Assessment of quality of life and participation within an outpatient rehabilitation setting

References

• Stucki G. International classification of functioning, disability, and health (ICF): a promising framework and classification for rehabilitation medicine. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 84: 733–740
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organisation. Towards a common language for functioning, disability and health ICF, Internet. 2002. http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/site/beginners/bg.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. The WHOQOL Group. Psychol Med 1998; 28: 551–558
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayo N E, Wood-Dauphinee S, Côté R, Durcan L, Carlton J. Activity, participation, and quality of life 6 months poststroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002; 83: 1035–1042
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor W, McPherson K. Measuring quality of life. Aust J Rehabil Couns 1999; 5: 69–77
   Google Scholar
• Tulsky D S, Rosenthal M. Quality of life measurement in rehabilitation medicine: building an agenda for the future. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002; 83(Suppl 2)S1–S3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cardol M, Brandsma J W, de Groot I JM, van den Bos G AM, de Jong B A. Handicap questionnaires: what do they assess?. Disabil Rehabil 1999; 21: 97–105
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cardol M, De Jong B A, Ward C D. On autonomy and participation in rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24: 970–974, discussion 975–1004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torenbeek M, Caulfield B, Garrett M, Van Harten W. Current use of outcome measures for stroke and low back pain rehabilitation in five European countries: first results of the ACROSS project. Int J Rehabil Res 2001; 24: 95–101
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner-Stokes L, Turner-Stokes T. The use of standardized outcome measures in rehabilitation centres in the UK. Clin Rehabil 1997; 11: 306–313
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wade D T. Measurement in neurological rehabilitation. Curr Opin Neurol Neurosurg 1992; 5: 682–686
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Panesar B S, Morrison P, Hunter J. A comparison of three measures of progress in early lower limb amputee rehabilitation. Clin Rehabil 2001; 15: 157–171
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams G, Robertson V, Greenwood K, Goldie P, Morris M E. The concurrent validity and responsiveness of the high-level mobility assessment tool for measuring the mobility limitations of people with traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006; 87: 437–442
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunt S M, McKenna S P, McEwen J, Backett E M, Williams J, Papp E. A quantitative approach to perceived health status: a validation study. J Epidemiol Community Health 1980; 34: 281–286
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coons S J, Rao S, Keininger D L, Hays R D. A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17: 13–35
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salter K, Jutai J W, Teasell R, Foley N C, Bitensky J, Bayley M. Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF participation. Disabil Rehabil 2005; 27: 507–528
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trigg R, Wood V A. The subjective index of physical and social outcome (SIPSO): a new measure for use with stroke patients. Clin Rehabil 2000; 14: 288–299
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whiteneck G G, Charlifue S W, Gerhart K A, Overholser J D, Richardson G N. Quantifying handicap: a new measure of long-term rehabilitation outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1992; 73: 519–526
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willer B, Ottenbacher K J, Coad M L. The community integration questionnaire. A comparative examination. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1994; 73: 103–111
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cardol M, Beelen A, van den Bos G A, de Jong B A, de Groot I J, de Haan R J. Responsiveness of the impact on participation and autonomy questionnaire. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002; 83: 1524–1529
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt S, Bullinger M. Current issues in cross-cultural quality of life instrument development. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 84(Suppl 2)S29–S34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukuhara S, Ware J E, Jr, Kosinski M, Wada S, Gandek B. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity of the Japanese SF-36 health survey. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 1045–1053
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott K M, Sarfati D, Tobias M I, Haslett S J. A challenge to the cross-cultural validity of the SF-36 health survey: factor structure in Maori, Pacific and New Zealand European ethnic groups. Soc Sci Med 2000; 51: 1655–1664
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hahn E A, Cella D. Health outcomes assessment in vulnerable populations: measurement challenges and recommendations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 84(Suppl 2)S35–S42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carr A J, Higginson I J. Are quality of life measures patient centred?. BMJ 2001; 322: 1357–1360
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dijkers M P. Individualization in quality of life measurement: instruments and approaches. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 84(Suppl 2)S3–S14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skevington S M, Lotfy M, O'Connell K A. The World Health Organization's WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: psychometric properties and results of the international field trial. A report from the WHOQOL group. Qual Life Res 2004; 13: 299–310
