Operationalizing the ICF Core Sets for Autism and ADHD: A Multiple-Methods Feasibility Study.
Lovisa Alehagen, John Hasslinger, Elina Wessman and 5 others
PMID 39883295WHAT IT FOUND
Autistic people, relatives, professionals and general population users rated the ICF CoreSets platform as generally usable, but found it lengthy and wanted clearer scale wording, accessibility, and a result summary.
Key findings
01Design-related items were rated positively, with mean scores from 2.9 to 3.41, where the maximum score was 4, while time to answer received the lowest scores, with mean scores from 2.32 to 2.59.
02In total, 54 items were reworded, 17 were removed, and 14 were added, including items about masking and energy regulation.
03Participants reported that functioning varied by situation, motivation, and mood, so a single numerical score may be misleading.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
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
Feedback came only from Sweden and the United Kingdom, so it may not represent other countries or settings. The study tested feasibility and user experience, not whether the platform improves autism or ADHD care or patient outcomes. The 678 figure is assessments, not necessarily unique individuals, because participants could be assessed by multiple relatives and complete more than one assessment. The general population group completed a 170-item version, while neurodivergent groups completed versions with 156 to 232 items, so ratings of length may not be directly comparable. Professionals used the platform only for evaluation, and their responses were not included in the 678 assessments. Missing sociodemographic data and technical issues limited the participant profile. Some suggestions were not implemented, including shortening the scale by removing Core Set codes or adding areas outside the Core Sets, so the assessment remained comprehensive. The revised platform has not yet been re-evaluated in a completed study reported here.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that the platform improves autism or ADHD care. This study tested user experience and feasibility, not patient outcomes.
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 →