Next Article in Journal
Thin-Ideal Internalisation and Weight Bias Internalisation as Predictors of Eating Pathology: The Moderating Role of Self-Compassion
Previous Article in Journal
Risk Factors for Locomotive Syndrome in Brazilian Older Adults: A Nested Case–Control Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 22
Issue 8
10.3390/ijerph22081277
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Content Analysis of Assessment Tools Used in Post-Stroke Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review with Linkage to the International Classification of Functioning

by
Maria Heloiza Araujo Silva
1,*,
Thaissa Hamana de Macedo Dantas
1,
Ana Cecília de Medeiros Araújo
2,
Diego de Sousa Dantas
3,
Maria Isabelle de Araújo Dantas
2,
Beatriz Cristina Medeiros de Lucena
2,
Isabelly Cristina Rodrigues Regalado Moura
2 and
Aline Braga Galvão Silveira Fernandes
2
1
Center for Health Sciences, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal 59078-900, Brazil
2
Faculty of Health Sciences of Trairi, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Santa Cruz 59200-000, Brazil
3
Center for Health Sciences, Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife 50670-420, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2025, 22(8), 1277; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22081277
Submission received: 4 April 2025 / Revised: 9 May 2025 / Accepted: 12 May 2025 / Published: 15 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Health Care Sciences)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

Stroke rehabilitation requires comprehensive assessments aligned with the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) biopsychosocial model. Linking assessment tools to the ICF helps integrate this approach by identifying aspects of functioning they address. This study aimed to analyze the content of the most used assessment tools for post-stroke rehabilitation through systematic linkage with the ICF. A scoping review was conducted, including (1) the identification of clinical trials on post-stroke rehabilitation published between 2014 and 2024 in the PubMed, LILACS, SciELO, and PEDro databases to select the most commonly used assessment tools, followed by (2) the ICF linkage methodology to map the most cited tools to the content of ICF categories and domains. From the 897 studies reviewed, 29 tools were identified—21 were newly linked and 8 had pre-existing ICF links. The analysis identified 261 ICF categories: 53% related to Activities, 31% to Body Functions, 15% to Participation, and 1% to Environmental Factors. No tool covered the Body Structure domain. The findings highlight a focus on Activities and Body Functions, reinforcing the need to integrate Participation and Environmental Factors into post-stroke rehabilitation assessments. The results offer an overview of ICF categories covered by each tool, supporting informed decisions in rehabilitation research and practice.

1. Introduction

Stroke is the most prevalent neurological disease and the third leading cause of disability worldwide, resulting in functional impairment and a decline in quality of life [1,2,3]. A significant economic burden is associated with post-stroke healthcare maintenance in acute and chronic phases, encompassing hospital costs, rehabilitation, and reduced work productivity [4,5]. Given the residual functional deficits experienced by post-stroke patients and their broader impact beyond physical limitations, it is essential to incorporate tailored rehabilitation interventions into their care [6,7].
In this context, the development and implementation of rehabilitation interventions are recognized as primary tools for disability reduction, positively influencing functioning and quality of life [8]. However, assessment tools used prior to rehabilitation fail to evaluate individuals holistically, considering functioning in a broader sense as proposed by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) [9,10].
The ICF, established by the World Health Organization (WHO), aims to classify individuals’ health status through a biopsychosocial approach. In its conceptual model, functioning results from the interaction between Body Structure, Body Functions, Activities, and Participation, considering Personal and Environmental Factors within the individual’s context [11,12].
Furthermore, the ICF facilitates standardized communication among professionals through information coding and considers the interaction of biopsychosocial factors as indicators of human disability and functioning [13,14]. However, due to its complexity, breadth, and approximately 1450 categories, its application in clinical practice remains challenging [15].
Rehabilitation facilitates disability reduction, so it is essential to incorporate the biopsychosocial model proposed by the ICF during this process. Therefore, assessment tools should encompass the aspects of functioning proposed by the ICF to measure functional status comprehensively [7,15,16,17,18].
Despite numerous tools available for developing robust assessments, gaps remain between what is produced in scientific research and what is implemented in clinical practice [19]. Moreover, assessment tools that solely measure aspects related to Body Function are still widely used, which could be problematic considering the negative implications of stroke on functioning and the context of these patients [20].
To operationalize the use of the ICF in assessing and managing individuals with different health conditions, some strategies have been developed: (1) the development of ICF-based instruments, such as WHODAS 2.0 [21]; (2) the creation of Core Sets [21]; and (3) the linkage of content from existing instruments to ICF categories [20]. These tools ensure that assessment and clinical decision-making consider not only the disease but also its impact on Activities and Participation, providing a broader perspective beyond Body Functions and Structures [22].
Core Sets comprise essential categories for evaluating specific health conditions, guiding and facilitating assessments in clinical and research settings, including rehabilitation [23]. They can be comprehensive, encompassing all relevant ICF categories, or brief, offering a more concise alternative. This approach has clinical value and has been developed and applied in various health conditions, including stroke [24,25].
To improve the comparability of tool information with that outlined in the ICF, utilizing specific linking rules ensures that information is consistently available to serve as a starting point for evidence-based decision-making at all levels of healthcare [26]. These linking rules were developed to facilitate the application of the theoretical model of the ICF, verifying correspondence between assessment procedures such as questionnaires, functional assessment scales, body performance tests, instrumental assessments, and ICF codes or categories [10].
In this context, some studies have already been conducted applying these rules for linking post-stroke assessment instruments to the ICF, such as the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) [27], Functional Independence Measure (FIM) [28], Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) [29], and Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI) [30]. However, there is a need to analyze other tools geared toward rehabilitation, guiding professionals in conducting comprehensive assessments of post-stroke patients in rehabilitation [31,32,33,34]. Therefore, considering impairments caused by stroke in motor and cognitive function decline contributing to disability [35] and increased rates of anxiety and depression [36], as well as limited social participation, evaluating the patient from a biopsychosocial perspective becomes necessary.
Thus, this study aimed to analyze the content of the most used assessment tools for post-stroke rehabilitation by systematic linkage with the ICF, observing the ICF categories and the domains they covered.

