2003
DOI: 10.1016/s0167-4943(03)00049-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Functional autonomy measurement system: development of a social subscale

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
19
0
4

Year Published

2007
2007
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
19
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Other variables include cognitive status [22] , self-perceived health status, social functioning [23] , satisfaction in regard to the services received [24] , and empowerment [25] . Sociodemographic data include age, sex, years of schooling, living alone, urban/rural environment, and region with/without an ISD network.…”
Section: Data Collectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other variables include cognitive status [22] , self-perceived health status, social functioning [23] , satisfaction in regard to the services received [24] , and empowerment [25] . Sociodemographic data include age, sex, years of schooling, living alone, urban/rural environment, and region with/without an ISD network.…”
Section: Data Collectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In order to account for the inconsistencies found in the role of social support with regard to pain experiences, we have argued (Matos & Bernardes, 2013;Matos, et al, 2015) that the impact of social support on pain-related disability might depend on the extent to which it promotes functional autonomy (i.e., the ability to perform activities of daily living without assistance; e.g., Pinsonnault et al, 2003) versus functional dependence (i.e., the need for assistance to carry out activities of daily living; e.g., Katz et al, 1963). Our argument was based on the assumption that pain-related social support might influence pain-related functioning, namely by supporting physical/social activity (dis)engagement (Fordyce, 1976;Vlayen et al, 1995).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The SMAF measures functional ability based on clinical judgement following an interview with the client that can be supplemented by other sources of observation such as proxies, simulation or actual observation of the tasks [28,29]. The four subscales of the SMAF included in the toolkit use a five-point rating scale for each item ranging from 73 (dependent) to 0 (independent).…”
Section: Description Of the Toolkitmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Low scores are indications of dependence and vary for each subscale -mobility (six items, score range 718 to 0), activities of daily living (ADL; seven items, score range 721 to 0), independent activities of daily living (IADL; eight items, score range 724 to 0) and social (six items, score range 718 to 0). Test -retest reliability coefficients (intraclass correlation coefficient) of the SMAF subscales are high: ADL: 0.96, mobility: 0.91, IADL: 0.95 [30] and social functioning: 0.96 [28]. Content, criterion and construct validity was studied, as well as responsiveness [31].…”
Section: Description Of the Toolkitmentioning
confidence: 99%