ArticlePeerJ2025
Development and validation of a functional assessment tool for Chinese inpatient rehabilitation: insights from a Delphi study based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF).
Article in PeerJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objectives: To develop and validate a functional assessment tool for inpatient rehabilitation in China using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) Rehabilitation Set (ICF-RS) framework and the Delphi method. Methods: A three-round Delphi process engaged 15 experts to refine ICF-RS items via a 5-point importance questionnaire. Validation involved 2,574 inpatients assessed with a numerical rating scale. Reliability (Cronbach's alpha) and structural validity (factor analysis) were evaluated. Results: Through three rounds of Delphi meetings, 10, 2, and 1 ICF items with mean importance scores below the threshold were respectively removed, resulting in 17 ICF items achieving expert consensus for inclusion in the final assessment tool, named ICF-RS-17. Expert authority coefficient was 0.81. Cronbach's alpha exceeded 0.9. Factor analysis identified two factors explaining 68.86% (admission) and 73.25% (discharge) of variance, confirming structural validity. Conclusions: The study developed a 17-item functional assessment tool, ICF-RS-17, demonstrating strong reliability and validity for inpatient rehabilitation. These findings help promote the application of the ICF in clinical settings, enhance rehabilitation clinical management, and potentially support the further development of rehabilitation insurance policies.
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.