2. Materials and Methods

This study is a scoping review conducted in two stages: (1) the identification of assessment tools used in post-stroke rehabilitation through a systematic search and selection process, and (2) the analysis of the selected tools using the ICF linkage methodology to map their content to ICF categories and domains.

2.1. Scoping Review

The scoping review aimed to identify the assessment tools most used in clinical research related to post-stroke rehabilitation. It was structured according to the guidelines recommended by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation [37] (Supplementary File S1). The project was registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF) and can be accessed via DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/53VWE or the following link: https://osf.io/53vwe (accessed on 3 May 2025).
We used the PCC (population, concept, context) methodology from the Joanna Briggs Institute to establish the review question and define its eligibility criteria and search strategy. Thus, the population is post-stroke patients, the concept is assessment tools used in clinical trials, and the context is any rehabilitation setting [38].
The review considered studies published between July 2014 and June 2024 (Supplementary Table S1). The inclusion criteria were clinical trials (randomized or non-randomized) addressing post-stroke rehabilitation and written in English, Portuguese, or Spanish. Studies that performed any rehabilitation were included as follows: specialized inpatient, outpatient, or community-based rehabilitation. The exclusion criteria were clinical trial protocols or clinical trials that did not use questionnaires, rating scales, or tests for outcome assessment and did not involve post-stroke patients.
The search strategy followed the three-step process recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute [39,40]. First, an initial limited search was conducted in PubMed and PEDro to identify relevant keywords and descriptors from titles, abstracts, and keywords of pertinent articles.
Based on this initial analysis, a comprehensive search strategy was developed and adapted for each selected database. The search was conducted in the PubMed, LILACS, SciELO, and PEDRo databases using the following keywords: stroke, rehabilitation, clinical trial, and randomized clinical trial. The search strategies employed were as follows: “stroke AND rehabilitation AND (clinical trial OR randomized controlled trial)” for PubMed, SciELO, and LILACS, and “stroke AND rehabilitation AND (clinical trial* OR randomized controlled trial*)” for PEDro. The keywords were selected according to the PCC methodology, as explained earlier. We chose not to include the keywords “tools”, “scales”, “questionnaires”, or “tests”, as their inclusion excluded many relevant studies. Finally, the reference lists of all included studies were manually screened to identify additional eligible articles.
Two blinded and trained researchers (MI and BC) conducted the initial search and selected studies based on their titles and abstracts. Eligible and potentially eligible articles were read in full text to make the final inclusion decision. A third independent researcher (MH) resolved conflicts.
During data extraction, we collected information from the included studies about the tools used and their frequency of appearance, considering that each tool could be cited more than once in different articles. After extracting the assessment tools mentioned in the included studies, over 500 were identified. Given that this study aimed to conduct the linkage process only with the most frequently cited tools, and considering the impracticality of performing this process with many tools, we chose to select only the most commonly used and cited. This approach aimed to identify ICF content within the most widely used tools and, consequently, those most relevant to post-stroke patients’ rehabilitation research.
Therefore, we established inclusion criteria for the tools included in the linkage process: (1) tools with four or more citations were arranged in ascending order of citations (totaling 98), and (2) tools at or above the 75th percentile were selected.

2.2. Linking Process

Before linkage, a search was conducted to verify which tools had already been linked. Tools already linked to the ICF were retained and adequately referenced. The remaining tools underwent the linkage process, which was performed according to the methods proposed by Cieza et al. [41,42], considering updates in the most recent version [26].
According to Alarcos Cieza (2006 and 2016), the linking process of health assessment tools involves mapping items from questionnaires or assessment tools to find relevant content for each item. Then, the relevant content is assigned to ICF categories following a systematic process and rules: direct linking (when the item clearly corresponds to an ICF code), multiple linking (if the item covers more than one ICF concept), or non-linkable (if no relationship exists). The process requires expert consensus and aims to standardize data for research, clinical practice, or public policies, enabling comparisons across different tools.
Two independent researchers (MH and AB), trained in ICF use and coding, performed the linkage and categorization process. A third researcher (TH), experienced in linking tools to the ICF, resolved discrepancies and performed the final category judgments. Cohen’s Kappa Coefficient was used to calculate the level of agreement between the two researchers regarding the ICF categories linked in each tool. This analytical test is commonly used and recommended when performing the linkage methodology. High agreement strengthens confidence that the selected ICF categories are genuinely represented in each tool [20,43]. This coefficient was calculated using Microsoft Excel® 2024.
Finally, descriptive statistical analysis was conducted. Data were expressed in absolute frequency for the presence of ICF categories in the tools considering the Activity and Participation domains (d), Body Functions (s), Body Structures (b), and Environmental Factors (e). Additionally, concepts not covered or defined by the ICF were also considered based on the methods proposed by Cieza et al. [20].

