论文部分内容阅读
目的确定能够显示慢性神经功能障碍(多发性硬化症、帕金森氏病和神经肌肉疾病)患者有关健康问题的ICF类目。方法采用Delphi研究方法,由三方面与疾病相关的人组成专家小组,即患者及其代理人、医疗和非医疗卫生专业人士(n=98)。小组要求根据《国际功能,残疾和健康分类》(ICF)反映有关特定疾病的健康问题,选择相关类目。小组成员将这些类目与简明残疾记录量表(MRD)和残疾及其影响量表(DIP)两种测量工具中的指标作比较。结果选择出68项ICF类目相关性最大,分别属于四个ICF领域。患者/代理人和卫生专业人员两者评价的类目无显著性差异。疾病小组的一致性很高。三个特定疾病小组的选择在“身体功能和结构”领域存在差异,但如果扩大纳入标准则可以达成共识。所选择的ICF项目涵盖了几乎所有测量项目。最大的差异表现在“参与”和“环境因素”领域选择的类目。结论与广泛应用于神经学领域的健康状态测量相比,在研究健康问题时所选择的ICF类目更为广泛,特别是涉及ICF的“参与”和“环境因素”领域时。
Objective To identify ICF categories that can show health problems in patients with chronic neurological dysfunction (multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease and neuromuscular disease). Methods Using the Delphi methodology, panelists, patients and their proxies, medical and non-medical professionals (n = 98) were formed from three people who were related to the disease. The group requested that the relevant categories be selected based on the ICF reflecting the health issues related to the particular disease. The panellists compared these categories with those in the MRD and DIP measurement tools. Results The 68 ICF categories were the most relevant, belonging to four ICF areas respectively. There was no significant difference in the categories evaluated by both patients / agents and health professionals. The disease group is very consistent. The choice of three specific disease groups varies in the area of “body function and structure,” but consensus can be reached if the inclusion criteria are widened. The ICF project selected covers almost all measurement items. The biggest difference is the category selected in the “Participation” and “Environmental Factors” fields. CONCLUSIONS ICF categories are more extensively studied in the study of health issues than those widely used in the field of neurology, especially when it comes to ICF’s areas of “engagement” and “environmental factors.”