Applicability of International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health-based participation measures in stroke survivors in Africa: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To appraise available International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)-based tools for the measurement of participation after stroke and to examine their applicability in the African sociocultural context. Pubmed/Medline, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, and Hinari databases were systematically searched. The literature search was limited to studies published in the English or French language from January 2001 up to May 2019. Two reviewers independently screened all identified studies and selected eligible articles. Disagreements about inclusion or exclusion of studies were resolved by consensus. Two reviewers independently extracted the psychometric properties of each instrument using the Consensus-based Standard for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments checklist and examined the methodological quality of each selected study using the MacDermid checklist. A total of 1030 articles were systematically reviewed for relevance, yielding 22 studies that met inclusion criteria. These studies were related to nine participation tools. The MacDermid scores ranged from 13 to 21 out of 24. The number of investigated psychometric properties and the number of ICF participation domains covered by each tool varied among studies. This systematic review revealed nine ICF-based tools for the measurement of participation after stroke. We examined the content of these tools and provided valuable information that can be used to guide researchers in Africa in their selection of the most appropriate tool for the measurement of participation after stroke.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".