3. Results

Regarding the scoping review, 8926 studies were initially identified. Of these, 897 met the inclusion criteria. From a total of 586 assessment tools identified, 29 were ultimately selected as they fulfilled the predefined selection criteria.
Those tools for which linking was already available in the literature were included in our results and appropriately referenced. The questionnaires that already had a link to the ICF were as follows: the Functional Independent Measure (FIM) [28], Modified Barthel Index (MBI) [25], Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) [44], Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36) [29], Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) [27], Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) [29], Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) [45], and Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI) [30]. The mRS already had a link; however, new linking was performed due to researchers’ disagreements with the data available. Therefore, among the 29 included tools, the previous linking of eight was considered, and the linking of 21 was conducted anew. Figure 1 outlines the search procedures, data extraction, and tool selection. Table 1 presents the selected tools.
Considering the links to ICF categories, 20 of the 29 tools include Body Functions categories, 23 Activities categories, 6 Participation categories, and only 1 evaluates Environmental Factors. Five concurrently assessed Body Functions, Activity, and Participation, and only one analyzed Body Functions, Activity, Participation, and Environmental Factors simultaneously. Table 2 presents the distribution of categories and their percentage for ICF domains in each tool.
From all the tools included, 261 ICF categories were identified. Most corresponded to Activities (53%) and Body Functions (31%). Only 15% of the categories represented the Participation domain. Environmental Factors (1%) were observed less. No tool addressed the Body Structures domain. Six concepts referred to nd (not definable), nc (not contained), nd-gh (not definable—general health), nd-ph (not definable—physical health), nd-mh (not definable—mental health), and nc-hc (not contained—health condition not covered).
The level of agreement was calculated using Kappa for each tool, yielding the following values: 10 MWT:1; ARAT: 0.738; BBT: 1; BBS: 0.785; FAC: 0.799; FMA: 0.972; MAL: 0.734; MI: 1; MAS: 1; MoCA: 0.725; MRC: 0.873; mRS: 1; NIHSS: 0.893; TC6: 1; TUG: 1; WMFT: 0.714; EQ-5D: 1; TIS: 1; BRS: 0.879; BRPE: 1; and HADS: 0.729. The values obtained indicate good inter-rater agreement.

4. Discussion

This study aimed to analyze the content of the most used assessment tools for post-stroke rehabilitation by systematic linkage with the ICF, highlighting the ICF categories and domains covered by the instruments. Of the twenty-nine tools included (eight with prior linkage to the ICF), most ICF categories were associated with the Activities domain, followed by Body Functions, Participation, and Environmental Factors. None of the tools assessed Body Structures. Notably, of the five most used assessments, four primarily evaluate Body Functions, and considering the ten most frequently cited, none explicitly assesses Participation.
The most significant number of linked categories involved Activities and Body Functions. Since functioning is defined as a positive interaction between ICF domains, evaluating these two domains is essential [47]. The emphasis on Activities is understandable, as they are closely linked to autonomy in daily life, where most patients experience significant deficits in performing Activities of Daily Living (ADL) [48], and ultimately determine a person’s level of disability [49]. The focus on Activities in research might shift attention away from Body Functions, which were previously more prominent in studies and clinical practice [50]. However, this emphasis on Activities and Body Functions may result in a fragmented view of functioning and limit the effectiveness of rehabilitation strategies.
The limitation in assessing Body Structures may not be considered a problem. Assessing Body Structures requires identifying structural alterations in anatomical components. According to the ICF, these alterations include total or partial absence (e.g., limb amputation), qualitative changes (e.g., tissue degeneration), abnormal positioning (e.g., scoliosis), variations in size or quantity (e.g., muscle atrophy/hypertrophy), and discontinuity (e.g., fractures). Following the linkage rules by Cieza et al. [42,43], categories are only linked when such aspects are explicitly assessed, not simply mentioned. Given these classifications of Body Structure alterations, rehabilitation assessment tools typically do not evaluate this domain directly. Such evaluations usually require imaging studies or other specialized examinations.
Participation was also rarely evaluated, despite its relevance in capturing the patient’s reintegration into daily life, community roles, and overall social functioning [51]. Interestingly, none of the linked tools primarily or exclusively assessed this component. This gap suggests that post-stroke research and rehabilitation still focus on impairment-related outcomes rather than on patient-centered perspectives, which include social reintegration. Although tools like the Functional Autonomy Measurement System (SMAF) [52], Reintegration to Normal Living Index (RNLI) [53], Frenchay Activities Index (FAI) [54], Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation-Participation (USER-Participation) [55], and Personal Care Participation Assessment and Resource Tool (PC-part) [52] measure Participation, their usage was limited, with only one or two citations for RNLI, SMAF, and FAI. Consequently, these tools were not included in the study analysis due to insufficient representation.
A potential explanation for the lack of Participation-focused tools in clinical trials is the perceived difficulty of measuring and rehabilitating a subjective and multidimensional construct, influenced by contextual and Environmental Factors. The low frequency of citations for Participation assessment tools highlights that this outcome has been underrepresented and has yet to receive the necessary attention [56,57]. Despite its relevance as a primary target for interventions in chronically ill patients [58], there is a lack of awareness regarding the importance of Participation as a rehabilitation outcome. As such, it should be assessed routinely and systematically. Clinical trials must include at least one outcome related to Participation, ideally including specific tools for this assessment.
Environmental Factors were assessed in only one of the 29 tools included, the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS). However, factors like support from family and friends, accessibility to products and technologies, and adaptations for performing ADL can significantly influence recovery and functioning [59,60]. Their underrepresentation highlights a focus on impairments and limitations, with interventions rarely addressing external barriers or facilitators. Incorporating Environmental Factors into assessments can help clinicians identify external influences on recovery and tailor interventions, as the quality of life can also be affected by the interplay between individuals and their environment [61,62]. Future research should focus on operationalizing environmental factor assessments in clinical trials and rehabilitation, as current tools primarily address Participation, not Environmental Factors.
Notably, the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) was the only tool to include categories from all four ICF components and had the highest number of linked categories, including 22 related to Participation. Furthermore, it was the only assessment tool representing Environmental Factors among those categorized. Its conciseness, combined with a broad scope of content, suggests that it may be particularly useful in clinical practice, especially in busy services where time constraints often limit comprehensive assessment.
Considering patient-centered care, incorporating the ICF Core Sets into clinical practice is essential [63]. The Brief and Comprehensive Core Sets for stroke offer a structured and contextual framework for assessing functioning concerning their contextual interactions [13,64]. Standardized frameworks, such as these ICF Core Sets for stroke, should be further explored to facilitate comprehensive assessments that include Participation and Environmental Factors, mainly the comprehensive version. In this study, at least one of the tools analyzed covered most categories from the Brief Core Set [13]. Exceptions included brain and upper limb structures (s110 and s730) and Environmental Factors related to health professionals and service systems (e355 and e580). Notably, the Brief Core Set lacks specific Participation categories, which may inadvertently discourage professionals from addressing this domain when using the Core Set as their primary reference.
Despite the well-established biopsychosocial model, the most commonly used tools still focus on impairments and activity limitations, neglecting key aspects like Participation and Environmental Factors. Without adequately assessing these dimensions, rehabilitation strategies risk being incomplete and misaligned with patients’ lived experiences. Functioning and disability are shaped by the interaction of Body Functions and Structures, Activities and Participation, and contextual factors [65]. Thus, each aspect must be considered to assess functioning and disability in a biopsychosocial manner [66]. Adopting a biopsychosocial approach is vital for understanding patients’ needs and enhancing treatment effectiveness and efficiency through adherence and identification with treatment. Future research must move beyond this restricted focus to advance evidence-based care and actively integrate tools that assess broader contextual factors and contribute to holistic, patient-centered interventions that truly support post-stroke recovery.
The results of this study provide valuable insights that can enhance the clinical assessment of post-stroke patients, helping rehabilitation professionals choose tools aligned with the ICF categories. By clarifying the scope of these tools, clinicians can make more informed decisions, ensuring a holistic evaluation of functional status. The findings highlight the need for instruments that incorporate not just impairments and activity limitations but also Participation and Environmental Factors, which are critical for shaping rehabilitation outcomes. Integrating these factors into clinical practice can lead to more personalized and context-sensitive interventions, ultimately improving patient recovery and advancing evidence-based rehabilitation.
As the limitations of this study, we acknowledge that the selection criteria aimed to ensure a focus on widely applied tools in rehabilitation research, which may have led to the exclusion of potentially relevant tools less frequently cited in the literature. The 10-year review period can also be considered a limitation. However, this decision was based on recognizing that the adoption of ICF principles is relatively recent. Expanding the search period could have resulted in the inclusion of older tools that are no longer widely used or the exclusion of recent instruments that incorporate these aspects. Additionally, while we recognize the importance of EMBASE, operational constraints led to its exclusion from our search strategy. However, we believe that our focus on freely accessible databases was sufficient to capture key evidence, as our study applied a citation-based criterion to retain the most frequently cited tools, minimizing the impact of this limitation. Future studies should consider the strategies to include, particularly tools that assess Participation and Environmental Factors, which remain underrepresented in current assessments.