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor W J, Myers J, Simpson R T, McPherson K M, Weatherall M. Quality of life of people with rheumatoid arthritis as measured by the World Health Organization quality of life instrument, short form (WHOQOL-BREF): score distributions and psychometric properties. Arthritis Rheum 2004; 51: 350–357
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perenboom R J, Chorus A M. Measuring participation according to the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Disabil Rehabil 2003; 25: 577–587
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harwood R H, Gompertz P, Ebrahim S. Handicap one year after a stroke: validity of a new scale. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1994; 57: 825–829
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westergren A, Hagell P. Initial validation of the Swedish version of the London handicap scale. Qual Life Res 2006; 15: 1251–1256
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hershkovitz A, Belooseesky Y, Brill S, Gottlieb D. Is a day hospital rehabilitation programme associated with reduction of handicap in stroke patients?. Clin Rehabil 2004; 18: 261–266
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lo Raymond, Harwood R, Woo J, Yeung F Ebrahim S. Cross-cultural validation of the London handicap scale in Hong Kong Chinese. Clin Rehabil 2001; 15: 177–185
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The British Society of Rehabilitation Medicine: Measurement of outcome in rehabilitation, Internet. 2000. http://www.bsrm. co.uk/ClinicalGuidance/OutcomeMeasuresB3.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Jenkinson C, Mant J, Carter J, Wade D, Winner S. The London handicap scale: a re-evaluation of its validity using standard scoring and simple summation. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2000; 68: 365–367
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enderby P M, Wood V A, Wade D T, Hewer R L. The Frenchay Aphasia screening test: a short, simple test for aphasia appropriate for non-specialists. Int Rehabil Med 1987; 8: 166–170
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• H Goodglass, Kaplan, E. The Assessment of Aphasia and Related Disorders2nd ed. Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia 1983
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organisation: WHOQOL-BREF Introduction, administration, scoring and generic version of the assessment, Internet. 1996. http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/en/76.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Harwood R H, Rogers A, Dickinson E, Ebrahim S. Measuring handicap: the London handicap scale, a new outcome measure for chronic disease. Qual Health Care 1994; 3: 11–16
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pain K, Dunn M, Anderson G, Darrah J, Kratochvil M. Quality of life: What does it mean in rehabilitation. J Rehabil 1998; 64: 5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sturm J W, Donnan G A, Dewey H M, MacDonnell R A, Gilligan A K, Srikanth V, Thrift A G. Quality of life after stroke: the North East Melbourne stroke incidence study (NEMESIS). Stroke 2004; 35: 2340–2345
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ackerman I N, Graves S E, Bennell K L, Osborne R H. Evaluating quality of life in hip and knee replacement: psychometric properties of the World Health Organization quality of life short version instrument. Arthritis Rheum 2006; 55: 583–590
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saxena S, Carlson D, Billington R. The WHO quality of life assessment instrument (WHOQOL-Bref): the importance of its items for cross-cultural research. Qual Life Res 2001; 10: 711–721
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D'Alisa S, Baudo S, Mauro A, Miscio G. How does stroke restrict participation in long-term post-stroke survivors?. Acta Neurol Scand 2005; 112: 157–162
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung E, Alvaro R, Colotla V. Psychological distress in workers with traumatic upper or lower limb amputations following industrial injuries. Rehabil Psychol 2003; 48: 109–112
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kotila M, Numminen H, Waltimo O, Kaste M. Depression after stroke: results of the FINNSTROKE study. Stroke 1998; 29: 368–372
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang L, Abreu B C, Gonzales V, Seale G, Masel B, Ottenbacher K J. Comparison of the community integration questionnaire, the Craig handicap assessment and reporting technique, and the disability rating scale in traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2002; 17: 497–509
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandstrom M, Lundin-Olsson L. Development and evaluation of a new questionnaire for rating perceived participation1. Clin Rehabil 2007; 21: 833–845
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ueda S, Okawa Y. The subjective dimension of functioning and disability: what is it and what is it for?. Disabil Rehabil 2003; 25: 596–601
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wade D T, Halligan P. New wine in old bottles: the WHO ICF as an explanatory model of human behaviour. Clin Rehabil 2003; 17: 349–354
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geyh S, Cieza A, Kollerits B, Grimby G, Stucki G. Content comparison of health-related quality of life measures used in stroke based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF): a systematic review. Qual Life Res 2007; 16: 833–851
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar