Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Content comparison of health-related quality of life measures used in stroke based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF): a systematic review

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To examine and compare the contents of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures used in stroke, based on the ICF as the frame of reference.

Design

We conducted a systematic literature review to select current generic and condition-specific HRQoL measures applied in stroke. We examined the contents of the selected measures by linking the concepts within the instruments’ items to the ICF.

Results

The systematic literature review resulted in the selection of six generic and seven stroke-specific HRQoL measures. Within the selected instruments we identified 979 concepts. To map these concepts, we used 200 different ICF categories. None of the ICF categories is contained in all of the instruments. The most frequently used category is ‘b152 Emotional functions’ contained in 53 items from 10 instruments. Stroke-specific measures more often address ‘Mental functions’, while the selected generic instruments more often include Environmental Factors.

Discussion

The present study provides an overview on current HRQoL measures in stroke with respect to their covered contents and provides valuable information to facilitate the selection of appropriate instruments for specific purposes in clinical as well as research settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Acquadro, C., Berzon, R., Dubois, D., Leidy, N. K., Marquis, P., Revicki, D., & Rothman, M. (2003). PRO Harmonization Group Incorporating the patient’s perspective into drug development and communication: an ad hoc task force report of the Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Harmonization Group meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001. Value Health, 6, 522–531

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson, C., Laubscher, S., & Burns, R. (1996). Validation of the Short Form 36 (SF-36) health survey questionnaire among stroke patients. Stroke, 27, 1812–1816

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Barak, S., & Duncan, P. W. (2006). Issues in selecting outcome measures to assess functional recovery after stroke. NeuroRx, 3, 505–524

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bergner, M., Bobbitt, R. A., Carter, W. B., & Gilson, B. S. (1981) The Sickness Impact Profile: Development and final revision of a health status measure. Medical Care, 19, 787–805

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bilbao, A., Kennedy, C., Chatterji, S., Ustun, B., Barquero, J. L., & Barth, J. T. (2003). The ICF: Applications of the WHO model of functioning, disability and health to brain injury rehabilitation. NeuroRehabilitation, 18, 239–250

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Boldt, C., Brach, M., & Grill, E. et al. (2005). The ICF categories identified in nursing interventions administered to neurological patients with post-acute rehabilitation needs. Disability and Rehabilitation, 27, 431–436

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Borchers, M., Cieza, A., Sigl, T., Kollerits, B., Kostanjsek, N., & Stucki, G. (2004). Content comparison of osteoporosis-targeted health status measures in relation to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Clinical Rheumatology, 14, 139–144

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bowling, A. (1995) Measuring disease. A review of disease-specific quality of life measurement scales. Open University Press, Buckingham

    Google Scholar 

  9. Brott, T., Adams, H. P., Olinger, C. P., Marler, J. R., Barsan, W. G., Biller, J., Spilker, J., Holleran, R., Eberle, R., & Hertzberg, V. (1989). Measurements of acute cerebral infarction: A clinical examination scale. Stroke, 20, 864–870

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Buck, D., Jacoby, A., Massey, A., & Ford, G. (2000). Evaluation of measures used to assess quality of life after stroke. Stroke, 31, 2004–2010

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Cieza, A., Brockow, T., Ewert, T., Amman, E., Kollerits, B., & Chatterji, S., et al. (2002). Linking health-status measurements to the international classification of functioning, disability and health. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 34, 205–210

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cieza, A., Ewert, T., Üstün, T.B., Chatterji, S., Kostansjek, N., & Stucki, G. (2004). ICF Core Sets development for patients with chronic conditions. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 44 (Suppl), 9–11

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cieza, A., Geyh, S., Chatterji, S., Konstanjsek, N., Üstün, B., & Stucki, G. (2005). ICF linking rules: An update based on lessons learned. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 37, 212–218