5. Conclusions

This study analyzed the content of the most widely used assessment tools in post-stroke rehabilitation through systematic linkage with the ICF, identifying the domains and categories they cover. Among the 29 most cited tools, 261 ICF categories were mapped, with a predominance of those related to Activities and Body Functions. In contrast, Participation and Environmental Factors were underrepresented, and no tool assessed Body Structures.
The results provide a comprehensive overview of the ICF domains covered by each tool, facilitating access to this information and supporting more informed decision-making in rehabilitation research and clinical practice.
Despite the availability of numerous assessment instruments, the emphasis on Activities and Body Functions may limit a genuinely biopsychosocial approach to rehabilitation. Future research should prioritize tools that integrate Participation and Environmental Factors to generate more substantial scientific evidence and guide assessments and interventions that address these essential aspects of post-stroke recovery.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijerph22081277/s1, Table S1: presenting the search strategy adopted in each database and the number of studies retrieved from 2014 to 2024.; File S1 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist.

Author Contributions

M.H.A.S.: substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work in data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation, drafting the work for important intellectual content, and final approval of the version to be published. T.H.d.M.D.: substantial contributions to data analysis. A.C.d.M.A.: substantial contributions to data acquisition. D.d.S.D.: reviewing the work critically for important intellectual content and final approval of the version to be published. M.I.d.A.D.: substantial contributions to data acquisition. B.C.M.d.L.: substantial contributions to data acquisition and analysis. I.C.R.R.M.: substantial contributions to the conception of the work, reviewing the work critically for important intellectual content, and final approval of the version to be published. A.B.G.S.F.: substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work in data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation, drafting the work for important intellectual content, and final approval of the version to be published. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil (CAPES)—Finance Code 001.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors report that there are no competing interests to declare.

