PDF herunterladen
J Hand Microsurg 2017; 09(03): 139-153
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1608693
Original Article
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.

Are the Domains Considered by ICF Comprehensive Enough to Conceptualize Participation in the Patient with Hand Injuries?

Maryam Farzad
1   Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran
,
Fereydoun Layeghi
2   Department of Clinical Science, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran
,
Seyyed Ali Hosseini
1   Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran
,
Khanke Hamidreza
3   Department of Clinical Science and Education, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran
,
Ali Asgari
4   Department of Psychology, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

04. Februar 2017

28. August 2017

Publikationsdatum:
29. November 2017 (online)

    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background Although participation is a core concept in multiple models of disability, there is no consensus on its definition.

Objective The aim of this study was to extract participation domains based on review of theories, available outcome measures, and interviews with experts and the person with hand injuries to compare with the ICF domains of participation.

Methods A qualitative approach using a deductive content analysis was employed to extend definitions of participation from theories. Later on, inductive qualitative method using semistructured interview with five experts in different fields and 30 patients with different hand injuries was used. Coding was performed with extracted domains from the content of data, and finally, the extracted domains were compared with the ICF domains of participation.

Results Some of the extracted domains were not considered in ICF.

Conclusion Subjective participation is the main forbearance part. Role, leisure, domestic life, environment, and others are also main missing meanings. This limitation can hinder measuring disability and health.

Keywords

participation - ICF - disability - hand injuries

Note

The ethics committee of the University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran, approved this work.


 

