Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29869054›Full record

ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2019

International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health in Vocational Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review of the State of the Field.

A H Momsen, C M Stapelfeldt, R Rosbjerg, R Escorpizo, M Labriola, M Bjerrum

Open access · hybridAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Human Functioning: Developments and Grand Challenges.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2020
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

A H MomsenSection of Clinical Social Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, 8000, Aarhus, Denmark. anne-mette.momsen@rm.dk.
C M StapelfeldtSection of Clinical Social Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, 8000, Aarhus, Denmark.
R RosbjergSection of Clinical Social Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, 8000, Aarhus, Denmark.
R EscorpizoDepartment of Rehabilitation and Movement Science, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA.
M LabriolaSection of Clinical Social Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, 8000, Aarhus, Denmark.
M BjerrumDanish Centre of Systematic Reviews: A Joanna Briggs Institute Centre of Excellence, Department of Medicine and Technology, University of Aalborg, 9000, Aalborg, Denmark.
Aarhus University · DKCentral Denmark Region · DKUniversity of Vermont · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose The purposes of this study were to provide an outline of the existing literature on operationalization of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) within vocational rehabilitation (VR) and to explore the ICF utility within VR. Methods The process was undertaken in five stages according to a framework of scoping review. Screening and extraction of data were done by two independent reviewers, and data was summarized according to content analysis. Results Fifty papers (25 qualitative and 25 quantitative) were included. The operationalization of the ICF was described in four different ways: In total 18 (36%) papers described use of the ICF for structuring information, 8 (15%) for linking information to ICF, 12 (24%) for analysis of results, and 12 (24%) for development of a model. In total 15 (29%) papers described VR interventions involving stakeholders, whereas 32 (62%) were reviews. Forty of the papers described all the ICF components. Conclusions The review revealed use of the ICF within the field VR in 50 papers, and in various settings. The ICF framework was most often operationalized for structuring or linking information of functioning. A majority of papers were reviews and involved researchers only, whereas different stakeholders and VR professionals were involved in the interventions. In 40 papers all the ICF components were described, and the ICF was considered a useful tool to inform the VR professionals´ assessment of functioning. However, more research within VR is needed to standardize and ease the use of the ICF.

Indexed as

International Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthDisability EvaluationHumansPersons with DisabilitiesRehabilitation, VocationalReturn to WorkOccupational health servicesOutcome assessmentRehabilitationReturn to work

Identifiers

PMID29869054
PMCPMC6531389
OpenAlexW2806674143

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.