Clinician-Reported Outcome Measures: Experiences from Multicenter Follow-Up and an Overview of Commonly Used Measures in Vocational Rehabilitation and Disability Evaluation

  • Petersson I
  • Grahn B
  • Stigmar K
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

In 2001, the ICF was introduced as a conceptual framework, to provide a more comprehensive description of an individual's functioning in relation to health. The ICF is a complement to the medical diagnostic codes in the ICD-10 and focuses on describing functioning both in positive and negative terms. The ICF framework describes two main areas: health conditions and contextual factors. These areas are divided in different components. The health conditions consist of the two components, body structure and function, and activity and participation. The contextual factors are divided in environmental factors and personal factors. Furthermore, the different components are subgrouped in domains, in order to offer a more specific description. Each domain is further divided in categories. In this chapter, we will focus on clinician-reported outcome measures (CROMs) that may be applicable in clinical rehabilitation, in particular in vocational rehabilitation and disability evaluation. The intention is to stay close lo a practical and clinical context. Furthermore, we will focus on CROMs that are valid for one patient group that is most commonly studied in sick leave: patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSD). We will also give some examples on how ICF-based CROMs can be used in ordinary clinical practice on patients with MSD and mental disorders, in order to facilitate quality assurance and results on rehabilitation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved)

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Petersson, I. F., Grahn, B., & Stigmar, K. (2015). Clinician-Reported Outcome Measures: Experiences from Multicenter Follow-Up and an Overview of Commonly Used Measures in Vocational Rehabilitation and Disability Evaluation (pp. 453–469). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08825-9_21

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free