifier levels, an Independent Sample Median Test of the ordinal scores was deployed. To investigate the internal validity of the summated ICF categories, the Rasch model was applied.
Results: Data from 2,927 subjects from Europe, Australasia, Middle East and South America were available for analysis; 36.3% had experienced a stroke, 35.8% osteoarthritis, and 27.9% had rheumatoid arthritis. The items from the Short-Form 36 could not match directly the qualifier categories as the former had only 3 response options. The Kappa between World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 items and categories was low. For all qualifiers, a significant (<0.001) overall gradient was observed across the comparator scales. Only in few of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 items could no discrete level be detected. The aggregation of the qualifiers at the Chapter and higher order levels mostly revealed fit to the Rasch model. Almost all ICF qualifiers showed ordered thresholds suggesting that the current structure and response options of the qualifiers worked as intended.
Conclusions: The findings of this study provide supporting evidence for the use of the professionally rated categories and associated qualifiers to measure functioning.
Implication for Rehabilitation
- This study provides evidence that functioning data can be collected directly with the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) by using the ICF categories as items and the ICF qualifiers as rating scale.
- The findings of this study show the aggregated ratings of ICF categories from the chapters d4 Mobility, d5 Self-care, and d6 Domestic life capture a broader spectrum of the construct than the corresponding summated items from the SF36-Physical Function sub-scale and the corresponding items of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0.
- This study illustrates the potential of building quantitative measurement by aggregating ICF categories and their qualifier ratings into meaningful domains.
Objective
Functioning is an important outcome in hand osteoarthritis (OA). The heterogeneity of patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) available challenges the direct comparability of information collected by these instruments. This study aimed to examine whether it is possible to achieve metric equivalence of PROMs commonly used to measure functioning in people with hand OA.
Methods
A secondary analysis of data from 253 persons who participated in the Vienna Hand Osteoarthritis Cohort Study was conducted applying the Rasch measurement model. Participants completed the Health Assessment Questionnaire, the Australian/Canadian Index for Hand Osteoarthritis, the Functional Index for Hand Osteoarthritis (FIHOA), and the Cochin Scale. The assumptions of stochastic ordering, local independence, unidimensionality, and invariance were tested for each scale independently before the scales were co‐calibrated onto a common metric.
Results
Except for the FIHOA, all measures indicated issues of local dependency in the initial analyses. After accommodating those with testlets, all scales satisfied the assumptions of the Rasch model (χ2 > 0.05). Marginal misfit in 2 items was found in the FIHOA, but this did not disturb person estimates. As the 4 scales form a common metric that satisfies the assumptions of the Rasch model, the scores can be equated.
Conclusion
The scores of the 4 hand function measures can be transformed to a common 0–100 metric, such that scores can be interchanged. A user‐friendly transformation table enables clinicians and researchers to have access to the common metric by simply adding up the total score for each instrument and identifying the corresponding transformed score on the common metric.
Clinical assessment schedule (CLAS) is a core part of the ICF-based implementation of functioning reporting across health conditions and along the continuum of care.
The Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Section and Board of the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS PRM) workshop held in January 2016 aimed to develop and specify a CLAS within the context of rehabilitation services.
UEMS PRM Workshop in Nottwil, Switzerland, January 2016.PRM physicians representatives from 12 European countries, as well as Israel and Japan, mostly delegates of UEMS PRM Section and Board, and experts with other rehabilitation professional backgrounds.Participants were divided into 6 working groups and asked to specify what functioning aspects would be essential to document using the available ICF sets for the identified rehabilitation services contained in the newly developed service classification (ICSO-R): acute, post-acute and long-term rehabilitation services.
The 7 ICF Generic and 23 Rehabilitation Set categories were confirmed as well as specific health condition categories for acute rehabilitation services (mobile team), for postacute rehabilitation services (general outpatient rehabilitation, musculoskeletal and neurological rehabilitation, as well as specialized SCI rehabilitation), and for long-term rehabilitation services (day clinic and rehabilitation provided in the community). While general principles of the CLAS were defined, the need to align the CLAS for a specific service, as well as across services along the continuum of care was highlighted.
All groups deliberated on this topic; however, no conclusive statement was presented yet.The groups recognized a need for a systematic effort to identify data collection tools currently used.CLASs will serve in the future to ensure that functioning information is systematically and consistently collected across services, and thus respond also to various global reports and initiatives which stress the need for improving data collection on people's functioning.
Objectives: Instruments to assess functioning in patients with FM vary considerably in their content and are often symptom‐specific. This study aimed to examine whether it is feasible to construct a psychometric‐sound clinical instrument to measure functioning in FM based on the Brief ICF‐Core‐Set for chronic widespread pain (CWP).
Methods: Two hundred and fifty six people with FM completed the Brief ICF‐Core‐Set. The Rasch model was used for analysis. Once ordering of response options of ICF categories was ensured, the following properties were studied: fit of the ICF categories to the Rasch model, the targeting between ICF categories and a person’s abilities, unidimensionality, and reliability.
Results: Six ICF categories were rescored due to disordered thresholds. Five ICF categories were removed due to high model‐misfit and differential item functioning (DIF) for gender. Scores from 46 participants were excluded due to extreme scores. The ICF categories included display consistency with an underlying unidimensional construct, are free of DIF for age, disease duration and gender, display excellent overall reliability, and cover a range of functioning difficulties.
Conclusions: This study illustrates that it is possible to measure functioning as a unidimensional construct based on selected ICF categories from the components body functions, as well as activities and participation of the Brief ICF‐Core‐Set for CWP in patients with FM.
Objective: A national, multi-phase, consensus process to develop simple, intuitive descriptions of International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) categories contained in the ICF Generic and Rehabilitation Sets, with the aim of enhancing the utility of the ICF in routine clinical practice, is presented in this study.
Methods: A multi-stage, national, consensus process was conducted. The consensus process involved 3 expert groups and consisted of a preparatory phase, a consensus conference with consecutive working groups and 3 voting rounds (votes A, B and C), followed by an implementation phase. In the consensus conference, participants first voted on whether they agreed that an initially developed proposal for simple, intuitive descriptions of an ICF category was in fact simple and intuitive.
Results: The consensus conference was held in August 2014 in mainland China. Twenty-one people with a background in physical medicine and rehabilitation participated in the consensus process. Four ICF categories achieved consensus in vote A, 16 in vote B, and 8 in vote C.
Discussion: This process can be seen as part of a larger effort towards the system-wide implementation of the ICF in routine clinical and rehabilitation practice to allow for the regular and comprehensive evaluation of health outcomes most relevant for the monitoring of quality of care.