Background: Before 2007, the disability evaluation was based on the medical model in Taiwan. According to the People with Disabilities Rights Protection Act, from 2012 the assessment of a person’s eligibility for disability benefits has to be determined based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework nationwide. The purposes of this study were to: 1) design the evaluation tools for disability eligibility system based on the ICF/ICF-Children and Youth; 2) compare the differences of grades of disability between the old and new evaluation systems; 3) analyse the outcome of the new disability evaluation system. Methods: To develop evaluation tools and procedure for disability determination, we formed an implementation taskforce, including 199 professional experts, and conducted a small-scale field trial to examine the feasibility of evaluation tools in Phase I. To refine the evaluation tools and process and to compare the difference of the grades of disability between new and old systems, 7,329 persons with disabilities were randomly recruited in a national population-based study in Phase II. To implement the new system smoothly and understand the impact of the new system, the collaboration mechanism was established and data of 168,052 persons who applied for the disability benefits was extracted from the information system and analysed in Phase III. Results: The measures of the 43 categories for body function/structure components, the Functioning Scale of Disability Evaluation System for activities/participation components, and the needs assessment have been developed and used in the field after several revisions. In Phase II, there was 49.7% agreement of disability grades between the old and new systems. In Phase III, 110,667 persons with a disability received their welfare services through the new system. Among them, 77% received basic social welfare support, 89% financial support, 24% allowance for assistive technology, 7% caregiver support, 8% nursing care and rehabilitation services at home, and 47% were issued parking permits for persons with disability. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that disability evaluation system based on the ICF could provide a common language between disability assessment, needs assessment and welfare services. However, the proposed assessment protocol and tools require additional testing and validation.

Objective: The “Prone to Play” campaign was proposed and has been ongoing since 2001, but the causal and dosage effects of wakeful prone positioning on motor development are still unclear. The purpose of this longitudinal cohort study was to investigate the effects of prone wakeful positioning at 3 to 6 months of age on motor development during the 6 to 24 months age bracket. Methods: Two hundred eighty-eight full-term newborns were recruited at birth and followed up at 4, 6, 12, and 24 months of age respectively. Data on experience, duration, and preference of prone wakeful positioning were collected at 4 and 6 months of age. The acquisition ages of prone specific and nonprone milestones were collected and analyzed to evaluate the impact of wakeful prone positioning on motor development during early life. Gross motor developmental quotients (GMDQ) and fine motor developmental quotients (FMDQ) of the Comprehensive Developmental Inventory for Infants and Toddlers were assessed at ages 6 and 24 months. Results: The prone duration significantly affected the acquisition ages of 3 prone specific milestones (rolling, crawling-on-abdomen, crawling-on-all-fours) and sitting; without affecting the other 2 nonprone specific milestones (walking and transferring objects), GMDQs and FMDQs. The infants of prone preference achieved prone specific milestones earlier than those of nonprone preference. The prone experience affected the crawling-on-abdomen acquisition age, but not the other motor outcomes. Conclusion: Wakeful prone positioning promotes prone-specific motor milestones in early infancy. “Prone to play for a certain amount of time in an interactive and supervised environment” might be advocated.

The purpose of this study is to compare traumatic brain injuries (TBI) and spinal cord injuries (SCI) patients’ function and disability by using the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0); and to clarify the factors that contribute to disability. We analyzed data available between September 2012 and August 2013 from Taiwan’s national disability registry which is based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework. Of the 2664 cases selected for the study, 1316 pertained to TBI and 1348 to SCI. A larger percentage of patients with TBI compared with those with SCI exhibited poor cognition, self-care, relationships, life activities, and participation in society (all p < 0.001). Age, sex, injury type, socioeconomic status, place of residence, and severity of impairment were determined as factors that independently contribute to disability (all p < 0.05). The WHODAS 2.0 is a generic assessment instrument which is appropriate for assessing the complex and multifaceted disability associated with TBI and SCI. Further studies are needed to validate the WHODAS 2.0 for TBI and SCI from a multidisciplinary perspective.