Remodeling of the ICF:A commentary

Since its publication in 2001 the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) has attracted debate about the content and the model presented. After almost 20 years use, regular updating since 2008 and with the prospect of a new edition in 2020 there is increasing interest in the ICF as a tool to meet contemporary information requirements. Information on functioning is important across not only health systems, but all areas where change in functioning is important: education, employment, and social welfare for example. This commentary responds to the issues raised in a commentary by Mitra & Shakespeare in 2019 and supports review of the ICF in the current context by informing users and providers of data on human functioning how they might engage in the maintenance, updating, and modernisation of the ICF

How to Facilitate Adherence to Cardiac Rehabilitation in Primary Health Settings for Ischaemic Heart Disease Patients. The Perspectives of Health Professionals

BackgroundCardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a class 1A recommendation and an integrated part of standard treatment for patients with cardiac disease. In Denmark, CR adheres to European guidelines, it is group-based and partly conducted in primary health settings. Despite high evidence for the benefits of CR, it remains underutilized. How to facilitate CR adherence in primary health settings is poorly understood.AimThis study explores health professional's perspectives on how to facilitate CR adherence for patients with ischaemic heart disease in primary health settings.MethodsData were collected through focus group discussions. Respondents were health professionals specialized in and working with CR in primary health settings. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.ResultsEleven health professionals participated in two focus group discussions. Five themes emerged as facilitators of CR; (1) placing the person at the center, (2) coherent programme, (3) flow of information, (4) contextual factors, and (5) feeling of belonging.ConclusionThis study illuminates the complexity of facilitating adherence to CR in primary health settings and provides ways in which health professionals may facilitate adherence. Placing the person at the center is pivotal and may be done by adapting CR offers to patients' social context, culture and life circumstances and ensuring a feeling of belonging. The rhetoric related to CR should be positive and throughout the entire course of treatment health professionals should possess a generic and collective approach to and view of CR. Perceiving these elements as potential facilitators is of vital importance and addressing them may facilitate adherence

A Mixed Methods Study of Functioning and Rehabilitation Needs Following COVID-19

COVID-19 can lead to a long-term loss of functioning, which may affect activities and participation in daily living in various ways. The extent and characteristics of post-COVID-19 persistent symptoms are currently being studied extensively worldwide. The purpose of this exploratory study is to explore functioning and rehabilitation needs among persons with self-reported disability following COVID-19. This mixed methods study is based on data from patient-reported outcome measures (PRO), tests of body functions, visual drawings and focus groups among persons with self-reported disability after having suffered from COVID-19. PRO covered quality of life, activity and participation. Tests of body functions targeted strength and endurance. Focus groups and visual drawings elaborated on how post COVID-19 persistent symptoms affected functioning, activities and daily living. Data was collected in August and September 2020. The study sample consisted of 11 women, nine men, aged 35–79 years. Self-reported PRO data showed low quality of life and disability among the participants primarily related to fatigue, energy and drive, breathing and concentration. Tests of body functions showed low strength in lower extremities but otherwise no striking limitations on a group level. Analysis of the focus groups generated the following four themes: (1) Persistent symptoms, particularly in regards to concentration, memory, lack of energy, fatigue and headaches. (2) Balancing activities in daily living with fluctuating symptoms. (3) Uncertainty and Powerlessness, which included a need for directional guidance in order to regain functioning and unmet needs regarding further clinical assessment of persistent symptoms, referral to rehabilitation and returning to work. (4) Hope associated with the experiences of recovery - and for the future. This study highlights that persons with persistent symptoms after COVID-19 may experience a range of limitations in their daily living. This points toward a need for individual assessment and guidance to tailor relevant rehabilitation

Brug af portfolioopgaver og peer feedback for at øge sammenhæng og studenterinddragelse i undervisningen – et praksiseksempel

Formålet er at beskrive, hvordan portfolioopgaver og peer feedback kan øge sammenhængen og studenterinddragelse i et kursusforløb.De studerende opnår indstillingsbetingelse til eksamen på deres semesterkursus ved godkendelse af mindst tre af fem portfolioopgaver. Der er tre individuelle opgaver med peer feedback og to gruppeopgaver.I evalueringen af forløbet blev der anvendt elektroniske kursusevalueringer af alle studerende, semistruktureret interview med én studerende og mundtlige evalueringer med hhv. studerende og undervisere.Vores resultater indikerer, at brug af portfolioopgaver og peer feedback har øget sammenhængen i kursusforløbet og sikret, at de studerende arbejder med det fag-lige stof mellem undervisningsgangene. Det har bidraget til at fremme brugen af dybdelæringsstrategi og øget refleksion. Vi vurderer, at kriteriebaserede feedback-vejledninger og rubrics har højnet de studerendes tryghed og øget kvaliteten af de-res opgavebesvarelser. Vi anser det som nødvendigt for gennemførelse af peer feedback, at de komplicerede processer ved peer feedback understøttes af et stabilt og velfungerende digitalt peer feedback-værktøj

Lack of systematicity in research prioritisation processes - a scoping review of evidence syntheses

