Linking the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS) to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health

Abstract

Purpose

Assistive technologies are widely implemented in clinical and research settings. Despite their dissemination, the psychosocial impact of their adoption still deserves further consideration. The aim of the present study is to determine the degree of compatibility between the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS) and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF).

Methods

Six health professionals (two neurologists, one neuro-rehabilitation technician, two psychologists, one university professor of rehabilitation) created a technical board to discuss upon the PIADS–ICF linking. The standardized linking methodology was applied, and a Delphi technique was used to examine consensus.

Results

Five Delphi sessions were required to reach 100% of consensus and to finalize the procedure. Of the 26 PIADS’ items, 23 were linked to an ICF category: 9 items were endorsed at the 3rd ICF level, and 14 items at the 2nd ICF level. Two items were classified as “not defined” and 1 item as “not covered”.

Conclusion

The study highlighted the conceptual connection between the PIADS and the ICF framework and set a bio-psychosocial standpoint by which accounting the role of assistive devices in rehabilitation settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    For further information, contact Jeffrey Jutai: jjutai@uottawa.ca.

Abbreviations

ICF:

International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health

PIADS:

Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale

HRQoL:

Health-Related Quality of Life

References

  1. 1.

    Prodinger, B., Tennant, A., & Stucki, G. (2018). Standardized reporting of functioning information on ICF-based common metrics. European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 54(1), 110–117.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    De Moura, L., dos Santos, W. R., de Castro, S. S., et al. (2017). Applying the ICF linking rules to compare population-based data from different sources: An exemplary analysis of tools used to collect information on disability. Disability and Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2017.1370734.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Prodinger, B., Tennant, A., Stucki, G., Cieza, A., & Üstün, T. B. (2016). Harmonizing routinely collected health information for strengthening quality management in health systems: Requirements and practice. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 21(4), 223–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Stucki, G., Cieza, A., & Melvin, J. (2007). The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: A unifying model for the conceptual description of the rehabilitation strategy. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 39(4), 279–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Lucas, J. W., Greenberg, M., & Beavan, K. (2017). Research on physical disability in sociological social psychology: The state of the field and future directions. Social Compass. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    World Health Organisation. (2001). ICF. Geneva: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Stucki, G., & Grimby, G. (2004). Foreword: Applying the ICF in medicine. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 44, 5–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Escorpizo, R., Kostanjsek, N., Kennedy, C., et al. (2013). Harmonizing WHO’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF): Importance and methods to link disease and functioning. BMC Public Health, 13, 742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Stucki, G. (2005). International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) a promising framework and classification for rehabilitation medicine. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 84(10), 733–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Madden, R. H., & Bundy, A. (2018). The ICF has made a difference to functioning and disability measurement and statistics. Disability and Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2018.1431812.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Stucki, G., Cieza, A., Ewert, T., et al. (2002). Application of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) in clinical practice. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(5), 281–282.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    ICF Research Branch. (2018). Retrieved June 28, 2018 from https://www.icf-research-branch.org.

  13. 13.

    Cieza, A., Brockow, T., Ewert, T., et al. (2002). Linking health-status measurements to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 34(5), 205–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Cieza, A., Geyh, S., Chatterji, S., et al. (2005). ICF linking rules: An update based on lessons learned. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 37(4), 212–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Cieza, A., Fayed, N., Bickenbach, J., et al. (2016). Refinements of the ICF Linking Rules to strengthen their potential for establishing comparability of health information. Disability and Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2016.1145258.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Ballert, C., Hopfe, M., Kus, S., et al. (2016). Using the refined ICF linking rules to compare the content of existing instruments and assessments: A systematic review and exemplary analysis of instruments. Disability and Rehabilitation, 14, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Fayed, N., Cieza, A., & Bickenbach, J. E. (2011). Linking health and health-related information to the ICF: A systematic review of the literature from 2001 to 2008. Disability and Rehabilitation, 33(21–22), 1941–1951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Letellier, M. E., Dawes, D., & Mayo, N. (2015). Content verification of the EORTC QLQ-C30/EORTC QLQ-BR23 with the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Quality of Life Research, 24, 757–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Nicol, R., Robinson, N. M., Hopfe, M., & Newell, D. (2016). Linking the Bournemouth Questionnaire for low back pain to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Disability and Rehabilitation, 38(11), 1089–1096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Wong, A. W. K., Lau, S. C. L., Cella, D., et al. (2017). Linking of the quality of life in neurological disorders (Neuro-QoL) to the international classification of functioning, disability and health. Quality of Life Research, 26(9), 2435–2448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Azzopardi, R. V., Vermeiren, S., Gorus, E., et al. (2016). Linking Frailty Instruments to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2016.07.023.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Figueiredo, D. (2014). Linking the EASY-Care Standard to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Disability and Rehabilitation, 36(7), 593–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Sommer, R., Bullinger, M., Rohenkohl, A., et al. (2015). Linking a short-stature specific health-related quality of life measure (QoLISSY) to the International Classification of Functioning-Children and Youth (ICF-CY). Disability and Rehabilitation, 37(5), 439–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Day, H., & Jutai, J. (1996). Measuring the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: The PIADS. Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation, 9(2), 159–168.

