Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
How are the activity and participation aspects of the ICF used? Examples from studies of people with intellectual disability
Centre for Research & Development, Uppsala University/County Council of Gävleborg, Sweden.
Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, HHJ. CHILD. Jönköping University, School of Education and Communication, HLK, CHILD.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-9597-039X
Linköping University, Sweden.
2015 (English)In: NeuroRehabilitation (Reading, MA), ISSN 1053-8135, E-ISSN 1878-6448, Vol. 36, no 1, 45-49 p.Article, review/survey (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

INTRODUCTION: Interdisciplinary differences regarding understanding the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) concepts activity/participation may hinder its unifying purpose. In the ICF model, functioning (and disability) is described as a tripartite concept: 1) Body structures/functions, 2) Activities, and 3) Participation. Activities refer to an individual perspective on disability that does not tally with the basic structure of social models.

OBJECTIVE: To review how activity and participation are actually used in studies of intellectual disability (ID).

CONCLUSION: Based on 16 papers, four different usages of activity/participation were found. 1) Theoretical reference to tripartite ICF concept with attempts to use it. 2) Theoretical reference to tripartite ICF concept without actual use of activities. 3) "Atheoretical" approach with implicit focus on participation. 4) Theoretical reference to bipartite concept with corresponding use of terms. The highlighted studies have in common a focus on participation. However, the usage of the term "activity" differs both within and between studies. Such terminology will probably confuse interdisciplinary communication rather than facilitating it. Also, the use of an explicit underlying theory differs, from references to a tripartite to references to a bipartite concept of disability. This paper is focused on ID, but the discussed principles regarding the ICF and interdisciplinary disability theory are applicable to other diagnostic groups within rehabilitation practices.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2015. Vol. 36, no 1, 45-49 p.
Keyword [en]
Activity, ICF, intellectual disability, interdisciplinary rehabilitation, participation
National Category
Neurosciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-28332DOI: 10.3233/NRE-141190ISI: 000349326700008PubMedID: 25547764Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84922881892OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hj-28332DiVA: diva2:871822
Available from: 2015-11-17 Created: 2015-11-17 Last updated: 2016-03-03Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Granlund, Mats
By organisation
HHJ. CHILDHLK, CHILD
In the same journal
NeuroRehabilitation (Reading, MA)
Neurosciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 340 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf