4.3 Article

Identification of Relevant ICF Categories in Vocational Rehabilitation: A Cross Sectional Study Evaluating the Clinical Perspective

期刊

JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL REHABILITATION
卷 21, 期 2, 页码 156-166

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10926-011-9308-2

关键词

ICF; Cross-sectional study; ICF-checklist; Vocational rehabilitation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction Vocational rehabilitation (VR) emphasizes a need for medical support, rehabilitation and biopsychosocial approach to enable individuals to successfully participate in the workforce. Optimal rehabilitation management relies on an in-depth knowledge of the typical spectrum of problems encountered of patients in VR. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) is based on a universal conceptual model and provides a holistic view of functioning of the lived experience of people such as those undergoing VR. The objectives of this study are to describe the functioning and health of persons undergoing VR and to identify the most common problems around work and in VR using the ICF as the reference framework. Methods An empirical cross-sectional multicenter study was conducted using convenience sampling from March 2009 to March 2010. Data were collected using a Case Record Form rated by health professionals which was based on an extended version of the ICF Checklist containing 292 ICF categories and sociodemographic information. Results 152 patients with various health conditions participated. We identified categories from all four ICF components: 24 for body functions, six for body structures, 45 for activities and participation, and 25 for environmental factors. Conclusions Our study identified a multitude of ICF categories that describe functioning domains and which represent the complexity of VR. Such a comprehensive approach in assessing patients in VR may help to understand and customize the process of VR in the clinical setting and to enhance multidisciplinary communication.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据