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Cieza, A., & Stucki, G. (2005). Content comparison of health related quality of life (HRQOL) instruments based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Quality of Life Research, 14, 1225–1237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Clarke, P. J., Black, S. E., Badley, E. M., Lawrence, J. M., & Williams, J. I. (1999). Handicap in stroke survivors. Disability and Rehabilitation, 21, 116–123

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Daneski, K., Coshall, C., Tilling, K., & Wolfe, C. D. (2003). Reliability and validity of a postal version of the Reintegration to Normal Living Index, modified for use with stroke patients. Clinical Rehabilitation, 17, 835–839

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. De Haan, R., Aaronson, N., Limburg, M., Hewer, R. L., & Van Crevel, H. (1993). Measuring quality of life in stroke. Stroke, 24, 320–327

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. De Haan, R., Horn, J., Limburg, M., Van Der Meulen, J., & Bossuyt, P. (1993). A comparison of five stroke scales with measures of disability, handicap, and quality of life. Stroke, 24, 1178–1181

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Dorman, P. J., Waddell, F., Slattery, J., Dennis, M., & Sandercock, P. (1997). Is the EuroQol a valid measure of health-related quality of life after stroke? Stroke, 28, 1876–1882

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Dorman, P. J., Waddell, F., Slattery, J., Dennis, M., & Sandercock, P. (1997). Are proxy assessments of health status after stroke with the EuroQol questionnaire feasible, accurate, and unbiased? Stroke, 28, 1883–1887

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Dorman, P., Slattery, J., Farrell, B., Dennis, M., & Sandercock, P. (1998). Qualitative comparison of the reliability of health status assessments with the EuroQol and SF-36 questionnaires after stroke. United Kingdom Collaborators in the International Stroke Trial. Stroke, 29, 63–68

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Doyle, P. J. (2002). Measuring health outcomes in stroke survivors. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83(Suppl 2), S39-S43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Doyle, P. J., McNeil, M. R., Hula, W. D., & Mikolic, J. M. (2003). The Burden of Stroke Scale (BOSS): Validating patient-reported communication difficulty and associated psychological distress in stroke survivors. Aphasiology, 17, 291–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Doyle, P. J., McNeil, M. R., Mikolic, J. M., Prieto, L., Hula, W. D., Lustig, A. P., Ross, K., Wambaugh, J. L., Gonzalez-Rothi, L. J., & Elman, R. J. (2004). The Burden of Stroke Scale (BOSS) provides valid and reliable score estimates of functioning and well-being in stroke survivors with and without communication disorders. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 57, 997–1007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Duncan, P. W., Bode, R. K., Min Lai, S., & Perera, S. (2003). Glycine Antagonist in Neuroprotection Americans Investigators. Rasch analysis of a new stroke-specific outcome scale: The Stroke Impact Scale. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84, 950–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Duncan, P. W., Jorgensen, H. S., & Wade, D. T. (2000). Outcome measures in acute stroke trials. A systematic review and some recommendations to improve practice. Stroke, 31, 1429–1438

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Duncan, P. W., Lai, S. M., Tyler, D., Perera, S., Reker, D. M., & Studenski, S. (2002). Evaluation of proxy responses to the Stroke Impact Scale. Stroke, 33, 2593–2599

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Duncan, P. W., Reker, D. M., Horner, R. D., Samsa, G. P., Hoenig, H., & LaClair, B. J., et al. (2002). Performance of a mail-administered version of a stroke-specific outcome measure, the Stroke Impact Scale. Clinical Rehabilitation, 16, 493–505

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Duncan, P. W., Wallace, D., Lai, S. M., Johnson, D., Embretson, S., & Laster, L. J. (1999) The stroke impact scale version 2.0. Evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Stroke, 30, 2131–2140

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Duncan, P. W., Wallace, D., Studenski, S., Lai, S. M., & Johnson, D. (2001). Conceptualization of a new stroke-specific outcome measure: the Stroke Impact Scale. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 8, 19–33

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Ebrahim, S. (1995). Clinical and public health perspectives and applications of health-related quality of life measurement. Social Science & Medicine, 41, 1383–1394

