The Burn Model Systems outcome measures: a content analysis using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health.
Candice L Osborne, Christina Petersson, James E Graham and 4 others
PMID 27758149WHAT IT FOUND
The Burn Model Systems measures mostly ask about body functions and activity and participation, and about disability, not quality of life.
They rarely capture environment or body structures. Do not read them as quality of life scores.
Key findings
01Of 1,327 concepts in 754 items, 61% (816 concepts) were linkable to the ICF or ICF-CY.
02Linked concepts were mostly body functions (42%) and activity/participation (34%); body structure (12%) and environment (13%) were less represented.
03Health status items dominated: 34-38% of items in the other assessments and 83% in adult follow-up; quality of life was 16-27% in the other assessments and 10% in adult follow-up.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat 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
One coder linked all assessment items, and a second coder linked only 10% of questions, so the mapping may reflect one person's coding choices. The perspective coding was done by one investigator, so there was no inter-rater reliability for quality of life, health status, or environment labels. The study analyzed assessment content, not patients or clinical outcomes, so it does not show whether the measures improve care. Personal factors could not be linked because the ICF has no personal factor codes. The ICF is updated over time, and some BMS concepts were not covered by it.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflict of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude the BMS measures comprehensively capture burn recovery. Only 61% of concepts were linkable to the ICF, and voice and speech functions were not addressed.