International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health in Vocational Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review of the State of the Field.
A H Momsen, C M Stapelfeldt, R Rosbjerg and 3 others
PMID 29869054WHAT IT FOUND
Most vocational rehabilitation studies use the ICF only to structure information or link it to existing measures, not to guide clinical assessment or goal setting.
The framework is criticized for being time-consuming and too bulky, with limited use of specific VR core sets.
Key findings
01The most common use of the ICF in vocational rehabilitation research was as a framework for structuring information (36% of papers), followed by analysing or developing instruments (24% each), and linking categories (15%).
02Professionals criticized the ICF for complicated terminology, perceived subjectivity in coding, and being 'too bulky', with some noting it is complex and time-consuming requiring specific training.
03The VR core set was not the primary tool for evaluating functioning; only seven papers used any ICF core set, and four used the specific VR core set.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat 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
32 of the 50 included papers were reviews, meaning much of the 'evidence' is secondary literature rather than direct clinical data. The review did not critically appraise the quality of the included studies, as is standard for scoping reviews. Operationalization categories (structuring, linking, etc.) were not mutually exclusive, potentially leading to classification ambiguity. The search was limited to English, German, Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian, possibly missing relevant literature from other regions.
Declared interests
The paper is supported by non-U.S. government funding. No specific conflicts of interest for the authors are detailed in the provided text beyond the funding source.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the widespread use of the ICF in research as evidence that it is a validated or effective clinical intervention tool for vocational rehabilitation. The review found that it is primarily used for structuring data and is often criticized by professionals for being too complex and time-consuming for routine clinical use.