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Ebrahim, S., Barer, D., & Nouri, F. (1986). Use of the Nottingham Health Profile with patients after a stroke. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 40, 166–169

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Edwards, B., & O’Connell, B. (2003). Internal consistency and validity of the Stroke Impact Scale 2.0 (SIS 2.0) and SIS-16 in an Australian sample. Quality of Life Research, 12, 1127–1135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Efron, B. (1982). The Jackknife, the bootstrap and other resampling plans. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ferrans, C., & Powers, M. (1985). Quality of Life Index: Development and psychometric properties. Advances in Nursing Science, 8, 15–24

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Fitzpatrick, R., Davey, C., Buxton, M. J., & Jones, D. R. (1998). Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technology Assessment, 2(i–iv), 1–74

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). “Mini-Mental State”: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189–198

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Garratt, A., Schmidt, L., Mackintosh, A., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2002). Quality of life measurement: Bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. BMJ, 324, 1417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Geyh, S., Cieza, A., Schouten, J., Dickson, H., Frommelt, P., Omar, Z., Ring, H., Kostanjsek, N., & Stucki, G. (2004). ICF Core Sets for stroke. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 44(Suppl), 135–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Geyh, S., Kurt, T., Brockow, T., Cieza, A., Ewert, T., Omar, Z., & Resch, K. L. (2004). Identifying the concepts contained in outcome measures of clinical trials on stroke using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health as a reference. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 44,(Suppl), 56–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Golomb, B. A., Vickrey, B. G., & Hays, R. D. (2001). A review of health-related quality-of-life measures in stroke. Pharmacoecomomics, 19, 155–85

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Gompertz, P., Pound, P., & Ebrahim, S.(1993). The reliability of stroke outcome measures. Clinical Rehabilitation, 7, 290–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Hagen, S., Bugge, C., & Alexander, H. (2003). Psychometric properties of the SF-36 in the early post-stroke phase. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 44, 461–468

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Hamedani, A. G., Wells, C. K., Brass, L. M., Kernan, W. N., Viscoli, C. M., Maraire, J. N., Awad, I. A., & Horwitz, R. I. (2001). A quality-of-life instrument for young hemorrhagic stroke patients. Stroke, 32, 687–695

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Harwood, R. H., Gompertz, P., & Ebrahim, S. (1994). Handicap one year after a stroke: validity of a new scale. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 57, 825–829

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Harwood, R. H., Rogers, A., Dickinson, E., & Ebrahim, S. (1994). Measuring handicap: The London Handicap Scale, a new outcome measure for chronic disease. Quality in Health Care, 3, 11–16

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Higginson, I. J., & Carr, A. J. (2001). Measuring quality of life: Using quality of life measures in the clinical setting. BMJ, 322, 1297–1300

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Hilari, K., & Byng, S. (2001). Measuring quality of life in people with aphasia: the Stroke Specific Quality of Life Scale. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders/Royal College of Speech & Language Therapists, 36 Suppl, 86–91

    Google Scholar 

  50. Hilari, K., Byng, S., Lamping, D. L., & Smith, S. C. (2003). Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale-39 (SAQOL-39): Evaluation of acceptability, reliability, and validity. Stroke, 34, 1944–1950

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Hobart, J. C., Williams, L. S., Moran, K., & Thompson, A. J. (2002). Quality of life measurement after stroke: uses and abuses of the SF-36. Stroke, 33, 1348–1356

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Hunt, S. M., McEwen, J., & McKenna, S. P. (1985). Measuring health status: A new tool for clinicians and epidemiologists. The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 35, 185–188

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Jenkinson, C., Mant, J., Carter, J., Wade, D., & Winner, S. (2000). The London handicap scale: a re-evaluation of its validity using standard scoring and simple summation. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 68, 365–367

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Jette, A. M. (1993). Using health-related quality of life measures in physical therapy outcomes research. Physical Therapy, 73, 528–537

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Kasner, S. E. (2006). Clinical interpretation and use of stroke scales. Lancet Neurology, 5, 603–612