References

  1. Minelli, C.; Bazan, R.; Pedatella, M.T.A.; Neves, L.d.O.; Cacho, R.d.O.; Magalhães, S.C.S.A.; Luvizutto, G.J.; Moro, C.H.C.; Lange, M.C.; Modolo, G.P.; et al. Brazilian Academy of Neurology practice guidelines for stroke rehabilitation: Part I. Arq. Neuro-Psiquiatr. 2022, 80, 634–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Lindsay, P.; Furie, K.L.; Davis, S.M.; Donnan, G.A.; Norrving, B. World stroke organization global stroke services guidelines and action plan. Int. J. Stroke 2014, 9, 4–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Carvalho, M.R.d.S.; Miranda, N.M.S.S.; Lustosa, V.R.; Silva, B.G.S.; Rodrigues, V.E.S.; Oliveira, F.G.L.; Amorim Júnior, J.d.S.; dos Santos, R.S.; de Sousa, J.R. Cuidados de Enfermagem ao Paciente acometido por Acidente Vascular Cerebral: Revisão Integrativa. Rev. Multidiscip. Psicol. 2019, 13, 198–207. [Google Scholar]
  4. Majersik, J.J.; Woo, D. The enormous financial impact of stroke disability. Neurology 2020, 94, 377–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Brown, D.L.; Boden-Albala, B.; Langa, K.M.; Lisabeth, L.D.; Fair, M.; Smith, M.A.; Sacco, R.L.; Morgenstern, L.B. Projected costs of ischemic stroke in the United States. Neurology 2006, 67, 1390–1395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kumar, A.; Adhikari, D.; Karmarkar, A.; Freburger, J.; Gozalo, P.; Mor, V.; Resnik, L. Variation in hospital-based rehabilitation services among patients with ischemic stroke in the United States. Phys. Ther. 2019, 99, 494–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Minelli, C.; Luvizutto, G.J.; Cacho Rde, O.; Neves Lde, O.; Magalhães, S.C.S.A.; Pedatella, M.T.A.; de Mendonça, L.I.Z. Diretrizes brasileiras para reabilitação no acidente vascular cerebral: Parte II. Arq. Neuropsiquiatr. 2022, 80, 741–758. [Google Scholar]
  8. dos Santos, H.M.; de Oliveira, L.C.; Bonifácio, S.R.; Brandão, T.C.P.; Silva, W.P.; Pereira, G.S. Use of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) to expand and standardize the assessment of quality-of-life following a stroke: Proposal for the use of codes and qualifiers. Disabil. Rehabil. 2022, 44, 7449–7454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Heiss, W.D.; Brainin, M.; Bornstein, N.M.; Tuomilehto, J.; Hong, Z. Cerebrolysin in patients with acute ischemic stroke in Asia: Results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial. Stroke 2012, 43, 630–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Giardini, A.; Vitacca, M.; Pedretti, R.; Nardone, A.; Chiovato, L.; Spanevello, A. Misure di valutazione e abbinamento dei codici ICF in medicina riabilitativa: La sfida del passaggio dalla teoria alla pratica. G. Ital. Med. Lav. Erg. 2019, 2, 78–104. [Google Scholar]
  11. Leonardi, M.; Lee, H.; Kostanjsek, N.; Fornari, A.; Raggi, A.; Martinuzzi, A.; Yáñez, M.; Almborg, A.-H.; Fresk, M.; Besstrashnova, Y.; et al. 20 Years of ICF—International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: Uses and Applications around the World. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 11321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Cerniauskaite, M.; Quintas, R.; Boldt, C.; Raggi, A.; Cieza, A.; Bickenbach, J.E.; Leonardi, M. Systematic literature review on ICF from 2001 to 2009: Its use, implementation and operationalisation. Disabil. Rehabil. 2011, 33, 281–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Geyh, S.; Cieza, A.; Schouten, J.; Dickson, H.; Frommelt, P.; Omar, Z.; Kostanjsek, N.; Ring, H.; Stucki, G. ICF Core Sets for stroke. J. Rehabil. Med. Suppl. 2004, 36, 135–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Viktorisson, A.; Reinholdsson, M.; Danielsson, A.; Palstam, A.; Sunnerhagen, K.S. Pre-Stroke Physical Activity In Relation To Post-Stroke Outcomes Linked To The International Classification Of Functioning, Disability And Health: A Scoping Review. J. Rehabil. Med. Med. J. Swed. AB 2022, 54, jrm00251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Castaneda, L.; Bergmann, A.; Bahia, L. A Classificação Internacional de Funcionalidade, Incapacidade e Saúde: Uma revisão sistemática de estudos observacionais. Rev. Bras. Epidemiol. 2014, 17, 437–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Alt Murphy, M.; Rafsten, L.; Lin, F.; Feng, C.; Jiang, Z.-L.; Sun, M.-X. Simplified Post-stroke Functioning Assessment Based on ICF via Dichotomous Mokken Scale Analysis and Rasch Modeling. Front. Neurol. 2022, 1, 827247. [Google Scholar]
  17. Biz, M.C.P.; Chun, R.Y.S. Operationalization of the international classification of functioning, disability and health, ICF, in a specialized rehabilitation center. CODAS 2020, 32, e20190046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. de Paula, M.L.; Jorge, M.S.B.; de Morais, J.B. The health research process and obstacles to the use of research findings by health professionals. Interface Commun Health Educ. 2019, 23, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  19. Rajala, C.; Waterhouse, C.; Evans, E.; Erler, K.S.; Bergin, M.J.; Bannon, S.M.; Slavin, M.D.; Kazis, L.E. Conceptualization of Participation: A Qualitative Synthesis of Brain Injury Stakeholder Perspectives. Front. Rehabil. Sci. 2022, 3, 908615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cieza, A.; Fayed, N.; Bickenbach, J.; Prodinger, B. Refinements of the ICF Linking Rules to strengthen their potential for establishing comparability of health information. Disabil. Rehabil. 2016, 41, 574–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Grou, T.C.; Castro SSde Leite, C.F.; Carvalho, M.T.; Patrizzi, L.J. Validação da versão brasileira do World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 em idosos institucionalizados. Fisioter E Pesqui. 2021, 28, 77–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. de Wind, A.; Donker-Cools, B.H.P.M.; Jansen, L.; Luymes, C.H.; van der Burg-Vermeulen, S.J.; Oomens, S.; Anema, J.R.; Schaafsma, F.G. Development of the core of an ICF-based instrument for the assessment of work capacity and guidance in return to work of employees on sick leave: A multidisciplinary modified Delphi study. BMC Public Health 2022, 22, 2449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Karlsson, E.; Gustafsson, J. Validation of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) core sets from 2001 to 2019—A scoping review. Disabil. Rehabil. 2022, 44, 3736–3748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Algurén, B.; Lundgren-Nilsson, Å.; Sunnerhagen, K.S. Functioning of stroke survivors—A validation of the ICF core set for stroke in Sweden. Disabil. Rehabil. 2010, 32, 551–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Prodinger, B.; O’Connor, R.; Stucki, G.; Tennant, A. Establishing score equivalence of the functional independence measure motor scale and the barthel index, utilising the international classification of functioning, disability and health and rasch measurement theory. J. Rehabil. Med. 2017, 49, 416–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Perin, C.; Bolis, M.; Limonta, M.; Meroni, R.; Ostasiewicz, K.; Cornaggia, C.M.; Alouche, S.R.; Matuti, G.d.S.; Cerri, C.G.; Piscitelli, D. Differences in Rehabilitation Needs after Stroke: A Similarity Analysis on the ICF Core Set for Stroke. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Moriello, C.; Byrne, K.; Cieza, A.; Nash, C.; Stolee, P.; Mayo, N. Mapping the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS-16) to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. J. Rehabil. Med. 2008, 40, 102–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kohler, F.; Connolly, C.; Sakaria, A.; Stendara, K.; Buhagiar, M.; Mojaddidi, M. Can the ICF be used as a rehabilitation outcome measure? A study looking at the inter- and intra-rater reliability of ICF categories derived from an ADL assessment tool. J. Rehabil. Med. 2013, 45, 881–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Bernardelli, R.S.; Santos, B.C.; Scharan, K.O.; Corrêa, K.P.; Silveira, M.I.B.; Moser, A.D.d.L. Application of the refinements of ICF linking rules to the Visual Analogue Scale, Roland Morris questionnaire and SF-36. Cienc E Saude Coletiva. 