Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp 765–773 | Cite as

Content comparisons of stroke-specific quality of life based upon the international classification of functioning, disability, and health

  • Luci F. Teixeira-Salmela
  • Mansueto G. Neto
  • Lívia C. Magalhães
  • Renata C. Lima
  • Christina D. C. M. Faria
Article

Abstract

Purpose

To link the concepts underlying the Stroke-Specific Quality of Life (SS-QOL) scale with those of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF), which are two different perspectives to consider functioning and health. This will facilitate the understanding of the relationships between the SS-QOL and the ICF. One of the purposes of the ICF is to be used as a common terminology and a clinical problem-solving tool in clinical and research settings. The ICF concept of functioning can also serve as the basis for the operationalization of the health-related quality of life. Thus, efforts should be made to allow the concurrent use of the ICF and health measurements in both clinical and research settings.

Methods

Linking of the SS-QOL concepts with the ICF categories was carried out by two independently trained health care professionals who applied the standardized eight linking rules that were specifically developed and updated for this purpose. The degree of agreement between the health care professionals was determined by kappa coefficients.

Results

Of the 49 items of the SS-QOL, 54 concepts were identified. The level of agreement between the health care professionals showed that the kappa coefficients ranged from 0.75 to 1.00. Three concepts (5.5%) could not be linked to the ICF and were coded as not covered. Fifty-one were linked to the ICF categories for the following components: 22 (41%)—body functions; 26 (48%)—activities and participation; and three (5.5%)—environmental factors. Eleven ICF chapters were identified.

Conclusions

Several categories of the ICF were linked to the items of the SS-QOL, with acceptable levels of agreement. These categories were specific and meaningful for stroke subjects, since the majority of the identified concepts were included in the comprehensive ICF core set for stroke. The findings indicated that the ICF provided a useful framework for the conceptual understanding of the SS-QOL, which demonstrated multiple representations of the ICF categories and covered a broad range of the ICF components that were meaningful for the stroke subjects.

Keywords

Stroke Health related quality of life ICF Health-status measures SS-QOL 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Brazilian Government funding Agencies (CNPq/FAPEMIG).

