Abstract
Functioning and disability are concepts in increasing use in clinical settings and in public health. From the public health perspective, the use of functioning as a third health indicator could show more than the frequency of a disease and its death rates, offering information on how the population performs its activities and participation. Clinically, the functioning assessment can provide information for patient-centered health care and specific clinical interventions according to their functioning profile. WHODAS 2.0 is a generic tool to assess health and functioning according to the ICF functioning model. It is an alternative to assess functioning in a less time-consuming way, whereas the duration of the application is one of the main ICF critiques. This paper aims to present some of WHODAS 2.0 inconsistencies and weaknesses as well as strategies to cope with them. In this paper, we present some weaknesses related to the WHODAS layout; wording and scoring process. Some suggestions for strategies to correct these weaknesses are presented, as well.
Dokumententyp: | Zeitschriftenartikel |
---|---|
Fakultät: | Medizin > Institut für Medizinische Informationsverarbeitung, Biometrie und Epidemiologie |
Themengebiete: | 600 Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften > 610 Medizin und Gesundheit |
URN: | urn:nbn:de:bvb:19-epub-69234-3 |
ISSN: | 0102-311X; 1678-4464 |
Sprache: | Englisch |
Dokumenten ID: | 69234 |
Datum der Veröffentlichung auf Open Access LMU: | 17. Okt. 2019, 06:29 |
Letzte Änderungen: | 04. Nov. 2020, 13:51 |