Melissa Selb1,2, Francesca Gimigliano3, Birgit Prodinger4,5,6, Gerold Stucki4,5,6, Germano Pestelli7, Maurizio Iocco8, Paolo Boldrini9. 1. Swiss Paraplegic Research, Nottwil, Switzerland - melissa.selb@paraplegie.ch. 2. ICF Research Branch, a Cooperation Partner within the WHO Collaborating Centre for the Family of International Classifications in Germany (at DIMDI), Nottwil, Switzerland - melissa.selb@paraplegie.ch. 3. Department of Mental and Physical Health and Preventive Medicine, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy. 4. Swiss Paraplegic Research, Nottwil, Switzerland. 5. ICF Research Branch, a Cooperation Partner within the WHO Collaborating Centre for the Family of International Classifications in Germany (at DIMDI), Nottwil, Switzerland. 6. Department of Health Sciences and Health Policy, University of Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland. 7. Private Practitioner, Forlì, Italy. 8. Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, University "Magna Graecia", Catanzaro, Italy. 9. Department of Rehabilitation, Unità Locale Socio Sanitaria 9 and Ospedale Motta di Livenza, Treviso, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As part of international efforts to develop and implement national models including the specification of ICF-based clinical data collection tools, the Italian rehabilitation community initiated a project to develop simple, intuitive descriptions of the ICF Rehabilitation Set, highlighting the core concept of each category in user-friendly language. AIM: This paper outlines the Italian experience in developing simple, intuitive descriptions of the ICF Rehabilitation Set as an ICF-based clinical data collection tool for Italy. DESIGN: Consensus process. SETTING: Expert conference. POPULATION: Multidisciplinary group of rehabilitation professionals. METHODS: The first of a two-stage consensus process involved developing an initial proposal for simple, intuitive descriptions of each ICF Rehabilitation Set category based on descriptions generated in a similar process in China. Stage two involved a consensus conference. Divided into three working groups, participants discussed and voted (vote A) whether the initially proposed descriptions of each ICF Rehabilitation Set category was simple and intuitive enough for use in daily practice. Afterwards the categories with descriptions considered ambiguous i.e. not simple and intuitive enough, were divided among the working groups, who were asked to propose a new description for the allocated categories. These proposals were then voted (vote B) on in a plenary session. The last step of the consensus conference required each working group to develop a new proposal for each and the same categories with descriptions still considered ambiguous. Participants then voted (final vote) for which of the three proposed descriptions they preferred. RESULTS: Nineteen clinicians from diverse rehabilitation disciplines from various regions of Italy participated in the consensus process. Three ICF categories already achieved consensus in vote A, while 20 ICF categories were accepted in vote B. The remaining 7 categories were decided in the final vote. CONCLUSIONS: The findings were discussed in light of current efforts toward developing strategies for ICF implementation, specifically for the application of an ICF-based clinical data collection tool, not only for Italy but also for the rest of Europe. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: Promising as minimal standards for monitoring the impact of interventions and for standardized reporting of functioning as a relevant outcome in rehabilitation.
BACKGROUND: As part of international efforts to develop and implement national models including the specification of ICF-based clinical data collection tools, the Italian rehabilitation community initiated a project to develop simple, intuitive descriptions of the ICF Rehabilitation Set, highlighting the core concept of each category in user-friendly language. AIM: This paper outlines the Italian experience in developing simple, intuitive descriptions of the ICF Rehabilitation Set as an ICF-based clinical data collection tool for Italy. DESIGN: Consensus process. SETTING: Expert conference. POPULATION: Multidisciplinary group of rehabilitation professionals. METHODS: The first of a two-stage consensus process involved developing an initial proposal for simple, intuitive descriptions of each ICF Rehabilitation Set category based on descriptions generated in a similar process in China. Stage two involved a consensus conference. Divided into three working groups, participants discussed and voted (vote A) whether the initially proposed descriptions of each ICF Rehabilitation Set category was simple and intuitive enough for use in daily practice. Afterwards the categories with descriptions considered ambiguous i.e. not simple and intuitive enough, were divided among the working groups, who were asked to propose a new description for the allocated categories. These proposals were then voted (vote B) on in a plenary session. The last step of the consensus conference required each working group to develop a new proposal for each and the same categories with descriptions still considered ambiguous. Participants then voted (final vote) for which of the three proposed descriptions they preferred. RESULTS: Nineteen clinicians from diverse rehabilitation disciplines from various regions of Italy participated in the consensus process. Three ICF categories already achieved consensus in vote A, while 20 ICF categories were accepted in vote B. The remaining 7 categories were decided in the final vote. CONCLUSIONS: The findings were discussed in light of current efforts toward developing strategies for ICF implementation, specifically for the application of an ICF-based clinical data collection tool, not only for Italy but also for the rest of Europe. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: Promising as minimal standards for monitoring the impact of interventions and for standardized reporting of functioning as a relevant outcome in rehabilitation.
Authors: Bhasker Amatya; Alaeldin Elmalik; Krystal Song; Su Yi Lee; Mary P Galea; Fary Khan Journal: J Rehabil Med Date: 2022-04-20 Impact factor: 3.959