References

  1. 1.
    Bowling, A., & Brazier, J. (1995). ‘Quality of life’ in social science and medicine. Social Science and Medicine, 41(10), 1337–1338. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(95)00148-Z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cieza, A., Ewert, T., Ustun, B., Chatterji, S., Kostanjsek, N., & Stucki, G. (2004). Development of ICF core sets for patient with chronic conditions. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 44(Suppl.), 9–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Organization, World. Health. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. Geneva. World Healthy Organization. and Rehabilitation, 27(9), 507–528.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cieza, A., Geyh, S., Chatterji, S., Kostanjsek, N., Ustun, B., & Stucki, G. (2005). ICF linking rules: An update based on lessons learned. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 37(4), 212–218. doi: 10.1080/16501970510040263.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Salter, K., Jutai, J. W., Teasell, R., Foley, N. C., Bitensky, J., & Bayley, M. (2005). Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF participation. Disability and Rehabilitation, 27(9), 507–528. doi: 10.1080/0963828040008552.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vrankrijker, M. W. K. (2003). The long way from the international classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps (ICIDH) to the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Disability and Rehabilitation, 25(11), 561–564. doi: 10.1080/09638280110110879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bilbao, A., Kennedy, C., Chatterji, S., Ustun, B., Barquero, J. L. V., & Barth, J. T. (2003). The ICF: Applications of the WHO model of functioning, disability and health to brain injury rehabilitation. NeuroRehabilitation, 18(3), 239–250.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cieza, A., & Stucki, G. (2008). The international classification of functioning, disability and health: Its development process and content validity. European Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 44(3), 303–313.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cieza, A., Bickenbach, J., & Chatterji, S. (2008). The ICF as a conceptual platform to specify and discuss health and health-related concepts. Gesundheitswesen [Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)], 70(10), 47–56. doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1080933.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Geyh, S., Cieza, A., Schouten, J., Dickson, H., Frommelt, P., Omar, Z., et al. (2004). ICF core sets for stroke. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 44(Suppl.), 135–141. doi: 10.1080/16501960410016776.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jette, A. M. (1993). Using health-related quality of life measures in physical therapy outcomes research. Physical Therapy, 73(8), 528–537.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mayo, N. E., Poissant, L., Ahmed, S., Finch, L., Higgins, J., Salbach, N. M., et al. (2004). Incorporating the international classification of functioning, disability, and health (ICF) into an electronic health record to create indicators of function: Proof of concepts using the SF-12. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 11(6), 514–522. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M1462.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Steiner, W. A., Ryser, L., Huber, E., Uebelhart, D., Aeschlimann, A., & Stucki, G. (2002). Use of the ICF model as a clinical problem-solving tool in physical therapy and rehabilitation medicine. Physical Therapy, 82(11), 1098–1107.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stucki, G., Cieza, A., & Melvin, J. (2007). The international classification of functioning, disability and health: A unifying model for the conceptual description of the rehabilitation strategy. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 39, 279–285. doi: 10.2340/16501977-0041.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tempest, S., & McIntyre, A. (2006). Using the ICF to clarify team roles and demonstrate clinical reasoning in stroke rehabilitation. Disability and Rehabilitation, 28(10), 663–667. doi: 10.1080/09638280500276992.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cieza, A., Ewert, T., Ustun, B., Chatterji, S., Kostanjsek, N., & Stucki, G. (2004). Development of ICF core sets for patients with chronic conditions. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 44(Suppl), 9–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cieza, A., Brockow, T., Ewert, T., Amman, E., Kollerits, B., Chatterji, S., et al. (2002). Linking health-status measurements to the international classification of functioning, disability and health. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 34(5), 205–210. doi: 10.1080/165019702760279189.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cieza, A., & Stucki, G. (2005). Content comparisons of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) instruments based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Quality of Life Research, 14(5), 1225–1237. doi: 10.1007/s11136-004-4773-0.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Geyh, S., Cieza, A., Kollerits, B., Grimby, G., & Stucki, G. (2007). Content comparisons of health-related quality of life measures used in stroke based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF): A systematic review. Quality of Life Research, 16(5), 833–851. doi: 10.1007/s11136-007-9174-8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Murray, C. J. L., & Lopez, A. D. (1997). Global mortality, disability, and the contribution of risk factors: Global burden of disease study. Lancet, 349(9063), 1436–1442. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)07495-8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stucki, G., & Sigl, T. (2003). Assessment of the impact of disease on the individual. Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology, 18(1), 27–39.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Williams, L. S., Weiberger, M., Harris, L. E., & Biller, J. (1999). Measuring quality of life in a way that is meaningful to stroke patients. Neurology, 53(8), 1839–1843.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jaracz, K., & Kozubski, W. (2003). Quality of life in stroke patients. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica, 107(5), 324–329. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0404.2003.02078.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Duncan, P. W. (1994). Stroke disability. Physical Therapy, 74(5), 399–407.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Teixeira-Salmela, L. F., Magalhães, L. C., Souza, A. C., Lima, M. C., Magalhães, R. C., & Goulart, F. (2004). Adaptation of the Nottingham health profile: A simple measure to assess quality of life. Reports on Public Health, 20(4), 905–914.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    De Haan, R., Aaronson, N., Limburg, M., Hewer, R. L., & VanCrevel, H. (1993). Measuring quality of life in stroke. Stroke, 24(2), 320–327.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Doyle, P. J. (2002). Measuring health outcomes in stroke survivors. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83(Suppl.2), S39–S43. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2002.36838.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Williams, L. S., Weinberger, M., Harris, L. E., Clark, D. O., & Biller, J. (1999). Development of a stroke-specific quality of life scale. Stroke, 30(7), 1362–1369.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Guyatt, G. H., Feeny, D. H., & Patrick, D. L. (1993). Measuring health-related quality of life. Annals of Internal Medicine, 118(8), 622–629.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ewert, T., & Stucki, G. (2007). Validity of the SS-QOL in Germany and in survivors of hemorrhagic or ischemic stroke. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 21(2), 161–168. doi: 10.1177/1545968306292255.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hilari, K., & Byng, S. (2001). Measuring quality of life in people with aphasia: The stroke-specific quality of life scale. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 36(Suppl.), 86–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lima, R. C. M., Teixeira-Salmela, L. F., Magalhães, L. C., & Gomes-Neto, M. (2008). Psychometric properties of the Brazilian version of the stroke-specific quality of life scale: Application of the Rasch model. Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy, 12(2), 149–156.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Muus, I., Williams, L. S., & Ringsberg, K. C. (2007). Validation of the stroke-specific quality of life scale (SS-QOL): Test of reliability and validity of the Danish version (SS-QOL-DK). Clinical Rehabilitation, 21(7), 620–627. doi: 10.1177/0269215507075504.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vrdoljak, D., & Rumboldt, M. (2008). Quality of life after stroke in Croatian patients. Collegium Antropologicum, 32(2), 355–359.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Portney, L. G., & Watkins, M. P. (2000). Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Franchignoni, F., & Sallaffi, F. (2003). Quality of life assessment in rehabilitation medicine. Europa Medicophysica, 39(4), 191–198.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luci F. Teixeira-Salmela
    • 1
  • Mansueto G. Neto
    • 1
  • Lívia C. Magalhães
    • 2
  • Renata C. Lima
    • 1
  • Christina D. C. M. Faria
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Physical TherapyUniversidade Federal de Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Occupational TherapyUniversidade Federal de Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrazil

Personalised recommendations