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
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PURPOSE: This study synthesised the findings of three separate consensus processes exploring the perspectives of key stakeholder groups about important aphasia treatment outcomes. This process was conducted to generate recommendations for outcome domains to be included in a core outcome set for aphasia treatment trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health codes were examined to identify where the groups of: (1) people with aphasia, (2) family members, (3) aphasia researchers, and (4) aphasia clinicians/managers, demonstrated congruence in their perspectives regarding important treatment outcomes. Codes were contextualized using qualitative data. RESULTS: Congruence across three or more stakeholder groups was evident for ICF chapters: Mental functions; Communication; and Services, systems, and policies. Quality of life was explicitly identified by clinicians/managers and researchers, while people with aphasia and their families identified outcomes known to be determinants of quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Core aphasia outcomes include: language, emotional wellbeing, communication, patient-reported satisfaction with treatment and impact of treatment, and quality of life. International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health coding can be used to compare stakeholder perspectives and identify domains for core outcome sets. Pairing coding with qualitative data may ensure important nuances of meaning are retained. Implications for rehabilitation The outcomes measured in treatment research should be relevant to stakeholders and support health care decision making. Core outcome sets (agreed, minimum set of outcomes, and outcome measures) are increasingly being used to ensure the relevancy and consistency of the outcomes measured in treatment studies. Important aphasia treatment outcomes span all components of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. Stakeholders demonstrated congruence in the identification of important outcomes which related Mental functions; Communication; Services, systems, and policies; and Quality of life. A core outcome set for aphasia treatment research should include measures relating to: language, emotional wellbeing, communication, patient-reported satisfaction with treatment and impact of treatment, and quality of life. Coding using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health, presents a novel methodology for the comparison of stakeholder perspectives to inform recommendations for outcome constructs to be included in a core outcome set. Coding can be paired with qualitative data to ensure nuances of meaning are retained.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».