The International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF) was approved in 2001 and, since then, several studies reported the increased interest about its use in different sectors. A recent overview that summarizes its applications is lacking. This study aims to provide an updated overview about 20 years of ICF application through an international online questionnaire, developed by the byline authors, and sent to each World Health Organization Collaborating Centers of the Family of International Classifications (WHO-FIC CCs). Data was collected during October 2020 and December 2021 and descriptive content analyses were used to report main results. Results show how, in most of the respondent countries represented by WHO-FIC CCs, ICF was mainly used in clinical practice, policy development and social policy, and in education areas. Despite its applications in different sectors, ICF use is not mandatory in most countries but, where used, it provides a biopsychosocial framework for policy development in health, functioning and disability. The study provides information about the needs related to ICF applications, that can be useful to organize targeted intervention plans. Furthermore, this survey methodology can be re-proposed periodically to monitor the use of the ICF in the future.

Objective: To translate the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of the Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) into Danish and to establish the inter-tester reliability, responsiveness, Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) and concurrent validity of the FMA-UE in a population of stroke patients. Method: The translation was conducted in accordance with the principles outlined by the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaption. Inter-rater reliability was assessed at baseline. Each patient was tested by two examiners and inter class correlation (ICC) was calculated. Responsiveness was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve statistics. The FMA-UE change score was used to assess sensitivity and specificity and to correctly determine which patients had improved. The MCID and the area under the curve (AUC) were established using the ROC. The FMA-UE’s concurrent validity with the Motor Assessment Scale was determined using Spearman’s rank correlation. Setting: The study took place at Skive Neurorehabilition, Denmark from May 2014 to February 2015. Participants: Inpatients, who were in the acute to sub-acute stage of stroke and aged > 18 years. Interventions: Not applicable. Main outcome measure: The FMA-UE. Results: In 50 inpatients the ICC was 0.95, AUC was 0.87, with a sensitivity of 77%, a specificity of 89% and an MCID ≥ 4. Concurrent validity was high, with r = 0.94–0.95. Conclusion: The FMA-UE was successfully translated into Danish. An MCID ≥ 4 was found. This study provides evidence that the FMA-UE is a reliable, responsive and valid instrument for measuring upper limb impairment after stroke.

Assessment of functional ability in elderly patients is often based on self-reported rather than performance-based measures. This study aims to compare self-reported and performance-based measures of functional ability in a population of elderly patients at an emergency department (ED). Participants were 61 patients aged 65 years and above admitted to an ED. The self-reported measure used was the Barthel-20; the performance-based measures were Timed Up and Go (TUG); 30s-Chair Stand Test (30s-CST) and Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) with the two scales; motor and process. Correlation analyses were conducted to examine the relationships between the self-reported and performance-based measures of functional ability. The correlation between the Barthel-20 and the TUG was moderate (r = −0.64). The correlation between the Barthel-20 and the AMPS motor was also moderate (r = 0.53). The correlation between the Barthel-20 and the 30s-CST was fair (r = 0.45). The correlation between Barthel-20 and the AMPS process was non-significant. The results were affected by high ceiling effect (Barthel-20). Self-reported and performance-based measures seem to assess different aspects of functional ability. Thus, the two methods provide different information, and this highlight the importance of supplementing self-reported measures with performance-based measures when assessing functional ability in elderly patients.