Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 10/2014

01-12-2014

Conceptualizing disability in US national surveys: application of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework

Auteurs: Diane E. Brandt, Pei-Shu Ho, Leighton Chan, Elizabeth K. Rasch

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 10/2014

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

Purpose

Disability data inform resource allocation and utilization, characterize functioning and changes over time, and provide a mechanism to monitor progress toward promoting and protecting the rights of individuals with disability. Data collection efforts, however, define and measure disability in varied ways. Our objective was to see how the content of disability measures differed in five US national surveys and over time.

Methods

Using the WHO ICF as a conceptual framework for measuring disability, we assessed the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), Current Population Survey (CPS), Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), National Survey of SSI Children and Families (NSCF), and American Community Survey (ACS) for their content coverage of disability relative to each of the four ICF components (i.e., body functions, body structures, activities and participation, and environment). We used second-level ICF three-digit codes to classify question content into categories within each ICF component and computed the proportion of categories within each ICF component that was represented in the questions selected from these five surveys.

Results

The disability measures varied across surveys and years. The NHIS captured a greater proportion of the ICF body functions and body structures components than did other surveys. The SIPP captured the most content of the ICF activities and participation component, and the NSCF contained the most content of the ICF environmental factors component.

Conclusions

This research successfully illustrated demonstrated the utility of the ICF in examining the content of disability measures in five national surveys and over time.
Literatuur
1.
go back to reference World Health Organization and United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. (2008). Training manual on disability statistics. Bangkok, Thailand. World Health Organization and United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. (2008). Training manual on disability statistics. Bangkok, Thailand.
2.
go back to reference Field, M. J., & Jette, A. M. (Eds.). (2007). The future of disability in America. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Field, M. J., & Jette, A. M. (Eds.). (2007). The future of disability in America. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
3.
go back to reference Mont, D. (2007). Measuring disability prevalence. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Mont, D. (2007). Measuring disability prevalence. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
5.
go back to reference Statistical Office Department of International Economic and Social Affairs Statistical Office. (1990). Disability statistics compendium. In Statistics on special populations. Publishing Division, United Nations: New York. Statistical Office Department of International Economic and Social Affairs Statistical Office. (1990). Disability statistics compendium. In Statistics on special populations. Publishing Division, United Nations: New York.
6.
go back to reference McDermott, S., & Turk, M. A. (2011). The myth and reality of disability prevalence: Measuring disability for research and service. Disability and Health Journal, 4(1), 1–5.PubMedCrossRef McDermott, S., & Turk, M. A. (2011). The myth and reality of disability prevalence: Measuring disability for research and service. Disability and Health Journal, 4(1), 1–5.PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva, Switzerland. World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva, Switzerland.
8.
go back to reference Borchers, M., et al. (2005). Content comparison of osteoporosis-targeted health status measures in relation to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Clinical Rheumatology, 24, 139–144.PubMedCrossRef Borchers, M., et al. (2005). Content comparison of osteoporosis-targeted health status measures in relation to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Clinical Rheumatology, 24, 139–144.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Cieza, A., & Stucki, G. (2005). Content Comparison of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) instruments based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). Quality of Life Research, 14, 1225–1237.PubMedCrossRef Cieza, A., & Stucki, G. (2005). Content Comparison of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) instruments based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). Quality of Life Research, 14, 1225–1237.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Geyh, S., et al. (2007). Content Comparison of Health-related Quality of Life measures used in stroke based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF): A systematic review. Quality of Life Research, 16, 833–851.PubMedCrossRef Geyh, S., et al. (2007). Content Comparison of Health-related Quality of Life measures used in stroke based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF): A systematic review. Quality of Life Research, 16, 833–851.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Stucki, A., et al. (2008). Content Comparison of Health-Related Quality of Life instruments for obstructive sleep apnea. Sleep Medicine, 9(2), 199–206.PubMedCrossRef Stucki, A., et al. (2008). Content Comparison of Health-Related Quality of Life instruments for obstructive sleep apnea. Sleep Medicine, 9(2), 199–206.PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Tschiesner, U., et al. (2008). Content Comparison of Quality of Life Questionnaires used in head and neck cancer based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: A systematic review. European Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, 265, 627–637.PubMedCrossRef Tschiesner, U., et al. (2008). Content Comparison of Quality of Life Questionnaires used in head and neck cancer based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: A systematic review. European Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, 265, 627–637.PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Moriello, C., et al. (2008). Mapping the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS-16) to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 40, 102–106.PubMedCrossRef Moriello, C., et al. (2008). Mapping the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS-16) to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 40, 102–106.PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Wasiak, J., et al. (2011). Measuring common outcome measures and their concepts using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) in adults with burn injury: A systematic review. Burns, 37, 913–924.PubMedCrossRef Wasiak, J., et al. (2011). Measuring common outcome measures and their concepts using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) in adults with burn injury: A systematic review. Burns, 37, 913–924.PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Stucki, G., et al. (2008). ICF-based classification and measurement of functioning. European Journal of Physical Rehabilitation, 44, 315–328. Stucki, G., et al. (2008). ICF-based classification and measurement of functioning. European Journal of Physical Rehabilitation, 44, 315–328.
