Stefan T Kulnik1, Dimitra Nikoletou. 1. Physiotherapy Department, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Charing Cross Hospital , London , UK and.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) was considered as a potentially appropriate patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for community rehabilitation services in the UK. The study explored qualitative aspects of the measure's content and content and construct validity. METHOD: A convenience sample of 10 community rehabilitation service users participated in semi-structured interviews and completed the WHODAS 2.0. Content analysis and a constant comparative method of analysis were applied. Participants' accounts were compared with the measure's content and its underlying construct of disability. RESULTS: Participants' reports of current difficulties were rich with accounts of bodily impairments and activity and participation limitations. WHODAS 2.0 content largely covered those activities that interviewees found difficult. Participants tended to conceptualize disability according to the medical model. The wording of the questionnaire allowed for ambiguity with respect to social perspectives on disability, which resulted in variability of scores. CONCLUSIONS: While WHODAS 2.0 content coverage appears comprehensive, the questionnaire in its current form tends to favor a medical construct of disability. We recommend caution when applying WHODAS 2.0 in contexts such as community rehabilitation, where social aspects of disability may be considered important. Further investigation of the measure's construct validity might be warranted.
PURPOSE: The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) was considered as a potentially appropriate patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for community rehabilitation services in the UK. The study explored qualitative aspects of the measure's content and content and construct validity. METHOD: A convenience sample of 10 community rehabilitation service users participated in semi-structured interviews and completed the WHODAS 2.0. Content analysis and a constant comparative method of analysis were applied. Participants' accounts were compared with the measure's content and its underlying construct of disability. RESULTS:Participants' reports of current difficulties were rich with accounts of bodily impairments and activity and participation limitations. WHODAS 2.0 content largely covered those activities that interviewees found difficult. Participants tended to conceptualize disability according to the medical model. The wording of the questionnaire allowed for ambiguity with respect to social perspectives on disability, which resulted in variability of scores. CONCLUSIONS: While WHODAS 2.0 content coverage appears comprehensive, the questionnaire in its current form tends to favor a medical construct of disability. We recommend caution when applying WHODAS 2.0 in contexts such as community rehabilitation, where social aspects of disability may be considered important. Further investigation of the measure's construct validity might be warranted.
Authors: Noelle E Carlozzi; Siera Goodnight; Anna L Kratz; Julie C Stout; Michael K McCormack; Jane S Paulsen; Nicholas R Boileau; David Cella; Rebecca E Ready Journal: J Huntingtons Dis Date: 2019
Authors: Noelle E Carlozzi; Anna L Kratz; Nancy R Downing; Siera Goodnight; Jennifer A Miner; Nicholas Migliore; Jane S Paulsen Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-01-31 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Leslie Mawuli Aglanu; John Humphrey Amuasi; Bob A Schut; Jonathan Steinhorst; Alexis Beyuo; Chrisantus Danaah Dari; Melvin Katey Agbogbatey; Emmanuel Steve Blankson; Damien Punguyire; David G Lalloo; Jörg Blessmann; Kabiru Mohammed Abass; Robert A Harrison; Ymkje Stienstra Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis Date: 2022-05-23
Authors: Alessandro Pallucchini; Marco Carli; Angelo G I Maremmani; Marco Scarselli; Giulio Perugi; Icro Maremmani Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-05-05 Impact factor: 4.241