Usability of World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule in chronic traumatic brain injury

Tarvonen-Schröder, Sinikka; Tenovuo, Olli; Kaljonen, Anne; Laimi, Katri

doi:10.2340/16501977-2345

Cited by 18 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, it has previously been shown that more symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder were related to higher ratings on WHODAS [29], while less symptoms were related to lower ratings. The same relationship between symptom severity and WHODAS ratings has been found in patients with traumatic brain injury and stroke [30,31]. Patients' own reports might also be biased due to unawareness of their difficulties [32], something that could have influenced the ratings by patients with schizophrenia.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

Psychometric evaluation of the Swedish self-rated 36-item version of WHODAS 2.0 for use in psychiatric populations – using classical test theory

Midhage

Hermansson

Söderberg³

et al. 2021

Nordic Journal of Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Swedish version of the self-rated 36-item WHODAS 2.0 in patients from Swedish psychiatric outpatient settings, using classical test theory. Methods: The 36-item WHODAS 2.0, together with the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), was filled in by a sample of 780 participating psychiatric patients: 512 (65.6%) women, 263 (33.7%) men, and 5 (0.6%) who did not report any sex. Results: The internal consistency, measured by Cronbach's alpha, for the different domains of functioning were between 0.70 and 0.94, and interpreted as good. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) revealed two levels: the first level consisted of a general disability factor, while the second level consisted of the six domains of the scale, respectively. The model had borderline fit. There was a significant correlation between WHODAS 2.0 36-item and SDS (n ¼ 395). The WHODAS 2.0 differed significantly between diagnostic groups. Conclusion:The present study demonstrates that the Swedish self-rated 36-item version of WHODAS 2.0, within a psychiatric outpatient population, showed good reliability and convergent validity. We conclude that the self-rated 36-item Swedish version of WHODAS 2.0 can be used for valid interpretations of disability in patients with psychiatric health conditions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

Psychometric evaluation of the Swedish self-rated 36-item version of WHODAS 2.0 for use in psychiatric populations – using classical test theory

Midhage

Hermansson

Söderberg³

et al. 2021

Nordic Journal of Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies of WHODAS 2.0 in stroke patients have usually been based on a longer version of this scale (36). The aim of the current study was to identify as simple validated functioning scales as possible, and the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 was found suitable, especially as, in previous studies among patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury and spinal pain (20)(21)(22)(23)(24), this measure was easy to apply for both patients and significant others. As WHODAS includes not only activities, but also items of participation, it provides a wider perspective for goal-setting and service-planning than the conventional instruments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…To unify the assessment of functioning globally, regardless of health condition, the World Health Organization (WHO) has developed a generic patient-and proxy-reported instrument to measure both activities and participation, the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0), which has been validated in various conditions, including stroke (18). The short 12-item form of WHODAS 2.0 has been found to be practical for use in various clinical settings (19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24). Another short ICF-based instrument, the 7-item WHO Minimal Generic Set of domains of functioning and health, has been suggested for use as a starting point to address comparability of data across studies (25).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) and the WHO Minimal Generic Set of Domains of Functioning and Health versus Conventional Instruments in subacute stroke

Tarvonen-Schröder

Hurme²,

Laimi³

2019

J Rehabil Med

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

LAY ABSTRACTThis study compared short generic International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)based measures of functioning, the patient-and proxyreported 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) and the 7-item WHO Minimal Generic Set of domains of functioning and health assessed by a neurologist, with traditionally used measures of stroke in the subacute phase. Although proxies rated 6 out of 12 separate WHODAS functions more impaired than did the patients, the scores of patient-and proxy-reported WHODAS 2.0 and the WHO Minimal Generic Set correlated well with each other and with older measures of stroke severity (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale) and dependence (modified Rankin Scale and Functional Independence Measure). Both ICF-based tools, despite their brevity, were useful in finding disabilities for patient-and family-centred goal-setting and service-planning after subacute stroke rehabilitation. Objective: To compare short generic International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)-based measures of functioning with traditional measures of stroke severity and dependence in subacute stroke. Methods: In this cross-sectional study patients with stroke (n = 195) and their significant others completed the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) at discharge from rehabilitation. A neurologist assessed functioning with the 7-item World Health Organization (WHO) Minimal Generic Set of domains of functioning and health. These scores were compared with assessments of severity of stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale; NIHSS) and dependence (modified Rankin Scale; mRS; and Functional Independence Measure; FIM).Results: From mild to severe stroke, increasing disability was found in single items and sum scores of WHODAS and the WHO Minimal Generic Set. Although proxies rated 6 out of the 12 separate WHO-DAS functions more impaired than did the patients, correlations between the different measures (proxyand patient-WHODAS, the WHO Minimal Generic Set, mRS, NIHSS and FIM total and sub-scores) were strong to very strong, except for moderate correlations between patient-WHODAS, and NIHSS or FIM cognitive sub-score. Conclusion: Despite their brevity, both generic ICFbased tools were useful in finding disabilities for patient-and family-centred goal-setting and serviceplanning after subacute rehabilitation.

show abstract

“…Higher scores indicate greater perceived disability. It has been previously validated for use in mTBI (Herrold et al, 2019; Snell et al, 2017, 2020; Tarvonen-Schröder et al, 2018). Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha at the 1-month assessment) in the present sample was 0.93.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Avoidance and endurance coping after mild traumatic brain injury are associated with disability outcomes.

Cassetta

Cairncross

Brasher

et al. 2021

Rehabilitation Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Fear-avoidance and endurance behavior are well-established maladaptive coping styles in several chronic health conditions. There is also emerging evidence that both fear-avoidance and endurance coping are associated with poor outcome from mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). The current study sought to characterize the early trajectories of avoidance and endurance behavior and confirm their association with disability outcomes. Method: Adults with mTBI (N = 88) completed measures of avoidance, endurance, and postconcussive symptoms at clinic intake (M = 40.2 days since injury). Avoidance and endurance measures were readministered 1 month later (N = 79), and a measure of perceived functional disability (World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0) was completed 3 months after clinic intake (N = 69). Results: Avoidance and endurance coping were weakly positively correlated with each other at intake (r = .28) and at 1 month postintake (r = .28). Change scores on these two measures over time were not significantly correlated (r = .04). Avoidance coping tended to decrease over time (95% CI [0.6, 2.5]; p = .002), whereas changes in endurance coping were variable. In generalized linear modeling, higher avoidance and endurance at clinic intake and increasing (or less rapidly decreasing) levels of these coping styles over 1 month was associated with greater perceived disability ratings at 3 months, even after controlling for postconcussion symptom severity at intake. Conclusion: These findings suggest that avoidance and endurance behavior are distinct coping styles with unique trajectories during the subacute recovery period. The results also support the need for psychologically informed early interventions that target specific profiles of maladaptive coping to mitigate risk for poor outcomes post-mTBI.

show abstract

Usability of World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule in chronic traumatic brain injury

Cited by 18 publications

References 33 publications

Psychometric evaluation of the Swedish self-rated 36-item version of WHODAS 2.0 for use in psychiatric populations – using classical test theory

Psychometric evaluation of the Swedish self-rated 36-item version of WHODAS 2.0 for use in psychiatric populations – using classical test theory

The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) and the WHO Minimal Generic Set of Domains of Functioning and Health versus Conventional Instruments in subacute stroke

Avoidance and endurance coping after mild traumatic brain injury are associated with disability outcomes.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About