16.
go back to reference Magasi, S., & Post, M. (2010). A comparative review of contemporary participation measures’ psychometric properties and content coverage. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 91(9 Suppl 1), S17–S28.PubMedCrossRef Magasi, S., & Post, M. (2010). A comparative review of contemporary participation measures’ psychometric properties and content coverage. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 91(9 Suppl 1), S17–S28.PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Fairbairn, K., et al. (2012). Mapping Patient-specific Functional Scale (PSFS) items to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Physical Therapy, 92(2), 310–317.PubMedCrossRef Fairbairn, K., et al. (2012). Mapping Patient-specific Functional Scale (PSFS) items to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Physical Therapy, 92(2), 310–317.PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Resnik, L., & Plow, M. (2009). Measuring participation as defined by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: An evaluation of existing measures. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 90, 856–866.PubMedCrossRef Resnik, L., & Plow, M. (2009). Measuring participation as defined by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: An evaluation of existing measures. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 90, 856–866.PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Cieza, A., et al. (2002). Linking health-status measurements to the international classification of functioning, disability and health. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 34(5), 205–210.PubMedCrossRef Cieza, A., et al. (2002). Linking health-status measurements to the international classification of functioning, disability and health. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 34(5), 205–210.PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Cieza, A., et al. (2005). ICF linking rules: An update based on lessons learned. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 37(4), 212–218.PubMedCrossRef Cieza, A., et al. (2005). ICF linking rules: An update based on lessons learned. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 37(4), 212–218.PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Fekete, C., et al. (2011). How to measure what matters: Development and application of guiding principles to select measurement instruments in an epidemiologic study on functioning. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 90(11 Suppl 2), S29–S38.PubMedCrossRef Fekete, C., et al. (2011). How to measure what matters: Development and application of guiding principles to select measurement instruments in an epidemiologic study on functioning. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 90(11 Suppl 2), S29–S38.PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Nicholas, J. (2013). Prevalence, characteristics, and poverty status of supplemental security income multirecipients. Social Security Bulletin 73(3), 11–21. Nicholas, J. (2013). Prevalence, characteristics, and poverty status of supplemental security income multirecipients. Social Security Bulletin 73(3), 11–21.
27.
go back to reference Becker, H. (2006). Measuring health among people with disabilities. Family and Community, 29(1 Suppl), 70S–77S.CrossRef Becker, H. (2006). Measuring health among people with disabilities. Family and Community, 29(1 Suppl), 70S–77S.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Altman, B. M. (2013). Another perspective: Capturing the working-age population with disabilities in survey measures. Journal of Disability Policy Studies. doi: 10.1177/1044207312474309 Altman, B. M. (2013). Another perspective: Capturing the working-age population with disabilities in survey measures. Journal of Disability Policy Studies. doi: 10.​1177/​1044207312474309​
29.
go back to reference Madans, J. H., Loeb, M. E., & Altman, B. M. (2010) Measuring disability and monitoring the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities: The work of the Washington group on disability statistics. BMC Public Health, 11(Suppl 4), S4–S11. Madans, J. H., Loeb, M. E., & Altman, B. M. (2010) Measuring disability and monitoring the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities: The work of the Washington group on disability statistics. BMC Public Health, 11(Suppl 4), S4–S11.
30.
go back to reference Burkhauser, R., et al. (2012). Using the 2009 CPS-ASEC-SSA matched dataset to show who is and is not captured in the official six-question sequence on disability. In 14th annual joint conference of the retirement research center consortium. Washington, DC. Burkhauser, R., et al. (2012). Using the 2009 CPS-ASEC-SSA matched dataset to show who is and is not captured in the official six-question sequence on disability. In 14th annual joint conference of the retirement research center consortium. Washington, DC.
31.
go back to reference Livermore, G., Whalen, D., & Stapleton, D. C. (2011). Assessing the need for a National Disability Survey: Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Livermore, G., Whalen, D., & Stapleton, D. C. (2011). Assessing the need for a National Disability Survey: Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Metagegevens
Titel
Conceptualizing disability in US national surveys: application of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework
Auteurs
Diane E. Brandt
Pei-Shu Ho
Leighton Chan
Elizabeth K. Rasch
Publicatiedatum
01-12-2014
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 10/2014
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0740-6

Andere artikelen Uitgave 10/2014

Quality of Life Research 10/2014 Naar de uitgave