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Day, H., Jutai, J., & Campbell, K. A. (2002). Development of a scale to measure the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: Lessons learned and the road ahead. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(1–3), 31–37.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Garry, J., Casey, K., Cole, T. K., et al. (2016). A pilot study of eye-tracking devices in intensive care. Surgery, 159(3), 938–944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Fundarò, C., Giardini, A., Maestri, R., Traversoni, S., Bartolo, M., & Casale, R. (2018). Motor and psychosocial impact of robot-assisted gait training in a real-world rehabilitation setting: A pilot study. PLoS ONE, 13(2), e0191894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Borgestig, M., Falkmer, T., & Hemmingsson, H. (2013). Improving computer usage for students with physical disabilities through a collaborative approach: A pilot study. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 20(6), 463–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Pettersson, I., Ahlstrom, G., & Tornquist, K. (2007). The value of an outdoor powered wheelchair with regard to the quality of life of persons with stroke: A follow-up study. Assistive Technology, 19(3), 143–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    MacPhee, A. H., Kirby, R. L., Coolen, A. L., et al. (2004). Wheelchair skills training program: A randomized clinical trial of wheelchair users undergoing initial rehabilitation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 85(1), 41–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Andrich, R., Salatino, C., Converti, R. M., et al. (2015). Cost-effectiveness of powered wheelchairs: Findings of a study. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 217, 84–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Kirby, R. L., & MacPhee, A. H. (2006). Re: An enhanced wheelchair-skills training program improved the competency of manual wheelchair users. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1630.2006.00567.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Devitt, R., Chau, B., & Jutai, J. W. (2013). The effect of wheelchair use on the quality of life of persons with multiple sclerosis. Occupational Therapy in Health Care, 17(3–4), 63–79.

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Ward, A. L., Hammond, S., Holsten, S., et al. (2015). Power wheelchair use in persons with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: Changes over time. Assistive Technology, 27(4), 238–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Salatino, C., Andrich, R., Converti, R. M., & Saruggia, M. (2016). An observational study of powered wheelchair provision in Italy. Assistive Technology, 28(1), 41–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Buning, M. E., Angelo, J. A., & Schmeler, M. R. (2001). Occupational performance and the transition to powered mobility: A pilot study. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 55(3), 339–344.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Pousada García, T., Groba González, B., Rivero, N. L., et al (2015). Exploring the psychosocial impact of wheelchair and contextual factors on quality of life of people with neuromuscular disorders. Assistive Technology, 27(4), 246–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Pettersson, I., Ahlström, G., & Törnquist, K. (2007). The value of an outdoor powered wheelchair with regard to the quality of life of persons with stroke: A follow-up study. Assistive Technology, 19(3), 143–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Giesbrecht, E. M., Ripat, J. D., Quanbury, A. O., et al. (2009). Participation in community-based activities of daily living: Comparison of a pushrim-activated, power-assisted wheelchair and a power wheelchair. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 4(3), 198–207.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Stucki, G. (2016). Olle Höök lectureship 2015: The World Health Organization’s paradigm shift and implementation of the international classification of functioning, disability and health in rehabilitation. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 48(6), 486–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    World Health Organization. (1980). ICIDH. Geneva: International Classification of Impairments Disabilities and Handicaps.

