Development of an ICF-Based Core Assessment Set for Psychiatric Occupational Therapy in Japan: A Three-Round Delphi Study.
Kojiro Kawano, Shigehito Shiota, Kotomi Funatsu and 5 others
Fourteen Japanese psychiatrists and OTs agreed on 42 ICF categories for psychiatric assessment, prioritizing daily routines, stress handling, and employment.
It is a consensus list, not a validated tool — no patients were involved.
Key findings
1The final set comprises 42 ICF categories: 17 body functions, 21 activities and participation, and 4 environmental factors.
2The number of items rated appropriate decreased across the three rounds (50, 48, 42), showing the panel converged on a shorter list.
3The panel prioritised activity and participation items — carrying out daily routines, handling stress, and acquiring/keeping/terminating a job — over symptom-focused body-function items.
Still to come
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only 14 experts (4 psychiatrists, 10 OTs) participated; no service users or family members contributed their perspectives. No psychometric properties (reliability, validity, responsiveness) were tested; the evidence is expert consensus only. The panel was limited to Japanese professionals experienced in both psychiatric practice and ICF application, which constrains generalisability. The questionnaire was not pilot-tested before the Delphi survey began. The study protocol was not registered on any public trial registration platform.
Declared interests
Funded by the Japanese Association of Occupational Therapists (JAOT), which also recruited the expert panel, arranged web meetings, mailed questionnaires, and paid honoraria to psychiatrists. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not treat the 42-category list as a validated assessment tool or as evidence that assessing these domains improves patient outcomes. The authors state explicitly that no psychometric properties were tested and no patient perspectives were included. It is the consensus opinion of 14 Japanese professionals, not a measurement instrument with demonstrated reliability or validity.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →