WHODAS 2.0 in community rehabilitation: a qualitative investigation into the validity of a generic patient-reported measure of disability

References

• Fitzpatrick R. Patient-reported outcome measures and performance measures. In: Smith PC, Mossialos E, Papanicolas I, Leatherman S, eds. Performance measurement for health system improvement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009:63–86
   Google Scholar
• Meyer KB, Clayton KA. Measurement and analysis of patient-reported outcomes. In: Parfrey P, Barrett B, eds. Clinical epidemiology. Practice and methods. New York (NY): Humana Press; 2009:155–69
   Google Scholar
• Great Britain, Department of Health. High quality care for all. NHS next stage review final report. London: Department of Health; 2008a
   Google Scholar
• Great Britain, Department of Health. Guidance on the routine collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). For the NHS in England 2009/10. London: Department of Health; 2008b
   Google Scholar
• Devlin NJ, Appleby J. Getting the most out of PROMs: putting health outcomes at the heart of NHS decision-making. London: The King’s Fund; 2010
   Google Scholar
• Timmins N. NHS goes to the PROMs. Brit Med J 2008;336:1464–5. Available from: http://www.bmj.com/content/336/7659/1464 [last accessed 23 Aug 2011]
   Google Scholar
• Üstün TB, Kostanjsek N, Chatterji S, Rehm J, eds. Measuring health and disability. Manual for the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule WHODAS 2.0. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010
   Google Scholar
• WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 [Internet] Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012 – [cited 2012 April 12]; Available from: http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/whodasii/en/ [last accessed 2 Apr 2013]
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001
   Google Scholar
• Brod M, Tesler LE, Christensen TL. Qualitative research and content validity: developing best practices based on science and experience. Qual Life Res 2009;18:1263–78
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lasch KE, Marquis P, Vigneux M, et al. PRO development: rigorous qualitative research as the crucial foundation. Qual Life Res 2010;19:1087–96
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothman M, Burke L, Erickson P, et al. Use of existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments and their modification: the ISPOR good research practices for evaluating and documenting content validity for the use of existing instruments and their modification PRO taskforce report. Value Health 2009;12:1075–83
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United States, Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Guidance for industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Silver Spring (MD): Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; 2009
   Google Scholar
• Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003
   Google Scholar
• Schneider M. The difference a word makes: responding to questions on ‘disability’ and ‘difficulty’ in South Africa. Disabil Rehabil 2009;31:42–50
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chisholm D, Knapp M. Client socio-demographic and service receipt inventory – European version. In: Thornicroft G, Becker T, Knapp M, et al., eds. International outcome measures in mental health. London: Gaskell; 2006:76–82
   Google Scholar
• Straus A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research. Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park (CA): Sage; 1990
   Google Scholar
• Federici S, Meloni F. WHODAS II: disability self-evaluation in the ICF conceptual frame. In: Blouin M, Stone J, eds. International encyclopedia of rehabilitation [Internet]. Buffalo (NY): University of Buffalo; 2010 – [cited 2012 April 09]; Available from: http://cirrie.buffalo.edu/encyclopaedia/en/ [last accessed 2 Apr 2013]
   Google Scholar
• Federici S, Meloni F, Lo Presti A. International literature review on WHODAS II (World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II). Life Span Disabil 2009;12:83–110
   Google Scholar
• Pettersson I, Törnquist K, Ahlström G. The effect of an outdoor powered wheelchair on activity and participation in users with stroke. Disabil Rehabil: Assist Technol 2006;1:235–43
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pösl M, Cieza A, Stucki G. Psychometric properties of the WHODAS II in rehabilitation patients. Qual Life Res 2007;16:1521–31
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garin O, Ayuso-Mateos JL, Almansa J, et al. Validation of the ‘World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule, WHODAS-2’ in patients with chronic diseases. Heal Qual Life Outcomes 2010;8:1--15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pool JJM, Hiralal SR, Ostelo RWJG, et al. Added value of qualitative studies in the development of health related patient reported outcomes such as the pain coping and cognition list in patients with sub-acute neck pain. Manual Ther 2010;15:43–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haywood KL. Patient-reported outcome II: selecting appropriate measures for musculoskeletal care. Musculoskel Care 2007;5:72–90
   PubMedGoogle Scholar