Using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health to identify outcome domains for a core outcome set for aphasia: a comparison of stakeholder perspectives

References

• Gargon E, Williamson PR, Altman DG, et al. The comet initiative database: progress and activities from 2011 to 2013. Trials. 2014;15:279.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, et al. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials. 2012;13:132.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkham JJ, Gorst S, Altman DG, et al. Core outcome set-STAndards for reporting: the COS-STAR statement. PLoS Med. 2016;13:e1002148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prinsen CAC, Vohra S, Rose MR, et al. How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a “core outcome set” – a practical guideline. Trials. 2016;17:1–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carr A, Hewlett S, Hughes R, et al. Rheumatology outcomes: the patient's perspective. J Rheumatol. 2003;30:880–883.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmitt J, Langan S, Stamm T, et al. Core outcome domains for controlled trials and clinical recordkeeping in eczema: international multiperspective delphi consensus process. J Invest Dermatol. 2011;131:623–630.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinha I, Gallagher R, Williamson P, et al. Development of a core outcome set for clinical trials in childhood asthma: a survey of clinicians, parents, and young people. Trials. 2012;13:103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young B, Bagley H. Including patients in core outcome set development: issues to consider based on three workshops with around 100 international delegates. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2:25.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Delbecq AL, Van de Ven AH, Gustafson DH. Group techniques for program planning: a guide to nominal group and delphi processes. Glenview (IL): Scott, Foresman; 1975.
   Google Scholar
• Donohoe H, Stellefson M, Tennant B. Advantages and limitations of the e-delphi technique: implications for health education researchers. Am J Health Educ. 2012;43:38–46.
   Google Scholar
• Wallace SJ, Worrall L, Rose T, et al. Measuring outcomes in aphasia research: a review of current practice and an agenda for standardisation. Aphasiology. 2014;28:1364–1384.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallace SJ, Worrall L, Rose T, et al. A good outcome for aphasia. Aphasiology. 2014;28:1400–1404.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallace SJ, Worrall L, Rose T, et al. Which treatment outcomes are most important to aphasia clinicians and managers? An international e-delphi consensus study. Aphasiology. 2017;31:643–673.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallace SJ, Worrall L, Rose T, et al. Core outcomes in aphasia treatment research: an e-delphi consensus study of international aphasia researchers. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2016;25:S729–SS42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallace SJ, Worrall L, Rose T, et al. Which outcomes are most important to people with aphasia and their families? An international nominal group technique study framed within the ICF. Disabil Rehabil. 2016;39:1364–1379.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harman NL, Bruce IA, Kirkham JJ, et al. The importance of integration of stakeholder views in core outcome set development: otitis media with effusion in children with cleft palate. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0129514.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. World Health Organization: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Howe TJ, Worrall LE, Hickson LMH. Interviews with people with aphasia: environmental factors that influence their community participation. Aphasiology 2008;22:1092–1120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandenburg C, Worrall L, Rodriguez A, et al. Crosswalk of participation self-report measures for aphasia to the ICF: what content is being measured? Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37:1113–1124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grawburg M, Howe T, Worrall L, et al. Describing the impact of aphasia on close family members using the ICF framework. Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36:1184–1195.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Worrall L, Sherratt S, Rogers P, et al. What people with aphasia want: their goals according to the ICF. Aphasiology. 2011;25:309–322.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cieza A, Brockow T, Ewert T, et al. Linking health-status measurements to the international classification of functioning, disability and health. J Rehabil Med. 2002;34:205–210.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cieza A, Fayed N, Bickenbach J, et al. Refinements of the ICF linking rules to strengthen their potential for establishing comparability of health information. Disabil Rehabil. 2016 [Mar 17];[1–10]. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2016.1145258
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cieza A, Geyh S, Chatterji S, et al. ICF linking rules: an update based on lessons learned. J Rehabil Med. 2005;37:212–218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilari K, Needle JJ, Harrison KL. What are the important factors in health-related quality of life for people with aphasia? A systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93:S86–S95.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fayed N, Cieza A, Edmond Bickenbach J. Linking health and health-related information to the ICF: a systematic review of the literature from 2001 to 2008. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33:1941–1951.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar