Refine
Year of publication
- 2017 (3) (remove)
Document Type
Has Fulltext
- no (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- ICF (3) (remove)
Introduction: Two widely used outcome measures to assess functioning in neurological rehabilitation are the Functional Independence Measure (FIM™) and the Barthel Index.
The current study aims to establish the equivalence of the total score of the FIM™ motor scale and the Barthel Index through the application of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, and Rasch measurement theory.
Methods: Secondary analysis of a large sample of patients with stroke, spinal cord injury, and multiple sclerosis, undergoing rehabilitation was conducted. All patients were assessed at the same time on both the FIM™ and the Barthel Index. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Linking Rules were used to establish conceptual coherency between the 2 scales, and the Rasch measurement model to establish an exchange of the total scores.
Results: Using the FIM™ motor scale, items from both scales linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health d4 Mobility or d5 Self-care chapters. Their co-calibration satisfied the assumptions of the Rasch model for each of 3 diagnostic groups. A ceiling effect was observed for the Barthel Index when contrasted against the FIM™ motor scale.
Conclusion: Having a Rasch interval metric to transform scores between the FIM™ motor scale and Barthel Index is valuable for monitoring functioning, meta-analysis, quality audits and hospital benchmarking.
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.
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.