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. King, R. B. (1996). Quality of Life after Stroke. Stroke, 27, 1467–1472

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Mahoney, F. I., Wood, O. H., & Barthel, D. W. (1958). Rehabilitation of chronically ill patients: the influence of complications on the final goal. The Southern Medical Journal, 51, 605–609

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. McHorney, C. A. (1999). Health status assessment methods for adults: Past accomplishments and future challenges. Annual Review of Public Health, 20, 309–335

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Naughton, M. J., & Shumaker, S. A. (2003). The case for domains of function in quality of life assessment. Quality of Life Research, 12 Suppl 1, 73–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Pickard, A. S., Johnson, J. A., Feeny, D. H., Shuaib, A., Carriere, K. C., & Nasser, A. M. (2004). Agreement between patient and proxy assessments of health-related quality of life after stroke using the EQ-5D and health utilities index. Stroke, 35, 607–612

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Post, M. W., de Witte, L. P., & Schrijvers, A. J. (1999). Quality of life and the ICIDH: towards an integrated conceptual model for rehabilitation outcomes research. Clinical Rehabilitation, 13, 5–15

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Pound, P., Gompertz, P., & Ebrahim, S. (1998). A patient-centered study of the consequences of stroke. Clinical Rehabilitation, 12, 338–347

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Rankin, J. (1957). Cerebral vascular accidents in patients over the age of 60. 2. Prognosis. Scottish Medical Journal, 2, 200–215

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Rentsch, H. P., Bucher, P., Dommen Nyffeler, I., Wolf, C., Hefti, H., Fluri, E., Wenger, U., Walti, C., & Boyer, I. (2003). The Implementation of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) in Daily Practice of Neurorehabilitation: An Interdisciplinary Project at the Kantonsspital of Lucerne, Switzerland. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25, 411–421

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Revicki, D. A., & Cella, D. F. (1997). Health status assessment for the twenty-first century: item response theory, item banking and computer adaptive testing. Quality of Life Research, 6, 595–600

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Roberts, L., & Counsell, C. (1998). Assessment of clinical outcomes in acute stroke trials. Stroke, 29, 986–991

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Robinson-Smith, G., Johnston, M. V., & Allen, J. (2000). Self-care self-efficacy, quality of life, and depression after stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 81, 460–464

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Salter, K., Jutai, J. W., Teasell, R., Foley, N. C., & Bitensky, J. (2005). Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF body functions. Disability and Rehabilitation, 27, 191–207

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Salter, K., Jutai, J. W., Teasell, R., Foley, N. C., Bitensky, J., & Bayley, M. (2005). Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF activity. Disability and Rehabilitation, 27, 315–340

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Salter, K., Jutai, J. W., Teasell, R., Foley, N. C., Bitensky, J., & Bayley, M. (2005). Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF participation. Disability and Rehabilitation, 27, 507–528

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Sanders, C., Egger, M., Donovan, J., Tallon, D., & Frankel, S. (1998). Reporting on quality of life in randomised controlled trials: Bibliographic study. BMJ, 317, 1191–1194

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. SAS Institute Inc. (2001). The SAS System for Windows, Version 8.2. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC

    Google Scholar 

  73. Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11, 193–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Sigl, T., Cieza, A., Brockow, T., Chatterji, S., Kostanjsek, N., & Stucki, G. (2006). Content comparison of low back pain-specific measures based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). The Clinical Journal of Pain, 22, 147–153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Sneeuw, K. C., Aaronson, N. K., de Haan, R. J., & Limburg, M. (1997). Assessing quality of life after stroke. The value and limitations of proxy ratings. Stroke, 28, 1541–1549

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Stamm, T. A., Cieza, A., Machold, K. P., Smolen, J. S., & Stucki, G. (2004). Content comparison of occupation-based instruments in adult rheumatology and musculoskeletal rehabilitation based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 51, 917–924

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Stamm, T. A., Cieza, A., Machold, K., Smolen, J. S., & Stucki, G. (In press). An exploration of the link of conceptual occupational therapy models to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Arthritis and Rheumatism.