2021, 26, 1137–1152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Silva, S.M.; Brandão, T.C.P.; Da Silva, F.P.; Buchalla, C.M. Identification of categories of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health in functional assessment measures for stroke survivors: A systematic review. Disabil. Rehabil. 2020, 42, 156–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Han, K.Y.; Kim, H.J.; Bang, H.J. Feasibility of Applying the Extended ICF Core Set for Stroke to Clinical Settings in Rehabilitation: A Preliminary Study. Ann. Rehabil. Med. 2015, 39, 56–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Tarvonen-Schröder, S.; Hurme, S.; Laimi, K. The world health organization disability assessment schedule (WHODAS 2.0) and the WHO minimal generic set of domains of functioning and health versus conventional instruments in subacute stroke. J. Rehabil. Med. 2019, 51, 675–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kossi, O.; Amanzonwe, E.R.; Thonnard, J.-L.; Batcho, C.S. Applicability of International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health-based participation measures in stroke survivors in Africa: A systematic review. Int. J. Rehabil. Res. 2020, 43, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Cramer, S.C.; Richards, L.G.; Bernhardt, J.; Duncan, P. Cognitive Deficits After Stroke. Stroke 2023, 54, 5–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Zhang, Q.; Schwade, M.; Smith, Y.; Wood, R.; Young, L. Exercise-based interventions for post-stroke social participation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2020, 111, 103738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zhou, X.; Du, M.; Dai, X.; Zhu, S.; Zhou, L.; Li, X. Intervention patterns and preliminary effectiveness on Social Participation following stroke: A scoping review. BMC Neurol. 2023, 23, 275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Tricco, A.C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O’Brien, K.K.; Colquhoun, H.; Levac, D.; Moher, D.; Peters, M.D.J.; Horsley, T.; Weeks, L.; et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018, 169, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Peters, M.; Godfrey, C.; McInerney, P.; Munn, Z.; Tricco, A.; Khalil, H. Chapter 11: Scoping reviews. In JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2019; pp. 407–452. [Google Scholar]
  39. Munn, Z.; Barker, T.H.; Moola, S.; Tufanaru, C.; Stern, C.; McArthur, A.; Aromataris, E. Methodological quality of case series studies: An introduction to the JBI critical appraisal tool. JBI Database Syst. Rev. Implement Rep. 2019, 18, 2127–2133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Aromataris, E.; Lokwood, C.; Porritt, K.; Pilla, B.; Jordan, Z. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  41. Cieza, A.; Brockow, T.; Ewert, T.; Amman, E.; Kollerits, B.; Chatterji, S.; Üstün, T.B.; Stucki, G. Linking health-status measurements to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. J. Rehabil. Med. 2002, 34, 205–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Fayed, N.; Cieza, A.; Bickenbach, J.E. Linking health and health-related information to the ICF: A systematic review of the literature from 2001 to 2008. Disabil. Rehabil. 2011, 33, 1941–1951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Cieza, A.; Geyh, S.; Chatterji, S.; Kostanjsek, N.; Üstün, B.; Stucki, G. ICF linking rules: An update based on lessons learned. J. Rehabil. Med. 2005, 37, 212–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Berzina, G.; Sveen, U.; Paanalahti, M.; Sunnerhagen, K.S. Analyzing the modified rankin scale using concepts of the international classification of functioning, disability and health. Eur. J. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 2016, 52, 203–213. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  45. De Vriendt, P.; Gorus, E.; Bautmans, I.; Mets, T. Conversion of the mini-mental state examination to the international classification of functioning, disability and health terminology and scoring system. Gerontology 2012, 58, 112–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Teixeira-Salmela, L.F.; Neto, M.G.; Magalhães, L.C.; Lima, R.C.; Faria, C.D.C.M. Content comparisons of stroke-specific quality of life based upon the international classification of functioning, disability, and health. Qual. Life Res. 2009, 18, 765–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Amatya, B.D.; Mukaino, M.; Stucki, G.; Selb, M.M.; Khan, F.A. Content comparison of multidimensional functional outcome measures in rehabilitation and the ICF clinical functioning information tool: A scoping literature review. J. Int. Soc. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 2024, 7, 144–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wong, M.N.-K.; Cheung, M.K.-T.; Ng, Y.-M.; Yuan, H.-L.; Lam, B.Y.-H.; Fu, S.N.; Chan, C.C.H. International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health-based rehabilitation program promotes activity and participation of post-stroke patients. Front. Neurol. 2023, 14, 1235500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Rodríguez-Blázquez, C.; Damián, J.; Andrés-Prado, M.J.; Almazán-Isla, J.; Alcalde-Cabero, E.; Forjaz, M.J.; Castellote, J.M.; González-Enríquez, J.; Martínez-Martín, P.; Comín, M.; et al. Associations between chronic conditions, body functions, activity limitations and participation restrictions: A cross-sectional approach in Spanish non-clinical populations. BMJ Open 2016, 6, e010446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Irrgang, S.; Himmelhaus, S.; Allek, K.; Debecker, I.; Gemperli, A.; Kynast, K.; von Reumont, A.; Scheel-Sailer, A. Assessments and interventions on body functions, structures and activity to prepare adults with acute spinal cord injury or disease for participation: A scoping review. Front. Rehabil. Sci. 2024, 5, 1272682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Foley, E.L.; Nicholas, M.L.; Baum, C.M.; Connor, L.T. Influence of environmental factors on social participation post-stroke. Behav. Neurol. 2019, 2019, 2606039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Darzins, S.; Imms, C.; Di Stefano, M.; Taylor, N.F.; Pallant, J.F. Evaluation of the internal construct validity of the Personal Care Participation Assessment and Resource Tool (PC-PART) using Rasch analysis. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2014, 14, 543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Daneski, K.; Coshall, C.; Tillingand, K.; Wolfe, C.D.A. Reliability and validity of a postal version of the Reintegration to Normal Living Index, modified for use with stroke patients. Clin. Rehabil. 2003, 17, 835–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Monteiro, M.; Maso, I.; Sasaki, A.C.; Neto, N.B.; Filho, J.O.; Pinto, E.B. Validation of the Frenchay activity index on stroke victims. Arq. de Neuro-Psiquiatr. 2017, 75, 167–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Post, M.W.M.; van der Zee, C.H.; Hennink, J.; Schafrat, C.G.; Visser-Meily, J.M.; van Berlekom, S.B. Validity of the utrecht scale for evaluation of rehabilitation-participation. Disabil. Rehabil. 2012, 34, 478–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wilkie, R.; Peat, G.; Thomas, E.; Croft, P.; Wilkie, R.; Peat, G. Factors Associated with Participation Restriction in Community-Dwelling Adults Aged 50 Years and Over. Qual. Life Res. 2016, 16, 1147–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Liu, H.; Chen, L.; Zhang, G.; Jiang, Y.; Qu, S.; Liu, S.; Huang, Y.; Chen, J. Scalp Acupuncture Enhances the Functional Connectivity of Visual and Cognitive-Motor Function Network of Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke. Evid. Based Complement Altern. Med. 2020, 2020, 8836794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Eyssen, I.C.; Steultjens, M.P.; Dekker, J.; Terwee, C.B. A systematic review of instruments assessing participation: Challenges in defining participation. