![Sample our Health and Social Care journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5938/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Health-Social-Care.jpg"})
Abstract
Purpose: Practice guidelines recommend the use of standardized instruments in the treatment of alcohol use disorders (AUDs); however, the extent to which these instruments assess patients’ functioning is unclear. The aim of this study was to examine the domains of functioning and contextual factors contained in guideline-recommended instruments, using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) as a reference.
Materials and methods: We identified instruments by reviewing AUD treatment guidelines used in Germany, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, United Kingdom, and United States. We included instruments which were available in English free of charge, we excluded instruments developed solely for diagnostic or epidemiological purposes and those for children or adolescents. Following a standardized set of rules, two health care researchers identified the concepts contained in the items on the instruments and independently linked them to ICF categories.
Results: A total of 10 instruments were included. Among 517 items, 752 meaningful concepts (MCs) were derived, and 622 of them were linked to the ICF. Inter-rater agreement was κ = 0.61. One hundred eighty eight MCs referred to personal factors, 175 to body functions, 168 to activity and participation, and 91 to environmental factors. The most frequently linked ICF chapter was b1 (mental functions).
Conclusions: Instruments recommended in AUD treatment guidelines vary considerably in their assessment of patients’ functioning and contextual factors. Within the investigated instruments, environmental factors are under-represented in comparison to body functions and personal factors. ICF linkage provides guidance for clinicians and researchers in the selection of appropriate instruments.
Since instruments that are recommended in alcohol treatment guidelines vary considerably in respect the functioning domains and context factors they cover, it may be challenging for clinicians to select instruments relevant to their treatment context.
Using the ICF as framework, our results provide guidance for clinicians in how to select appropriate instruments.
Within the investigated instruments, environmental factors and activities and participation are under-represented in comparison to body functions and personal factors. Clinicians may employ AUD-unspecific or ICF-based instruments to cover these components if needed.
Implications for rehabilitation
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Anke Friedrichs for her valuable contributions to our discussions on linking decisions and Catherine Maschler for her support in data preparation.
Disclosure statement
One of the authors (AB) is co-author of the Measurements in the Addictions for Triage and Evaluation (MATE), which is examined in the current study. Otherwise, the authors declare that they have no competing interests.