Journal of the Korean Society of Physical Medicine (대한물리의학회지)

The Korean Society of Physical Medicine (대한물리의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Review of the Computerization Component for the Utilization of ICF as a Global Protocol

글로벌 프로토콜로서의 ICF 활용을 위한 전산화 구성요소 고찰

  • Nyeon-Sik Choi (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Silla University) ;
  • Ju-Min Song (Department of Physical Therapy, Silla University)
  • Received : 2023.08.11
  • Accepted : 2023.08.21
  • Published : 2023.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE: Computerization using ICF as a protocol can enhance the assessment, communication, and decision-making of various disciplines and cultures, individual functions, disabilities and health to promote communication and understanding among various professionals, organizations, and countries. The empirical foundation for these propositions was provided by delineating of six distinct computerization components. METHODS: This study analyzed 14 papers that combined the medical field and information technology to activate the ICF through computerization. From each of these papers, distinctive advantages were extracted to propose six computerization elements. The validity of these computerization elements was examined. These papers encompass various computerization elements, among which core elements were identified. In particular, six common core elements were extracted from these papers and assumed to be strategic computerization components for ICF activation. A heuristic methodology was employed to validate these components, representing IT technology maturity using four determining indices, which were then presented graphically for validation attempts. RESULTS: Four quantified indices were defined: reliability, cost-effectiveness, support and updates, and collaboration. Using these indices, this study identified elements that leverage existing IT technologies and require new development. The possibility of increasing utility was identified by applying computerization to ICF. CONCLUSION: This study examined the strategic elements of utilizing ICF by computerizing it using a protocol concept and discussed its potential for utilization. The potential to enhance the value of information in social, physical, and cultural contexts was presented by integrating various domains and data within the ICF framework.