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2011, 92, 983–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Dadson, D.; Ball, K.; Veal, B.; Meng, H.; Andel, R. Predictors Of Everyday Functioning, Adls/Iadls Among Older Adults Using The Active Study. Innov. Aging 2023, 7, 969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Elf, M.; Rasoal, D.; Zingmark, M.; Kylén, M. The importance of context—A qualitative study exploring healthcare practitioners’ experiences of working with patients at home after a stroke. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2023, 23, 733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. de Rooij, I.J.M.; van de Port, I.G.L.; van der Heijden, L.L.M.; Meijer, J.W.G.; Visser-Meily, J.M.A. Perceived barriers and facilitators for gait-related participation in people after stroke: From a patients’ perspective. Physiother. Theory Pract. 2021, 37, 1337–1345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Caro, C.C.; Costa, J.D.; Da Cruz, D.M.C. Burden and Quality of Life of Family Caregivers of Stroke Patients. Occup. Ther. Health Care 2018, 32, 154–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Stucki, G.; Cieza, A. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Core Sets for rheumatoid arthritis: A way to specify functioning. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2004, 63, ii40–ii45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Pathak, A.; Abbott, H.J.; Sharma, S.; Ribeiro, D.C.; Heinemann, A.W. Content validity of the Brief and Comprehensive ICF Core Sets for common disabling conditions in a developing country. Int. J. Rehabil. Res. 2021, 44, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Farias, N.; Buchalla, C.M. A classificação internacional de funcionalidade, incapacidade e saúde da organização mundial da saúde: Conceitos, usos e perspectivas. Rev. Bras. Epidemiol. 2005, 8, 187–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Zhang, T.; Liu, L.; Xie, R.; Peng, Y.; Wang, H.; Chen, Z.; Li, B. Value of using the international classification of functioning, disability, and health for stroke rehabilitation assessment: A multicenter clinical study. Medicine 2018, 97, e12802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 22 01277 g001
Figure 1. Identification, screening, and inclusion of studies and assessment tools.
Figure 1. Identification, screening, and inclusion of studies and assessment tools.
Ijerph 22 01277 g001
Table 1. List of assessment tools included for linkage with ICF categories, with their number of citations. Previously linked tools were included with references to the original studies.
Table 1. List of assessment tools included for linkage with ICF categories, with their number of citations. Previously linked tools were included with references to the original studies.
ToolsNumber of Citations
Fugl Meyer Assessment (FMA) *375
Modified Barthel Index (MBI) [25]209
Modified Ashworth scale (MAS)206
Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) [45]158
National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NHISS)128
Berg Balance Scale (BBS)120
Timed Up and Go (TUG)93
10-Meter Walk Test (10 MWT)89
Modified Rankin Scale (mRS)86
Action Research Arm Test (ARAT)79
Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)78
Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT)74
6-Minute Walk Test (6 MWT)71
Functional Ambulation Categories (FAC)61
Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) [27]61
Functional Independence Measure (FIM) [28]60
Box and Block (BBT)58
Motor Activity Log (MAL)45
Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) [29]40
Brunnstrom Recovery Stage (BRS)38
Medical Research Council (MRC)30
Motricity Index (MI)30
Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36)28
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)28
European Quality of Life 5-Dimension (EQ-5D)27
Stroke Specific Quality of Life Scale (SSQoL) [46]25
Trunk Impairment Scale (TIS)23
Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE)22
Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI) [30]21
* FMA (183 citations), FMA-Upper Extremity (149 citations), and FMA-Lower Extremity (43 citations).
Table 2. Overview of the tools in alphabetical order considering the distribution of categories and their percentage for each ICF domain.
Table 2. Overview of the tools in alphabetical order considering the distribution of categories and their percentage for each ICF domain.
ToolBody Functions%Activities and Participation%Environmental Factors%Others
10-Meter Walk Test (10 WMT) 0%d4500; d465100% 0%
Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) 0%d4300; d4301; d4400; d4401; d4402; d4453; d4458100% 0%
Box and Block Test (BBT) 0%d4301; d4400; d4403100% 0%
Berg Balance BERG (BERG) 0%d4103; d4104; d4105; d4106; d4153; d4154; d4200; d429; d4400100% 0%
EuroQol (EQ-5D)b28011%d450, d510; d540; d859; d839; d640; d760; d920 34%
55%		 0%nd-gh; nc-hc; pf
Functional Ambulation Categories (FAC) 0%d4500; d4502; d4551; d465100% 0%
Fugl Meyer Assessment (FMA)b28016; b260; b265; b7100; b7300; b7500; b7600; b7602; b765164%d4106; d4153; d4154; d4400; d440136% 0%
Motor Activity Log (MAL)b76005%d170; d2100; d2101; d4104; d4300; d4301; d4402; d4450; d4451; d4453; d5100; d5102; d5200; d5201; d5202; d5402; d5403; d550; d640290%
5%		 0%
Motricity Index (MI)b730050%d440050% 0%
Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS)b735100% 0% 0%
Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)b1400; b1440; b1441; b1442; b1560; b1561; b1565; b164; b1640; b167; b16700; b16710; b1720100% 0% 0%
Medical Research Council (MRC) *b1670; b7300; b760075%d21025% 0%
National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS)b1100; b1140; b11420; b156; b167; b1670; b2101; b2703; b320; b3300; b7300; b7301; b7401; b7600; b760288%d2106% 0%
6-Minute Walk Test (6 MWT)b4202; b45567%d450033% 0%
Time Up and Go (TUG) 0%d4103; d4104; d4108; d4500100% 0%
Wolf Motor Function Test (WFMT)b7301; b7600; b760275%d4300; d4301; d4400; d4401; d4402; d4450; d4451; d4452; d445325% 0%
Functional Independence Measure (FIM)b144; b525; b62018%d175; d310; d330; d410; d4500; d4551; d465; d510; d520; d530; d540; d550; d560; d71076%
6%		 0%
Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) 83%d21017% 0%
Modified Barthel Index (MBI) 0%d410; d420; d450; d455; d5; d510; d530; d540; d550; d560100% 0%
Modified Rankin Scale (mRS)b210; b270; b3300; b5105; b75; b755; b76014%d140; d170; d450; d465; d475; d489; d4608; d5100; d5108; d520; d5201; d5202; d530; d5400; d5401; d550; d599; d640; d6401; d6409; d6060; d860; d6300; d839; d8450; d870; d85; d859; d9; d920; d9200; d9201; d9202; d9203; d9204; d9205; d930; d7500; d76035%
45%		e310, e320; e3996%nd; nc
Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36)b1300; b1263; b1265; b152; b28020%d230; d4; d4101; d4102; d4105; d430; d4300; d4500; d4501; d4551; d4552; d5; d510; d540; d6402; d6403; d750; d850; d9201; d920556%
24%		 0%nd-gh; nd-ph; nd-mh; nc-hc
Stroke Impact Scale (SIS)b525; b62011%d410; d4153; d4154; d420; d430; d450; d4508; d4550; d4551; d5101; d530; d5300; d5301; d5400; d6200; d640 78%
11%		 0%
Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)b280100% 0% 0%
* MRC Comprehension Score. The Activities and Participation domain was subdivided into “d1 to d5” for “Activities” and “d6 to d9” for “Participation”, which is underlined. Body Structures were not covered by any tool. nc: not contained; nc-hc: not contained—health condition not covered; nd: not definable; nd-gh: not definable—general health; nd-ph: not definable—physical health; nd-mh: not definable—mental health; pf: Personal Factors.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Silva, M.H.A.; Dantas, T.H.d.M.; Araújo, A.C.d.M.; Dantas, D.d.S.; Dantas, M.I.d.A.; de Lucena, B.C.M.; Moura, I.C.R.R.; Fernandes, A.B.G.S. Content Analysis of Assessment Tools Used in Post-Stroke Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review with Linkage to the International Classification of Functioning. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2025, 22, 1277. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22081277