BACKGROUND: A systematically and transparently prepared research priority-setting process within a specific scientific area is essential in order to develop a comprehensive and progressive evidence-based approach that will have a substantial societal impact on the site of interest. On the basis of two consensus workshops, the authors suggest the following methods for all such processes: use of experts, stakeholder involvement, literature review, and ranking. OBJECTIVES: The identification, categorisation, and discussion of methods for preparing a research prioritisation process. METHODS: Eligibility criteria: Evidence synthesis includes original studies presenting a research prioritisation process and which listed the methods used to create a research prioritisation process. Only evidence syntheses related to health research were included. Data sources: We searched the following electronic databases, without limiting by date or language: MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Epistemonikos, and CINAHL EBSCO. Charting methods: The methods used were mapped and broken down into different elements, and the use of the elements was determined. To support the mapping, (A) all of the elements were collapsed into unique categories, and (B) four essential categories were selected as crucial to a successful research prioritisation process. RESULTS: Twelve evidence syntheses were identified, including 416 original studies. The identification and categorisation of methods used resulted in 13 unique categories of methods used to prepare a research agenda. CONCLUSION: None of the identified categories was used in all of the original studies. Surprisingly, all four of the essential categories were used in only one of the 416 original studies identified. There is seemingly no international consensus on which methods to use when preparing a research prioritisation process. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/dygz8/). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-022-02149-2

Rehabilitation Research in Denmark Between 2001 and 2020: A Scoping Review

The demand for rehabilitation has increased, and evidence is rapidly growing; however, a rehabilitative health strategy receives less attention than treatment. Knowledge of what is being researched, who are the target groups and who contributes to rehabilitation research is deficient. We did not find any reviews mapping rehabilitation research regarding the research questions. The objective was to identify and synthesize existing scientific evidence on rehabilitation research published by Danish institutions between 2001 and 2021. The research questions to be explored were: Among which study groups has rehabilitation research been published?. Which types of studies on rehabilitation have been published?. Which institutions have been involved in rehabilitation research?MethodsThe process was guided according to the Joanna Briggs Institute's (JBI's) scoping review methodology. Four databases were searched. All types of peer-reviewed studies on any target group and rehabilitation setting, with any affiliation to a Danish institution, were eligible to be included. Studies referring to population and the type of design were categorized. Institutions were counted as Danish first authorship.ResultsThe search revealed 3,100 studies, and following screening 1,779 were included. A total of 24 broad study groups were identified, mostly diagnosis-based health conditions. Musculoskeletal, cancer, and cardiac had 342, 228, and 174 studies, respectively. A total of 1,545 had a Danish first authorship, most of the Danish publications came from hospitals (56.6%) and universities (28.4%). The publication trend showed an almost linear development, with a 10–15% increase during the period.ConclusionFollowing screening 1,779 studies were included involving 24 broad study groups. Most categories were diagnosis-based; musculoskeletal, cancer, and cardiac health conditions encompassed most studies. All study designs were represented, and 1/10 were secondary studies. The majority (87%) of studies had a Danish first authorship. The majority of first affiliations were among hospitals followed by universities. A few municipalities were presented although they are yet to have research responsibility. Publication trends showed an increase primarily from 2013.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://osf.io/, identifier [10.17605/OSF.IO/2AENX]

ICF-Based Assessment of Functioning in Daily Clinical Practice. A Promising Direction Toward Patient-Centred Care in Patients With Low Back Pain

Background: Patient-centred care has received increased attention in recent years. Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and shared decision-making are key components of Patient-Centred care. Low back pain (LBP) is a complex symptom affected by multiple, interacting factors. Therefore, evidence strongly recommend a biopsychosocial and patient-centred approach in the assessment and management. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) provide a biopsychosocial model for describing functioning and disability. ICF is widely acknowledged, but implementation into clinical practice is lacking. To support the use of a biopsychosocial and patient-centred approach in daily clinical practice among patients with LBP we developed a practice-friendly tool based on ICF; the LBP assessment tool.Objective: To compare an ICF-based assessment facilitated by the LBP assessment tool with standard care in terms of the use of PROs and shared decision-making in order to promote patient-centred care in patients with LBP.Methods: A non-randomized controlled design was used. Eligible patients were allocated to one of two groups: the ICF group, assessed with the LBP assessment tool or the control group, assessed with a conventional LBP assessment. Primary outcome includes use of PROs. Secondary outcomes include use of a graphical overview displaying the patient profile and shared decision-making. A patient evaluation questionnaire was used to collect data.Results: Seven hundred ten patients were assessed for eligibility of whom 531 were allocated to the ICF group (n = 299) or the control group (n = 232). A significantly higher use of PRO data (p < 0.00) and the patient profile (p < 0.00) was reported in favor of the ICF group. Patients in the ICF group also experienced being more involved in decision-making (p = 0.01).Conclusions: This study showed that a functioning assessment, by means of the LBP assessment tool, increased use of PROs and shared decision-making when compared to a conventional LBP assessment. Additionally, this study demonstrated that routine use of ICF-based PRO data and shared decision-making promoted patient-centred care in patients with LBP. The LBP assessment tool may be a strong candidate for a user-friendly ICF-based tool with the potential to support health professionals in a shift toward a biopsychosocial and patient-centred approach to patients with LBP