4.4 Article

The use of the comprehensive International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health core set for stroke for chronic outpatients in three Brazilian rehabilitation facilities

期刊

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION
卷 35, 期 5, 页码 367-374

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/09638288.2012.694573

关键词

Disability evaluation; environmental factors; international classification of functioning; disability and health; quality of life; stroke

资金

  1. National Council of Scientific and Technologic Development (CNPq)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability in Brazil. The multiple aspects of disability in these patients require proportionally comprehensive tools for their assessment. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) core set for stroke intends to comprehensively describe the experience of such patients with their functioning. This study aimed to empirically validate the ICF core set for stroke by checking the frequency of problems in each of its categories, thus verifying content validity. Method: A cross-sectional study in which data were collected from clinical charts, physical examination, tests, and interviews with 132 stroke outpatients under rehabilitation and their caregivers. Categories were considered not validated if less than 20% of the sample would present some degree of problems in them. Results: Only 20 categories (14 body functions, 5 body structures, and 1 activity and participation) were considered not validated. Neuromusculoskeletal functions and mobility were the aspects of functioning most often described with problems. All environmental factors were qualified as facilitators or barriers and acted as modulators of disability. Conclusions: The comprehensive ICF core sets for stroke can be used by multidisciplinary teams to classify the life experience of stroke survivors, although efforts to enable and enhance reproducibility are needed to warrant its reliable routine use.

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

4.4
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