Keywords

References

  1. Organization WH. Towards a common language for functioning, disability, and health: ICF. The international classification of functioning, disability and health. 2002.
  2. Lee HJ, Song JM. ICF- Development of Revised Korean Version of ICF. JKPT. 2014;26(5):344-50.
  3. Tucker CA, Cieza A, Riley AW, et al. Concept analysis of the patient reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS®) and the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Quality of Life Research. 2014;23:1677-86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0622-y
  4. Hayrinen K, Saranto K, Nykanen P. Definition, structure, content, use and impacts of electronic health records: a review of the research literature. Int J Med Inform. 2008;77(5):291-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2007.09.001
  5. Ustun TB. Measuring health and disability: Manual for WHO disability assessment schedule WHODAS 2.0. World Health Organization. 2010.
  6. Nauss RM. Solving the generalized assignment problem: An optimizing and heuristic approach. INFORMS J on Comput. 2003;15(3):249-66. https://doi.org/10.1287/ijoc.15.3.249.16075
  7. Price M, Singer A, Kim J. Adopting electronic medical records: are they just electronic paper records? Canadian Famil Physic. 2013;59(7):e322-e9.
  8. Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, et al. Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Systematic reviews. 2012;1(1):1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-1
  9. Mosa ASM, Yoo I, Sheets L. A sy stematic review of healthcare applications for smartphones. BMC. 2012;12(1):1-31. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2210-12-1
  10. Raghupathi W, Raghupathi V. Big data analytics in healthcare: promise and potential. Health inform Sci Syst. 2014;2:1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/2047-2501-2-1
  11. Grill E, Hermes R, Swoboda W, et al. ICF Core Set for geriatric patients in early post-acute rehabilitation facilities. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27(7-8):411-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280400013966
  12. Cieza A, Oberhauser C, Bickenbach J, et al. Towards a minimal generic set of domains of functioning and health. BMC public health. 2014;14:1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-1
  13. Schiariti V, Longo E, Shoshmin A, et al. Implementation of the international classification of functioning, disability, and health (ICF) core sets for children and youth with cerebral palsy: global initiatives promoting optimal functioning. Int J Envir Res Public Health. 2018;15(9):1899.
  14. Choi NS, Song JM. Korean standard classification of functioning, disability and health (KCF) code linking on natural language with extract algorithm. J Korean Soc Phys Med. 2023;18(1):77-86. https://doi.org/10.13066/kspm.2023.18.1.77
  15. Cieza A, Brockow T, Ewert T, et al. Linking health-status measurements to the international classification of functioning, disability and health. J Rehabil Med. 2002;34(5):205-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/165019702760279189
  16. Simeonsson RJ, Leonardi M, Lollar D, et al. Applying the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) to measure childhood disability. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25(11-12):602-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/0963828031000137117
  17. Stucki G, Zampolini M, Juocevicius A, et al. Practice, science and governance in interaction: European effort for the system-wide implementation of the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine. European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine. 2017;53(2):299-307. https://doi.org/10.23736/S1973-9087.16.04436-1
  18. Gostin LO, Lazzarini Z, Neslund VS, et al. The public health information infrastructure: a national review of the law on health information privacy. JAMA. 1996;275(24):1921-7. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1996.03530480063042
  19. Iakovidis I. Towards personal health record: current situation, obstacles and trends in implementation of electronic healthcare record in Europe. Int J Med Inform. 1998;52(1-3):105-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1386-5056(98)00129-4
  20. Lafky DB, Horan TA. Personal health records: Consumer attitudes toward privacy and security of their personal health information. Health Inform J. 2011;17(1):63-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458211399403
  21. Abouelmehdi K, Beni-Hessane A, Khaloufi H. Big healthcare data: preserving security and privacy. J Big Data. 2018;5(1):1-18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-017-0110-7
  22. Provan K, Milward H. A preliminary theory of interorganizational network effectiveness: A comparative study of four. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1995;40(1):1-33. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393698
  23. LaRocca R, Yost J, Dobbins M, et al. The effectiveness of knowledge translation strategies used in public health: a systematic review. BMC public health. 2012;12(1):1-15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-1
  24. Stucki G. International classification of functioning, disability, and health (ICF): a promising framework and classification for rehabilitation medicine. Americ J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;84(10):733-40. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.phm.0000179521.70639.83
  25. Thamhain HJ. Management of technology: Managing effectively in technology-intensive organizations. John Wiley & Sons. 2005.
  26. Lacity MC, Willcocks LP. An empirical investigation of information technology sourcing practices: Lessons from experience. MIS quarterly. 1998;363-408.
  27. Karimi J, Gupta YP, Somers TM. Impact of competitive strategy and information technology maturity on firms' strategic response to globalization. J Manag Inform Syst. 1996;12(4):55-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1996.11518101
  28. DIS I. 9241-210: 2010. Ergonomics of human system interaction-Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems. International Standardization Organization (ISO). Switzerland. 2009.
  29. Baldwin CY, Clark KB. Design rules: The power of modularity. MIT press. 2000.
  30. Bonvoisin J, Halstenberg F, Buchert T, et al. A systematic literature review on modular product design. J Engin Desig. 2016;27(7):488-514. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2016.1166482
  31. Sako M. Modularity and outsourcing. The business of systems integration. 2003;229-53.
  32. Cieza A, Fayed N, Bickenbach J, et al. Refinements of the ICF Linking Rules to strengthen their potential for establishing comparability of health information. Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41(5):574-83. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2016.1145258
  33. Post MW, de Witte LP, Reichrath E, et al. Development and validation of IMPACT-S, an ICF-based questionnaire to measure activities and participation. J Rehabil Med. 2008;40(8):620-7. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0223
  34. Selb M, Escorpizo R, Kostanjsek N, et al. A guide on how to develop an international classification of functioning, disability and health core set. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2015;51(1):105-17.
  35. Grill E, Ewert T, Chatterji S, et al. ICF Core Sets development for the acute hospital and early post-acute rehabilitation facilities. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27(7-8):361-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280400013974
  36. Biering-Sorensen F, Scheuringer M, Baumberger M, et al. Developing core sets for persons with spinal cord injuries based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health as a way to specify functioning. Spinal Cord. 2006;44(9):541-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.sc.3101918
  37. Cerniauskaite M, Quintas R, Boldt C, et al. Systematic literature review on ICF from 2001 to 2009: its use, implementation and operationalisation. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33(4):281-309. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2010.529235
  38. Prodinger B, Reinhardt JD, Selb M, et al. Towards system-wide implementation of the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) in routine practice: Developing simple, intuitive descriptions of ICF categories in the ICF Generic and Rehabilitation Set. J Rehab Med. 2016;48(6):508-14. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2066
  39. Monticone M, Ambrosini E, Laurini A, et al. In-patient multidisciplinary rehabilitation for Parkinson's disease: a randomized controlled trial. Movem Dis. 2015;30(8):1050-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.26256
  40. Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis at Popliteal Regions of Human Body using BIMS. Sensor. 2016;25(1):1-7. https://doi.org/10.5369/JSST.2016.25.1.1
  41. Song J-M. Review on ICF-related research trends in korean clinical field. J Korean Soc Phys Med. 2021;16(4):33-44. https://doi.org/10.13066/kspm.2021.16.4.33
  42. Menachemi N, Collum TH. Benefits and drawbacks of electronic health record systems. Risk management and healthcare policy. 2011;47-55.
  43. Gheorghiu B, Hagens S. Measuring interoperable EHR adoption and maturity: a Canadian example. BMC. 2016;16:1-7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-016-0247-x
  44. Maritz R, Aronsky D, Prodinger B. The international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) in electronic health records. Appl Clin Inf. 2017; 8(03):964-80. https://doi.org/10.4338/ACI2017050078
  45. Organization WH. International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health: Children & Youth Version: ICF-CY. World Health Organization. 2007.
  46. DeLone WH, McLean ER. Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Inform Syst Res. 1992;3(1):60-95. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.3.1.60
  47. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly. 1989;319-40.
  48. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, et al. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly. 2003;425-78.
  49. Parasuraman A. Technology Readiness Index (TRI) a multiple-item scale to measure readiness to embrace new technologies. J Serv Res. 2000;2(4):307-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050024001
  50. Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, Malhotra A. ES-QUAL: A multiple-item scale for assessing electronic service quality. J Serv Res. 2005;7(3):213-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670504271156
  51. Chrissis MB, Konrad M, Shrum S. CMMI for development: guidelines for process integration and product improvement. Pearson Education. 2011.
  52. Sinha PK, Sunder G, Bendale P, et al. Electronic health record: standards, coding systems, frameworks, and infrastructures. John Wiley & Sons. 2012.