ArticlePhysiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy2025
Validation of the Brazilian Version of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) for Women After Breast Cancer Surgery.
Article in Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Validation of the Brazilian Version of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) for Women After Breast Cancer Surgery.Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeThe World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) is a generic instrument created by the World Health Organization (WHO) for measuring functioning and disability. Although this instrument has been extensively studied in different populations, its validity concerning breast cancer patients who have undergone surgery remains uncharted. This study aims to analyze the measurement properties of the Brazilian version of WHODAS 2.0 to validate it as a tool for assessing the functioning/disability of postoperative breast cancer surgery patients.
methodsThis is a validation study conducted at three centers in the northeast of Brazil, involving women between 3 and 12 months after mastectomy or quadrantectomy, interviewed with the Brazilian version of the 36-item WHODAS 2.0. Participants also completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT-B+4) questionnaire. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM) and smallest detectable change (SDC) were used to measure test-retest reliability. Both construct and convergent validity were analyzed using Spearman correlation.
resultsNinety-five women with a mean age of 53.12 (± 11.10) answered the WHODAS. The responses revealed satisfactory internal consistency for all domains (α ≥ 0.7) and the total score (α = 0.93). Excellent test-retest reliability was observed (ICC = 0.87). Regarding the construct validity, a strong negative correlation was found between FACT-B+ 4 and WHODAS (ρ = -0.75). Moreover, the convergent validity analysis depicted correlations (between WHODAS and FACT-B+ 4 domains) ranging from weak to moderate, except for the "mobility" subscale of WHODAS, which showed a strong correlation with the "physical well-being" subscale of FACT-B+ 4. DISCUSSION: The results provide evidence that the WHODAS 2.0 is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing the functioning/disability of the target population, which allows its use as outcome measure based on the biopsychosocial model.
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.