Systematic Literature Review on ICF From 2001 to 2013 in the Nordic Countries Focusing on Clinical and Rehabilitation Context

Abstract

We present a systematic review on International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) used in the Nordic countries from 2001 through 2013, describing and quantifying the development in utilization of ICF, and describe the extent to which the different components of the ICF have been used. A search was conducted in EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycInfo. Papers from Nordic countries were included if ICF was mentioned in title or abstract. Papers were assigned to one of eight categories covering the wide rehabilitation area; furthermore, area of focus was assigned. Use of ICF components and intervention were coded in papers categorized as “clinical and/or rehabilitation contexts” or “non-clinical contexts”. One hundred seventy papers were included, of these 99 papers were from the categories “clinical and/or rehabilitation contexts” or “non-clinical contexts”. Forty-two percent of the 170 included papers were published in the period 2011 - 2013. There was an increase in ICF-relevant papers from 2001 to 2013, especially in the categories “clinical and/or rehabilitation contexts” and “non-clinical contexts”. The most represented focus areas were neurology, musculoskeletal, and work-related areas. All five or at least four ICF components were mentioned in the results or discussions in most papers, and activity was most frequently mentioned.

The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) in Electronic Health Records

“…Another review that specifically targeted the use of the ICF in the Nordic European countries found that there was an increase in ICF relevant papers, especially in the fields of neurology, musculoskeletal, and work-related areas. Nevertheless, the authors concluded that there is still a long way to go before ICF is widely used in rehabilitation and clinical settings [11]. Our review, however, differs from and yet complements these previous reviews by focusing specifically on the use of the ICF in EHRs.…”

“…The ICF complements the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) with information about the impact of a health condition on people's functioning in daily life, such as basic activities of daily living but also participation in various life areas, such as employment [9]. Internationally, the ICF has become increasingly present in recent years [10,11]. Furthermore, functioning as described in the ICF, has been referred to as the third health indicator for monitoring the performance of health systems, next to mortality and morbidity [12].…”

Supporting the clinical use of the ICF in Japan – development of the Japanese version of the simple, intuitive descriptions for the ICF Generic-30 set, its operationalization through a rating reference guide, and interrater reliability study

“…why did you choose a rating of 2 for the category d450 Walking? [3] Why didn't you select the adjacent response options, e.g. why didn't you select a rating of 1 or 3 instead of a rating of 2?…”

“…Four key topics emerged from a qualitative analysis of the discussion notes: [1] reconciling common clinical terms with the often detailed definitions of the original descriptions of ICF categories [2]; specifying the assumed level of functioning [3]; resolving several different aspects in a given category; and [4] handling the wording of the original definitions of ICF categories which are unfamiliar to Japanese clinicians.…”

“…Though the ICF is accepted by all WHO-member states, its application in clinical practice is still limited [3]. One reason for this is the lack of clinical tools that use language familiar to health professionals and at the same time consistent with the original concept of the ICF itself.…”