Blog
About

12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      A critical exploration of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework from the perspective of oncology: recommendations for revision

      Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare

      Dove Medical Press

      health condition, personal factors, quality of life, cancer, disability, and health, international classification of functioning, icf

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: In 2001, the World Health Organization developed the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework in an effort to attend to the multidimensional health-related concerns of individuals. Historically, although the ICF has frequently been used in a rehabilitation-based context, the World Health Organization has positioned it as a universal framework of health and its related states. Consequently, the ICF has been utilized for a diverse array of purposes in the field of oncology, including: evaluating functioning in individuals with cancer, guiding assessment in oncology rehabilitation, assessing the comprehensiveness of outcome measures utilized in oncology research, assisting in health-related quality of life instrument selection, and comparing the primary concerns of health professionals with those of their patients. Discussion: Examination of the ICF through the lens of cancer care highlights the fact that this framework can be a valuable tool to facilitate comprehensive care in oncology, but it currently possesses some areas of limitation that require conceptual revision; to this end, several recommendations have been proposed. Specifically, these proposed recommendations center on the following three areas of the ICF framework: (1) the replacement of the term “health condition” with the more inclusive and dynamic term “health state;” (2) the continuing development and refinement of the personal factors component to ensure issues such as comorbidities can be accounted for appropriately; and (3) the inclusion of a mechanism to account for the subjective dimension of health and functioning (eg, quality of life). Summary: It is through the expansion of these conceptual parameters that the ICF may become more relevant and applicable to the field of oncology. With these important revisions, the ICF has the potential to provide a broader biopsychosocial perspective of care that captures the diverse range of concerns that arise throughout the continuum of care in oncology.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 66

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine.

          The dominant model of disease today is biomedical, and it leaves no room within tis framework for the social, psychological, and behavioral dimensions of illness. A biopsychosocial model is proposed that provides a blueprint for research, a framework for teaching, and a design for action in the real world of health care.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Patient-centredness: a conceptual framework and review of the empirical literature.

             P Bower,  Charles Mead (2000)
            A 'patient-centred' approach is increasingly regarded as crucial for the delivery of high quality care by doctors. However, there is considerable ambiguity concerning the exact meaning of the term and the optimum method of measuring the process and outcomes of patient-centred care. This paper reviews the conceptual and empirical literature in order to develop a model of the various aspects of the doctor-patient relationship encompassed by the concept of 'patient-centredness' and to assess the advantages and disadvantages of alternative methods of measurement. Five conceptual dimensions are identified: biopsychosocial perspective; 'patient-as-person'; sharing power and responsibility; therapeutic alliance; and 'doctor-as-person'. Two main approaches to measurement are evaluated: self-report instruments and external observation methods. A number of recommendations concerning the measurement of patient-centredness are made.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors.

              Many factors determine a woman's risk of breast cancer. Some of them are genetic and relate to family history, others are based on personal factors such as reproductive history and medical history. While many papers have concentrated on subsets of these risk factors, no papers have incorporated personal risk factors with a detailed genetic analysis. There is a need to combine these factors to provide a better overall determinant of risk. The discovery of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes has explained some of the genetic determinants of breast cancer risk, but these genes alone do not explain all of the familial aggregation of breast cancer. We have developed a model incorporating the BRCA genes, a low penetrance gene and personal risk factors. For an individual woman her family history is used in conjuction with Bayes theorem to iteratively produce the likelihood of her carrying any genes predisposing to breast cancer, which in turn affects her likelihood of developing breast cancer. This risk was further refined based on the woman's personal history. The model has been incorporated into a computer program that gives a personalised risk estimate. Copyright 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                23526147
                3596126
                10.2147/JMDH.S40020

                Unknown

                Comments

                Comment on this article