Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2017-9
International Classification of Functioning,Disability and Health: development of an assessment set to evaluate functioning based on the Brief ICF Core Set for Hand Conditions – ICF Hand A
Timely identification of patients’ problems after disorder or injury of the hand requires a thorough functional assessment. However, the variety of outcome measures available makes it difficult to choose the appropriate instrument. The brief International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (Brief ICF Core Set for Hand Conditions) provides a standard for what aspects need to be measured in hand injuries and disorders without specifying how to make the assessment. We developed the ICF-based Assessment Hand (ICF HandA), an assessment set for functioning based on the Brief ICF Core Set for Hand Conditions. First, we performed a literature review and an expert survey to pool outcome measures appropriate to assess functioning in clinical practice. At an interdisciplinary consensus conference experts decided on the outcome measures to be included in the ICF HandA. The ICF HandA provides a consensus on outcome measures and instruments to systematically assess function in patients with hand injuries and disorders.
BaslerHD. Akutschmerztherapie in Pädiatrie und Geriatrie – Schmerzmessung: Welche Schmerzskala bei welchem Patienten?Anästh Int Notfall Schmerzther. 2011, 46: 334–42.
2.
BiernackiPWaldorfD. Snowball sampling: problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological Meth Res. 1981, 10: 141–63.
3.
BirchANuttallDStanleyJKTrailIA. The outcome of wrist surgery: what factors are important and how should they be reported?J Hand Surg Eur. 2011, 36: 308–14.
4.
Boffi RibeiroRCFonseca LimaSMGomes CarreiraACMasieroDChamlianTR. Inter-tester reliability assessment of the volumetric measurement of the hand in subjects without any changes in their upper extremities. Acta Fisiatr. 2010, 17: 3–7.
5.
BryantDFernandesN. Measuring patient outcomes: a primer. Injury. 2011, 42: 232–5.
6.
ChangulaniMOkonkwoUKeswaniTKalairajahY. Outcome evaluation measures for wrist and hand: which one to choose?Int Orthop. 2008, 32: 1–6.
7.
ChungKCPillsburyMSWaltersMRHaywardRA. Reliability and validity testing of the michigan hand outcomes questionnaire. J Hand Surg Am. 1998, 23: 575–87
8.
DubertT. Outcome measurements in hand and upper limb surgery. Chirurgie de la Main. 2014, 33: 235–46.
9.
GoldhahnJAngstFSimmenBR. What counts: outcome assessment after distal radius fractures in aged patients. J Orthop Trauma. 2011, 16: 58–66.
HudakPLAmadioPCBombardierC. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand). Am J Ind Med. 1996, 29: 602–8.
12.
Hüter-BeckerADölkenM (Eds.) Untersuchen in der physiotherapie. Stuttgart, Thieme, 2011.
13.
IsernhagenS. Functional capacity evaluation: rationale, procedure, utility of the kinesiophysical approach. J Occupat Rehabil. 1992, 2: 157–68.
14.
KroenkeKSpitzerRLWilliamsJB. The Patient Health Questionnaire-2: validity of a two-item depression screener. Med Care. 2003, 41: 1284–92.
15.
KroenkeKSpitzerRL. The PHQ-9: a new depression diagnostic and severity measure. Psychiatric Annals. 2002, 32: 509–21.
16.
KroenkeKSpitzerRLWilliamsJBMonahanPOLoweB. Anxiety disorders in primary care: prevalence, impairment, comorbidity, and detection. Ann Internal Med. 2007, 146: 317–25.
17.
KroenkeKSpitzerRLWilliamsJB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001, 16: 606–13.
18.
KusSDereskewitzCWickertMet al. Validation of the comprehensive international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) core set for hand conditions. Hand Therapy. 2011, 16: 58–66.
19.
KusSOberhauserCCiezaA. Validation of the brief international classification of functioning, disability, and health (ICF) core set for hand conditions. J Hand Ther. 2012, 25: 274–86; quiz 87.
20.
KusSvan de Ven-StevensLACoenenMBernoSKolleritsBCiezaA. What is our knowledge of functioning and disability in hand conditions based on?Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011a, 92: 1326–32.
21.
LundborgGRosenB. The two-point discrimination test – time for a re-appraisal?J Hand Surg Br. 2004, 29: 418–22.
22.
MacDermidJC. Patient-reported outcomes: state-of-the-art hand surgery and future applications. Hand Clin. 2014, 30: 293–304.
23.
MaerckerASchützwohlM. Erfassung von psychischen Belastungsfolgen: Die Impact of Event Skala-revidierte Version (IES-R). Diagnostica. 1998, 44: 130–41.
24.
MarksMSchoonesJWKollingCHerrenDBGoldhahnJVliet VlielandTP. Outcome measures and their measurement properties for trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis: a systematic literature review. J Hand Surg Eur. 2013, 38: 822–38.
25.
MathiowetzVWeberKVollandGKashmanN. Reliability and validity of grip and pinch strength evaluations. J Hand Surg Am. 1984, 9: 222–6.
26.
MetcalfCAdamsJBurridgeJYuleVChappellP. A review of clinical upper limb assessments within the framework of the WHO ICF. Musculoskeletal Care. 2007, 5: 160–73.
27.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJAltmanDG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009, 62: 1006–12.
28.
MoriyaTAokiMIbaKOzasaYWadaTYamashitaT. Effect of triangular ligament tears on distal radioulnar joint instability and evaluation of three clinical tests: a biomechanical study. J Hand Surg Eur. 2009, 34: 219–23.
29.
NgCLHoDDChowSP. The Moberg pickup test: results of testing with a standard protocol. J Hand Ther. 1999, 12: 309–12.
30.
RosalesRS. Clinical research in hand surgery. J Hand Surg Eur. 2015, 40: 546–8.
31.
RudolfK-DKusSChungKCJohnstonMLeBlancMCiezaA. Development of the international classification of functioning, disability and health core sets for hand conditions—results of the World Health Organization international consensus process. Disabil Rehabil. 2012, 34: 681–93.
32.
SpitzerRLKroenkeKWilliamsJWLöweB. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Internal Med. 2006, 166: 1092–7.
33.
StrauchBLangAFerderMKeyes-FordMFreemanKNewsteinD. The ten test. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997, 99: 1074–8.
34.
TiffinJAsherEJ. The Purdue pegboard; norms and studies of reliability and validity. J Appl Psychol. 1948, 32: 234–47.
35.
van de Ven-StevensLAKusSGraffMGeurtsAC. Which assessment tools address the categories of the brief ICF core set for hand conditions?Hand Therapy. 2015, 20: 75–87.
36.
van de Ven-StevensLAMunnekeMTerweeCBSpauwenPHvan der LindeH. Clinimetric properties of instruments to assess activities in patients with hand injury: a systematic review of the literature. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009, 90: 151–69.
37.
VelstraI-MBallertCSCiezaA. A systematic literature review of outcome measures for upper extremity function using the international classification of functioning, disability, and health as reference. PM&R. 2011, 3: 846–60.
38.
Waldner-NilssonB (ed.) Handrehabilitation. Für Ergo- und Physiotherapeuten; Band 1: Grundlagen, Erkrankungen. Heidelberg, Springer, 2009, No. 2.
39.
WeinsteinS. Fifty years of somatosensory research: from the Semmes–Weinstein monofilaments to the Weinstein Enhanced Sensory Test.J Hand Ther. 1993, 6: 11–22; discussion 50.
40.
WeissDSMarmarCR. The impact of event scale-revised. Assessing Psychological Trauma and PTSD. 1997, 2: 168–89.
41.
World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Geneva, World Health Organization, 2001.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