  78. Stucki, G., Cieza, A., Ewert, T., Kostanjsek, N., Chatterji, S., & Üstün, B. (2002). Application of the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) in clinical practice. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24, 281–282

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. The EuroQol Group. (1990). EuroQol – a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16, 199–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Tooth, L. R., McKenna, K. T., Smith, M., & O’Rourke, P. K. (2003). Reliability of scores between stroke patients and significant others on the Reintegration to Normal Living (RNL) Index. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25, 433–440

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Ueda, S., & Okawa, Y. (2003). The subjective dimension of functioning and disability: What is it and what is it for? Disability and Rehabilitation, 25, 596–601

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Van de Port, I. G., Ketelaar, M., Schepers, V. P., Van den Bos, G. A., & Lindeman, E. (2004). Monitoring the functional health status of stroke patients: the value of the Stroke-Adapted Sickness Impact Profile-30. Disability and Rehabilitation, 26, 635–640

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Van Straten, A., de Haan, R. J., Limburg, M., Schuling, J., Bossuyt, P. M., & van den Bos, G. A. (1997). A stroke-adapted 30-item version of the Sickness Impact Profile to assess quality of life (SA-SIP30). Stroke, 28, 2155–2161

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Vierkant, R. A. (2000). A SAS macro for calculating bootstrapped confidence intervals about a Kappa coefficient. SAS Users Group International Online Proceedings. Retrieved July 23, 2004, from < http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/sugi22/STATS/PAPER295.PDF > 

  85. Visser, M. C., Koudstaal, P. J., Erdman, R. A., Deckers, J. W., Passchier, J., van Gijn, J., & Grobbee, D. E. (1995). Measuring quality of life in patients with myocardial infarction or stroke: A feasibility study of four questionnaires in The Netherlands. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 49, 513–517

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Wade, D. T. (1992). Measurement in neurological rehabilitation. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  87. Wade, D. T., & de Jong, B. A. (2000). Recent advances in rehabilitation. BMJ, 320, 1385–1388

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30, 473–83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Weigl, M., Cieza, A., Harder, M., Geyh, S., Amann, E., Kostanjsek, N., & Stucki, G. (2003). Linking osteoarthritis-specific health-status measures to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). Osteoarthritis Cartilage, 11, 519–523

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Williams, L. S. (1998). Health-related quality of life outcomes in stroke. Neuroepidemiology, 17, 116–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Williams, L. S., Weinberger, M., Harris, L. E., Clark, D. O., & Biller, J. (1999). Development of a stroke-specific quality of life scale. Stroke, 30, 1362–1369

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Wood-Dauphinee, S. (1998). Competing conceptual frameworks for assessing rehabilitation outcomes. Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation, 11, 165–167

    Google Scholar 

  93. Wood-Dauphinee, S. L., Opzoomer, M. A., Williams, J. I., Marchand, B., & Spitzer, W. O. (1988). Assessment of global function: The Reintegration to Normal Living Index. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 69, 583–590

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Ms Edda Amann, MPH, ICF Research Branch of the WHO FIC Collaborating Center (DIMDI), IHRS, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany for her contribution to the linkage procedure.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ICF Research Branch of the WHO FIC Collaborating Center (DIMDI), IHRS, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany

    S. Geyh, A. Cieza & B. Kollerits

  2. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Goteborg, Sweden

    G. Grimby

  3. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany

    G. Stucki

  4. Swiss Paraplegic Research (SPF), Nottwil, Switzerland

    G. Stucki

Authors
  1. S. Geyh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Cieza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B. Kollerits
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. G. Grimby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. G. Stucki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. Stucki.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Geyh, S., Cieza, A., Kollerits, B. et al. Content comparison of health-related quality of life measures used in stroke based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF): a systematic review. Qual Life Res 16, 833–851 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9174-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9174-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation