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.

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.

The definition of disability had been unclear until the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health was promulgated in 2001 by the World Health Organization (WHO). Disability is a critical but relatively neglected public-health concern. We conducted this study to measure disabilities by using the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) and identify the factors that contribute to disabilities. We obtained and analyzed the data on people who applied to Taiwan’s disability registration system between September 2012 and August 2013. A total of 158,174 cases were selected for this study. Among the people included in this study, 53% were male, and the females were on average 3 years older than the males. More males than females were of a low socioeconomic status, but the rate of employment was higher among the males than among the females. Age, sex, place of residence, and types and severity of impairment were all determined to be factors that independently contributed to disability. This study has demonstrated that disability can be measured and compared using WHODAS 2.0. Increasing the public-health attention devoted to disability and identifying the factors associated with disability can promote independence and social participation in people with disabilities.

Background: Information systems implementation projects have been historically plagued by failures for which user resistance has consistently been identified as a salient reason. Most prior studies investigated either the causes or the consequences of Resistance to Change (RTC) of medical related Information Systems. In this study, we simultaneously explore the causes and impacts of RTC of Disability Determination System (DDS). Methods: This study adopts the Status Quo Bias perspective and combines the information systems usage model and Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) as theoretical foundation to investigates the causes and impacts of users’ RTC on their intention to use the DDS. Data were obtained through internet questionnaire survey. Totally, 326 respondents from 22 local governments and 142 hospitals were collected, of which 252 were valid samples and were analyzed using structure model analysis. Results: The research model is proved with eight out of 11 hypotheses being supported. The antecedents of RTC can explain 21.4% of the RTC variation, and the RTC impacts can explain 57.5% of the variation of intention to use DDS. Conclusions: Combining the Status Quo Bias perspective and key component of TAM provides an adequate explanation of adopting intention of changing systems and extend the existing knowledge of information systems adoption. The results provide as a reference for managing users’ RTC and enhance the effects and efficiency of new systems adoption.