Faculty of Medicine and health sciences, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, Occupational Therapy programme, Ghent University, BE-9000 Gent, Belgium.
J Rehabil Med. 2018 Aug 22;50(8):679-695. doi: 10.2340/16501977-2363.
Rehabilitation services are increasingly targeting involvement in daily life. In the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health this is referred to as "participation". How-ever, questions have arisen regarding the conceptualization of participation, and consensus is lacking.
The first phase of this study is a critical review of the literature to detect recurring conceptual problems in the application of participation and how researchers deal with these. The second phase is a systematic review to identify how participation measures are operationalized.
The critical review found possible solutions to 4 recurring key limitations: (i) how to deal with ambiguity and vagueness regarding the term "participation"; (ii) how to differentiate between activity and participation; (iii) what is the current empirical knowledge about the subjective aspects of participation; (iv) what are the different ways to measure participation. The systematic review found 18 instruments operationalizing participation in different ways: (i) unidimensional: frequency of performing activities; (ii) unidimensional: limitations in experiencing participation when performing activities; (iii) multidimensional: multiple subjective dimensions when performing activities; and (iv) multidimensional: objective and subjective dimensions.
Notwithstanding an increasing body of knowledge, some issues remain unclear and how participation is measured is subject to debate. This results in difficulties in the use of participation in clinical practice. However, insight into the current body of knowledge and awareness of shortcomings might help clinicians who aim to apply participation in practice.
康复服务越来越注重参与日常生活。在国际功能、残疾和健康分类中,这被称为“参与”。然而,参与的概念化问题已经出现,缺乏共识。
本研究的第一阶段是对文献进行批判性审查,以发现参与应用中反复出现的概念问题以及研究人员如何处理这些问题。第二阶段是系统评价,以确定参与度测量是如何操作的。
批判性审查发现了 4 个反复出现的主要限制的可能解决方案:(i)如何处理“参与”一词的歧义;(ii)如何区分活动和参与;(iii)目前关于参与的主观方面的经验知识;(iv)衡量参与的不同方法。系统评价发现了 18 种不同方式操作化参与的工具:(i) 一维:活动的频率;(ii)一维:活动时体验参与的限制;(iii)多维:活动时的多个主观维度;以及(iv)多维:客观和主观维度。
尽管知识不断增加,但一些问题仍不清楚,参与的衡量方式仍存在争议。这导致参与在临床实践中的应用困难。然而,对现有知识的了解和对缺点的认识可能有助于旨在将参与应用于实践的临床医生。