Knowledge and use of the international classification of functioning, disability and health: a cross-sectional survey among health professionals in Pakistan.
Muhammad Kashif Aakash, Marianna Capecci, Francesca Gimigliano and 1 others
PMID 42266358WHAT IT FOUND
Twenty-five of 52 health professionals in Pakistan said they knew the ICF.
Of the 23 who then answered four questions about it, only 9 got at least two right. Claimed familiarity may be no more than recognising the acronym.
Key findings
01Just under half of respondents (48.08%) claimed to know the ICF, but of the 23 who went on to answer four knowledge questions, only 9 (39.13%) showed moderate to good knowledge and 14 (60.86%) showed poor knowledge.
02Claimed and actual ICF knowledge were not significantly associated with education level, medical degree, work experience, workplace, region, or urban versus rural duty station.
03Of those who claimed to know the ICF, 56.52% said they used it in practice, mostly in clinical (53%) and research (23%) settings, while 43.48% said they did not use it despite claiming familiarity.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they found
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 52 people took part and they were recruited by convenience through Facebook and LinkedIn, so they are likely to be more urban, more digitally engaged and more academically connected than health professionals in Pakistan generally. No target sample size was calculated in advance. Almost none of the respondents were physical and rehabilitation medicine specialists, the group most likely to apply the ICF in everyday practice, so the results say little about rehabilitation practitioners. Knowledge was judged from four multiple-choice questions written by the authors, never piloted or formally validated, and covering only a narrow part of the ICF; poor scores may reflect the test as much as the respondents. The study was not powered for the comparisons it made, so the absence of any link between ICF knowledge and education, workplace or experience may simply mean the sample was too small to detect one. All answers were self-reported, and the authors note that saying you know the ICF may reflect having seen the acronym rather than understanding its principles.
Declared interests
The authors declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. The work was supported by PNRR (Piano Nazionale di Ripresa e Resilienza) funding, Borsa DM 118/23 PNRR (M4C1 - Inv. 4.1 PNRR), University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", awarded as a PhD salary to the primary author.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the finding that most respondents had poor ICF knowledge as a fair measurement of how well health professionals in Pakistan understand the framework. The result comes from four author-written questions that were never piloted or validated, answered by only 23 people, and the authors say those items capture recognition of concepts rather than applied ICF reasoning. Likewise, the absence of any link between ICF knowledge and education or workplace does not mean training makes no difference; the study was far too small and was not powered for those comparisons.
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 →