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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.264 | 0.323 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".