  • References

  • 1 Chau JP, Thompson DR, Twinn S, Chang AM, Woo J. Determinants of participation restriction among community dwelling stroke survivors: a path analysis. BMC Neurol 2009; 9 (01) 49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kielhofner G. A Model of Human Occupation: Theory and Application. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Crewe N, Klein SD, Norsegian J. Independent Living for Physically Disabled People. iUniverse; 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Wood PH. Applications of the International Classification of Diseases. World Health Stat Q 1990; 43 (04) 263-268
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Nagi SZ. Disability concepts revisited: implications for prevention. Disability in America: Toward a National Agenda for Prevention. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1991: 309-327
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Heinemann AW, Linacre JM, Wright BD, Hamilton BB, Granger C. Relationships between impairment and physical disability as measured by the functional independence measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993; 74 (06) 566-573
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Farzad M, Layeghi F, Asgari A, Hosseini SA, Rassafiani M. Evaluation of Non Diseased Specified Outcome Measures in Hand Injuries to Assess Activity and Participation Based on ICF Content. J Hand Microsurg 2014; 6 (01) 27-34
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Whiteneck G. , ed. A Conceptual and Practical Solution for Differentiating Activity and Participation in the ICF. Paper presented at the 14th Annual North American Collaborating Center Conference on ICF “Evaluating Social Participation: Applications of ICF & ICF-CY”; August 26–27, 2008; Quebec, Canada
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Post MW, de Witte LP, Reichrath E, Verdonschot MM, Wijlhuizen GJ, Perenboom RJ. Development and validation of IMPACT-S, an ICF-based questionnaire to measure activities and participation. J Rehabil Med 2008; 40 (08) 620-627
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Chang F-H, Coster WJ. Conceptualizing the construct of participation in adults with disabilities. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2014; 95 (09) 1791-1798
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 ICF W. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2001: 3-25
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Whiteneck G, Dijkers MP. Difficult to measure constructs: conceptual and methodological issues concerning participation and environmental factors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009; 90 (11, Suppl): S22-S35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Bauer M, Gaskell G. Classical content analysis: a review. In: Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound. Sage Publishing; 2000: 131-151
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today 2004; 24 (02) 105-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Neuendorf KA. The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing; 2002
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Zhang Y, Wildemuth BM. Qualitative analysis of content. In: Applications of Social Research Methods to Questions in Information and Library Science. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited; 2009: 308-319
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Dey I. Qualitative Data Analysis: A User Friendly Guide for Social Scientists. Oxon, UK: Routledge; 2003
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Grinker RR. Toward a Unified Theory of Human Behavior. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1956: 375
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Brown M, Dijkers MP, Gordon WA, Ashman T, Charatz H, Cheng Z. Participation objective, participation subjective: a measure of participation combining outsider and insider perspectives. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2004; 19 (06) 459-481
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Coster W, Law M, Bedell G, Khetani M, Cousins M, Teplicky R. Development of the participation and environment measure for children and youth: conceptual basis. Disabil Rehabil 2012; 34 (03) 238-246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Fallahpour M, Jonsson H, Joghataei MT, Kottorp A. Impact on Participation and Autonomy (IPA): PSYChometric evaluation of the Persian version to use for persons with stroke. Scand J Occup Ther 2011; 18 (01) 59-71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Cardol M, De Jong BA, Ward CD. On autonomy and participation in rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24 (18) 970-974
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Perenboom RJ, Chorus AM. Measuring participation according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Disabil Rehabil 2003; 25 (11–12): 577-587
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Jette AM, Haley SM, Kooyoomjian JT. Are the ICF activity and participation dimensions distinct?. J Rehabil Med 2003; 35 (03) 145-149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Heinemann AW, Tulsky D, Dijkers M. , et al. Issues in participation measurement in research and clinical applications. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010; 91 (9, Suppl): S72-S76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Levasseur M, Desrosiers J, St-Cyr Tribble D. Do quality of life, participation and environment of older adults differ according to level of activity?. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2008; 6 (01) 30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Hall KM, Dijkers M, Whiteneck G, Brooks C, Stuart Krause J. The Craig handicap assessment and reporting technique (CHART): metric properties and scoring. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil 1998; 4 (01) 16-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Tate D, Forchheimer M, Maynard F, Dijkers M. Predicting depression and psychological distress in persons with spinal cord injury based on indicators of handicap. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1994; 73 (03) 175-183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Harwood RH, Rogers A, Dickinson E, Ebrahim S. Measuring handicap: the London Handicap Scale, a new outcome measure for chronic disease. Qual Health Care 1994; 3 (01) 11-16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JI. Reintegration to normal living as a proxy to quality of life. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40 (06) 491-502
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Cardol M, de Haan RJ, van den Bos GA, de Jong BA, de Groot IJ. The development of a handicap assessment questionnaire: the Impact on Participation and Autonomy (IPA). Clin Rehabil 1999; 13 (05) 411-419
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Hunt SM, McKenna SP, McEwen J, Williams J, Papp E. The Nottingham Health Profile: subjective health status and medical consultations. Soc Sci Med A 1981; 15 (3 Pt 1): 221-229
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Willer B, Rosenthal M, Kreutzer JS, Gordon WA, Rempel R. Assessment of community integration following rehabilitation for traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil 1993; 8 (02) 75-87
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Yelin E, Lubeck D, Holman H, Epstein W. The impact of rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis: the activities of patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis compared to controls. J Rheumatol 1987; 14 (04) 710-717
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Lubben JE. Assessing social networks among elderly populations. Fam Community Health 1988; 11 (03) 42-52
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Vázquez-Barquero JL, Vázquez Bourgón E, Herrera Castanedo S. , et al. [Spanish version of the new World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHO-DAS-II): initial phase of development and pilot study. Cantabria disability work group]. Actas Esp Psiquiatr 2000; 28 (02) 77-87
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Power M, Kuyken W, Orley J. , et al. The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL)—Development and general psychometric properties. Soc Sci Med 1998; 46: 569-1585
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Aaronson NK, Muller M, Cohen PD. , et al. Translation, validation, and norming of the Dutch language version of the SF-36 Health Survey in community and chronic disease populations. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51 (11) 1055-1068
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Post MW, van der Zee CH, Hennink J, Schafrat CG, Visser-Meily JM, van Berlekom SB. Validity of the utrecht scale for evaluation of rehabilitation-participation. Disabil Rehabil 2012; 34 (06) 478-485
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Gandek B, Sinclair SJ, Jette AM, Ware Jr JE. Development and initial psychometric evaluation of the participation measure for post-acute care (PM-PAC). Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2007; 86 (01) 57-71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 van Brakel WH, Anderson AM, Mutatkar RK. , et al. The Participation Scale: measuring a key concept in public health. Disabil Rehabil 2006; 28 (04) 193-203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Sandström M, Lundin-Olsson L. Development and evaluation of a new questionnaire for rating perceived participation. Clin Rehabil 2007; 21 (09) 833-845
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Wilkie R, Peat G, Thomas E, Hooper H, Croft PR. The Keele Assessment of Participation: a new instrument to measure participation restriction in population studies. Combined qualitative and quantitative examination of its psychometric properties. Qual Life Res 2005; 14 (08) 1889-1899
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Nagi SZ. An epidemiology of disability among adults in the United States. Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc 1976; 54 (04) 439-467
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Badley EM. Enhancing the conceptual clarity of the activity and participation components of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. Soc Sci Med 2008; 66 (11) 2335-2345
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Parsons T. Definitions of health and illness in the light of American values and social structure. In: Jaco GE. , ed. Patients Physicians Illness. New York, NY: Free Press; reprinted in Social Structure and Personality. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul; 1958: 165-87
    Google Scholar
  • 47 Cardol M, Brandsma JW, de Groot IJ, van den Bos GA, de Haan RJ, de Jong BA. Handicap questionnaires: what do they assess?. Disabil Rehabil 1999; 21 (03) 97-105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Dijkers MP. Issues in the conceptualization and measurement of participation: an overview. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010; 91 (9, Suppl): S5-S16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Wilkie R, Peat G, Thomas E, Croft P. Factors associated with participation restriction in community-dwelling adults aged 50 years and over. Qual Life Res 2007; 16 (07) 1147-1156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Noonan VK, Kopec JA, Noreau L. , et al. Comparing the content of participation instruments using the international classification of functioning, disability and health. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2009; 7 (01) 93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Eyssen IC, Steultjens MP, Dekker J, Terwee CB. A systematic review of instruments assessing participation: challenges in defining participation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2011; 92 (06) 983-997
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Levasseur M, Desrosiers J, Whiteneck G. Accomplishment level and satisfaction with social participation of older adults: association with quality of life and best correlates. Qual Life Res 2010; 19 (05) 665-675
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Kielhofner G. The Environment and Human Occupation. A Model of Human Occupation: Theory and Application. 4th ed. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008: 85-97
    Google Scholar
  • 54 Noreau L, Desrosiers J, Robichaud L, Fougeyrollas P, Rochette A, Viscogliosi C. Measuring social participation: reliability of the LIFE-H in older adults with disabilities. Disabil Rehabil 2004; 26 (06) 346-352
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar