Applying the WHO ICF Framework to the Outcome Measures Used in the Evaluation of Long-Term Clinical Outcomes in Coronavirus Outbreaks

Kajal Patel, Sofia Straudi, Ng Yee Sien, Nora Fayed, John L. Melvin and Manoj Sivan
Additional contact information
Kajal Patel: School of Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PG, UK
Sofia Straudi: Neuroscience and Rehabilitation Department, Ferrara University Hospital, 44100 Ferrara, Italy
Ng Yee Sien: Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Outram Road, Singapore 169608, Singapore
Nora Fayed: School of Rehabilitation Therapy, Queen’s University, Louise D. Acton Building, 31 George Street, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada
John L. Melvin: Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19144, USA
Manoj Sivan: Division of Neurosciences and Experimental Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK

IJERPH, 2020, vol. 17, issue 18, 1-15

Abstract: (1) Objective: The World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) classification is a unified framework for the description of health and health-related states. This study aimed to use the ICF framework to classify outcome measures used in follow-up studies of coronavirus outbreaks and make recommendations for future studies. (2) Methods: EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO were systematically searched for original studies assessing clinical outcomes in adult survivors of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (SARS), middle east respiratory syndrome (MERS) and coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) after hospital discharge. Individual items of the identified outcome measures were linked to ICF second-level and third-level categories using ICF linking rules and categorized according to an ICF component. (3) Results: In total, 33 outcome measures were identified from 36 studies. Commonly used (a) ICF body function measures were Pulmonary Function Tests (PFT), Impact of event scale (IES-R) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS); (b) ICF activity was 6-Minute Walking Distance (6MWD); (c) ICF participation measures included Short Form-36 (SF-36) and St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). ICF environmental factors and personal factors were rarely measured. (4) Conclusions: We recommend future COVID-19 follow-up studies to use the ICF framework to select a combination of outcome measures that capture all the components for a better understanding of the impact on survivors and planning interventions to maximize functional return.

Keywords: COVID-19; SARS; MERS; outcome measures; follow-up studies; prevalence; lung function; exercise tolerance; mental health; quality of life (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (4)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/18/6476/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/18/6476/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:18:p:6476-:d:409422

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().