A1 Vertaisarvioitu alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä lehdessä
The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) and the WHO Minimal Generic Set of Domains of Functioning and Health versus Conventional Instruments in subacute stroke
Tekijät: Tarvonen-Schroder S, Hurme S, Laimi K
Kustantaja: FOUNDATION REHABILITATION INFORMATION
Kustannuspaikka: Uppsala
Julkaisuvuosi: 2019
Journal: Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
Tietokannassa oleva lehden nimi: JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION MEDICINE
Lehden akronyymi: J REHABIL MED
Vuosikerta: 51
Numero: 9
Aloitussivu: 675
Lopetussivu: 682
Sivujen määrä: 8
ISSN: 1650-1977
eISSN: 1651-2081
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2583
Rinnakkaistallenteen osoite: https://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/detail/Publication/42652591
Objective: To compare short generic International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)-based measures of functioning with traditional measures of stroke severity and dependence in subacute stroke.Methods: In this cross-sectional study patients with stroke (n = 195) and their significant others completed the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) at discharge from rehabilitation. A neurologist assessed functioning with the 7-item World Health Organization (WHO) Minimal Generic Set of domains of functioning and health. These scores were compared with assessments of severity of stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale; NIHSS) and dependence (modified Rankin Scale; mRS; and Functional Independence Measure; FIM).Results: From mild to severe stroke, increasing disability was found in single items and sum scores of WHODAS and the WHO Minimal Generic Set. Although proxies rated 6 out of the 12 separate WHODAS functions more impaired than did the patients, correlations between the different measures (proxy- and patient-WHODAS, the WHO Minimal Generic Set, mRS, NIHSS and FIM total and sub-scores) were strong to very strong, except for moderate correlations between patient-WHODAS, and NIHSS or FIM cognitive sub-score.Conclusion: Despite their brevity, both generic ICF-based tools were useful in finding disabilities for patient- and family-centred goal-setting and service-planning after subacute rehabilitation.
Ladattava julkaisu This is an electronic reprint of the original article. |  |
