Mapping of the GEVA Items to the ICF: Preliminary Results Based on the Content of a Tool Guide Used to Assess the Needs of Persons With Disabilities in France.
Marie Cuenot
PMID 36188828WHAT IT FOUND
A French disability assessment guide has 80% of items mapped to the ICF, a disability classification.
The mapping shows which items fit and which do not, especially education and employment.
Key findings
0180% of GEVA items, or 343 of 435, can be covered by ICF categories.
02Items in each of the six considered GEVA sections map to ICF body functions, activities and participation, environmental factors and personal factors, with Section 6 most covered by activity chapters.
03ICF environmental chapters 1, 2, 3 and 5 are documented by GEVA items, while chapter 4 attitudes are not represented; some items have no exact match or cannot be coded.
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
No patients or clinical outcomes were studied, so the mapping does not show whether using the GEVA or ICF improves assessment or participation. The guide is tied to French law and administrative disability benefits, so its items may not apply directly in other countries. The initial guide has no formal data collection codes or procedure, and many local agencies use simplified or adapted versions. Some items have only approximate ICF matches or cannot be coded, including satisfaction, proxy or professional point of view, administrative status and time-related information. ICF attitude factors are not represented in the documented environmental items.
Declared interests
The author declared no commercial or financial relationships. The funder named is École des Hautes Éudes en Santé Publique.
The easy way to misread this
Do not treat this mapping as evidence that the GEVA is valid or that the ICF captures all disability needs. It is a content comparison of guide items, not a patient outcome study.