ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2015
Awareness and the arguments for and against the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health among representatives of disability organisations.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applying the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health to speech-language pathology social communication interventions for autistic children and youth: A scoping review.Autism : the international journal of research and practice · 2026Article
- The disability mismatch: the case for a comprehensive disability status measure.Health affairs scholar · 2025Article
- Paradoxes in pediatric rehabilitation: building an interdisciplinary, total-child framework to promote effective interventions and life course well-being.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- Insights into Shared Decision-Making in Interprofessional Teams for a Boy with Down Syndrome with Communication and Language Issues: Simulation-Based Training for Medical and Allied Health Students.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Goal-setting and personalization under the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health framework: Community reintegration program for post-stroke patients.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2023Article
- Inclusive rehabilitation and assistive technologies development: An exploration of considerations, principles, and stakeholder engagement.Journal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineeringArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Disability organisations have not been engaged in the debate about the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) in Sweden. We wanted to know representatives' attitudes about the ICF. The aim of the study was to elucidate the arguments for and against the ICF among representatives of disability organisations. The study consisted of eighteen representatives (from six disability organisations) that answered electronic questionnaires. The questionnaires involved ten open questions about the arguments for and against the ICF. The answers of the questionnaires have been categorized according to qualitative content analysis. Our results indicated four themes: awareness, arguments for and against, influence and the future. More than half of the representatives had very limited awareness of the ICF. There was an explicit criticism of individual classification but more positive comments about classification on an aggregated level. The most important issue for representatives was influencing social policy in society, not learning and spreading information about the ICF.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.