AMA Style

Silva MHA, Dantas THdM, Araújo ACdM, Dantas DdS, Dantas MIdA, de Lucena BCM, Moura ICRR, Fernandes ABGS. Content Analysis of Assessment Tools Used in Post-Stroke Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review with Linkage to the International Classification of Functioning. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2025; 22(8):1277. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22081277

Chicago/Turabian Style

Silva, Maria Heloiza Araujo, Thaissa Hamana de Macedo Dantas, Ana Cecília de Medeiros Araújo, Diego de Sousa Dantas, Maria Isabelle de Araújo Dantas, Beatriz Cristina Medeiros de Lucena, Isabelly Cristina Rodrigues Regalado Moura, and Aline Braga Galvão Silveira Fernandes. 2025. "Content Analysis of Assessment Tools Used in Post-Stroke Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review with Linkage to the International Classification of Functioning" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 22, no. 8: 1277. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22081277

APA Style

Silva, M. H. A., Dantas, T. H. d. M., Araújo, A. C. d. M., Dantas, D. d. S., Dantas, M. I. d. A., de Lucena, B. C. M., Moura, I. C. R. R., & Fernandes, A. B. G. S. (2025). Content Analysis of Assessment Tools Used in Post-Stroke Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review with Linkage to the International Classification of Functioning. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 22(8), 1277. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22081277

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop