Article

All talk, no action?: the global diffusion and clinical implementation of the international classification of functioning, disability, and health.

Department of Health Sciences and Health Policy at University of Lucerne, Nottwil, Switzerland.
American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation / Association of Academic Physiatrists (Impact Factor: 1.56). 05/2012; 91(7):550-60. DOI: 10.1097/PHM.0b013e31825597e5
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We aimed to review the global diffusion and clinical implementation of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) endorsed by the World Health Assembly in 2001.
First, we analyzed the diffusion process of the ICF, with a special focus on clinical rehabilitation. This was done by researching the spread of ICF-related terms in Pubmed and Google from 2001 to 2010. Second, we examined the clinical implementation of the ICF in rehabilitation settings by a systematic review of the literature in the databases Pubmed and Embase. Eligible were studies evaluating the current application and impact of the ICF in the daily practice of clinical rehabilitation.
We found that the diffusion of the ICF as a mere term and concept in the area of rehabilitation is successful. However, the implementation in clinical rehabilitation practice is highly idiosyncratic and rarely evaluated appropriately. The question arises whether this idiosyncratic implementation can be regarded as a process toward standardization at all. Evidence of concrete benefits of a clinical ICF implementation for team members or even patients is at best weak.
We suggest more comprehensive and comparable multicenter studies to solve the urgent need for best practice recommendations on ICF implementation in clinical rehabilitation.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
113 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: To investigate how well Finnish specialists in PRM are familiar with ICF-based concepts of functioning, capacity, and performance. Methods: In February 2013, the 5-minute survey was carried amongst participants at the annual meeting of the Finnish Society of PRM. The 54 participants (response rate 81%) were asked to define the difference between concepts of functioning and capacity/performance. They were also asked to give some examples on tests related to these concepts. Results: Of respondents, 83% were able to define the concept of functioning accordingly to the ICF framework as a complex relationship between health condition and contextual factors. Instead, only 24% were capable to describe concept of capacity/performance as an ability to execute single tasks in a standard or current environment. Of respondents, 40% emphasized the physical dimension of performance. Over 80% of respondents suggested at least one test for assessment of the level of performance, but only 57% introduced an example of tests for measuring limitation of functioning. Conclusions: The ICF-based concepts of functioning and performance were not widely used amongst Finnish physicians specialized in PRM even if the responses to survey reflected the biopsychosocial way of understanding the functioning.
    International Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. 01/2013; 1(8):1000164.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Purpose: The aim of this article is to examine the component of "personal factors" described as a contextual factor in the ICF and ICF-CY. Methods: A critical examination of the construct of "personal factors" and description of the component was made with reference to conceptual and taxonomic criteria. Results: The "personal factors" component in the ICF/ICF-CY is not defined, there is no taxonomy of codes, there is no explicit purpose stated for its use and no guidelines are provided for its application. In spite of these constraints, the component of "personal factors" is being applied as part of the classifications. Such uncontrolled applications constitute significant risks for the status of ICF/ICF-CY as the WHO reference classification in that: (a) the component is accepted for use by default simply by being applied; (b) component content is expanded with idiosyncratic exemplars by users; and (c) there is potential misuse of "personal factors" in documenting personal attributes, including "blaming the victim". Conclusion: In the absence of formal codes, any application of the component of "personal factors" lacks the legitimacy that documentation with a scientific taxonomy should provide. Given the growing use of the ICF/ICF-CY globally, a priority for the revision process should be to determine if there is in fact need for "personal" or any other factors in the ICF/ICF-CY. Implications for Rehabilitation A central contribution of the ICF/ICF-CY is the universal language of codes for the components of body structure, body function, activities and participation and Environmental Factors. As such the codes provide taxonomical legitimacy and power for documenting dimensions of functioning and disability in clinical and rehabilitation contexts. As there are no codes of "personal factors", there is no basis for documentation of the component. Demographic information, if needed for identification, should be recorded in customary formats, independent of any component or codes of the ICF/ICF-CY.
    Disability and Rehabilitation 03/2014; · 1.84 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Purpose: This systematic review examines the literature to identify the context and extent of implementation of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) model to understand the experience of health and functioning in persons with chronic conditions from the person perspective. Method: The literature search was conducted through five electronic databases between 2001 and December 2012. Reference lists of included papers were also searched. Articles in which the ICF was used to understand the health and functioning experience of adults with chronic conditions from the person-perspective were included. Data were extracted and analysed to identify the year of publication, geographical location, health condition, context of ICF use, authors' remarks and identified limitations of the ICF. Results: Thirty-seven qualitative and mixed-methods studies were included representing 18 countries and a range of chronic conditions. The ICF was found to be used to elicit and analyse people's narratives, with the majority of studies reporting that the ICF provides a comprehensive analysis of experiences and needs from the person perspective. Some limitations to its use and the need to classify the "personal factors" component were reported. Conclusion: The ICF has been used to provide a comprehensive understanding of health and functioning in persons with chronic conditions from the person perspective, although there are currently relatively few studies which have used the ICF in this context. Limitations regarding its use were reported which should be considered by users of the model and during its revision process. Implications for Rehabilitation The ICF encourages a bio-psycho-social and person-centred approach to healthcare and may provide a useful tool for guiding clinical assessment and encouraging clinicians to consider the multitude of factors which impact health, which may result in more specific and individualised treatment targeted at individual needs. Using a common framework that can be understood across health disciplines may enhance interdisciplinary communication and collaboration, improving health care delivery. The ICF may be used to compare perspectives of individuals and their health professionals and to identify people's needs that are not adequately being addressed, which may have significant implications for improving healthcare provided and overall health outcomes.
    Disability and Rehabilitation 07/2014; · 1.84 Impact Factor