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Trabacca, A., Moro, G., Gennaro, L., & Russo, L. (2012). When one plus one equals three: The ICF perspective of health and disability in the third millennium. European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 48(4), 709–710.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Stucki, G., Ewert, T., & Cieza, A. (2002). Value and application of the ICF in rehabilitation medicine. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(17), 932–938.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Cook, A. M., & Polgar, J. M. (2013). Cook and Husseys’ assistive technologies, (4th ed.). St. Louis: Mosby

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Jutai, J., & Day, H. (2002). Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS). Technology and Disability, 14(3), 107–111.

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Andrich, R., Pedroni, F., & Vanni, G. (2003). Psychosocial impact of assistive devices: Italian localization of the PIADS instrument. In G. Craddock et al. (Eds.), Assistive technology: Shaping the future. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Day, H., Jutai, J., Woolrich, W., et al. (2001). The stability of impact of assistive devices. Disability and Rehabilitation, 23(9), 400–404.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Jutai, J., Day, H., Woolrich, W., & Strong, G. (2004). The predictability of retention and discontinuation of contact lenses. Optometry, 74(5), 299–308.

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Demers, L., Monette, M., Lapierre, Y., et al. (2002). Reliability, validity and applicability of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST 2.0) for adults with multiple sclerosis. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(1–3), 21–30.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Harada, N., Fong, S., Heiney, C., et al. (2014). Evaluation of two cane instruments in older adults with knee osteoarthritis. Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Developmen, 51(2), 275–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Yachnin, D., Jutai, J., Gharib, G., et al. (2015). Can technology-assisted toilets improve quality of life for rehabilitating stroke patients? A pilot cohort study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2015.08.101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Wiklund Axelsson, S., Nyberg, L., Näslund, A., et al. (2013). The anticipated positive psychosocial impact of present web-based E-health services and future mobile health applications: An investigation among older Swedes. International Journal of Telemedicine and Applications. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/509198.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Cieza, A., & Stucki, G. (2005). Content comparison of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) instruments based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Quality of Life Research, 14(5), 1225–1237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Darzins, S. W., Imms, C., & Di Stefano, M. (2016). Measurement of activity limitations and participation restrictions: Examination of ICF-linked content and scale properties of the FIM and PC-PART instruments. Disability and Rehabilitation, 39(10), 1025–1038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Annicchiarico, R. (2012). Enhancing service delivering, improving quality of life, preserving independence through assistive technology. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 180, 14–18.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Hwang, C. S., Weng, H. H., Wang, L. F., et al. (2014). An eye-tracking assistive device improves the quality of life for ALS patients and reduces the caregivers burden. Journal of Motor Behavior, 46(4), 233–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Baldassin, V., Shimizu, H. E., & Fachin-Martins, E. (2018). Computer assistive technology and associations with quality of life for individuals with spinal cord injury: A systematic review. Quality of Life Research, 27(3), 597–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Eriksson, M., Jylli, L., Villard, L., Kroksmark, A. K., & Bartonek, A. (2018). Health-related quality of life and orthosis use in a Swedish population with arthrogryposis. Prosthetics and Orthotics International. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309364618774059.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Post, M. (2014). Definitions of quality of life: What has happened and how to move on. Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation, 20(3), 167–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Le, J., Dorstyn, D. S., Mpfou, et al. (2018). Health-related quality of life in coronary heart disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis mapped against the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Quality of Life Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1885-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Hwang, K., & Mpofu, E. (2010). Health care quality assessments. In E. Mpofu & T. Oakland (Eds.), Rehabilitation and health assessment: Applying ICF guidelines (pp. 141–161). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Giardini.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Traversoni, S., Jutai, J., Fundarò, C. et al. Linking the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS) to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. Qual Life Res 27, 3217–3227 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1973-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health
  • Psychosocial impact
  • Assistive devices
  • Health-Related Quality of Life
  • Rehabilitation