Yang Ming, Luo Li, Hao Qiukui, Dong Birong
Department of Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University , China.
Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36(11):884-93. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2013.822571. Epub 2013 Aug 9.
To identify self-reported disability measures developed for older adults by performing a systematic literature review and to compare the contents of all identified measures based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF).
A broad systematic literature search was performed in March 2012 in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and PROQOLID. Each item in the identified measures was extracted and linked to the ICF categories. A content comparison between measures was performed. The content density and diversity of each measure were assessed by calculating the content density ratio (the number of meaningful concepts divided by the number of items in each questionnaire) and content diversity ratio (the number of different ICF categories divided by the number of linked meaningful concepts), respectively.
We reviewed 5622 published articles and identified 13 eligible measures. In total, 293 meaningful concepts from 265 items were extracted, of which, 270 concepts were linked to the ICF. A total of 62 different ICF categories were addressed. EARRS, FHS and SF-LLFDI had the highest content density ratio, while FHS and KI had the highest content diversity ratio. Different measures differed considerably in content.
The ICF can be used as a conceptual framework not only for assessing measures but also for developing new measures. According to this ICF-based content comparison, the contents of currently available measures for disability in older adults vary significantly from one another. Our study may provide useful information for the selection of suitable measures for a particular purpose, as well as the development of new measures.
通过进行系统的文献综述,识别为老年人开发的自我报告残疾测量工具,并根据国际功能、残疾和健康分类(ICF)比较所有已识别测量工具的内容。
2012年3月在以下数据库中进行了广泛的系统文献检索:MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL、PsycINFO和PROQOLID。提取已识别测量工具中的每个项目,并将其与ICF类别相关联。对测量工具之间的内容进行比较。通过分别计算内容密度比(每个问卷中有意义概念的数量除以项目数量)和内容多样性比(不同ICF类别的数量除以相关有意义概念的数量)来评估每个测量工具的内容密度和多样性。
我们回顾了5622篇已发表的文章,识别出13项合格的测量工具。总共从265个项目中提取了293个有意义的概念,其中270个概念与ICF相关联。总共涉及62个不同的ICF类别。EARRS、FHS和SF - LLFDI的内容密度比最高,而FHS和KI的内容多样性比最高。不同的测量工具在内容上有很大差异。
ICF不仅可以用作评估测量工具的概念框架,还可以用于开发新的测量工具。根据这种基于ICF的内容比较,目前可用的老年人残疾测量工具的内容彼此差异很大。我们的研究可能为选择适合特定目的的测量工具以及开发新的测量工具提供有用的信息。