Personal factors classification revisited: A proposal in the light of the biopsychosocial model of the World Health Organization (WHO)

S. Grotkamp, W. Cibis, S. Brüggemann, M. Coenen, H. Gmünder, K. Keller, E. Nüchtern, Urban Schwegler, W. Seger, S. Staubli, Bia von Raison, R. Weißmann, A. Bahemann, H. Fuchs, M. Rink, M. Schian, K. Schmitt
{"title":"Personal factors classification revisited: A proposal in the light of the biopsychosocial model of the World Health Organization (WHO)","authors":"S. Grotkamp, W. Cibis, S. Brüggemann, M. Coenen, H. Gmünder, K. Keller, E. Nüchtern, Urban Schwegler, W. Seger, S. Staubli, Bia von Raison, R. Weißmann, A. Bahemann, H. Fuchs, M. Rink, M. Schian, K. Schmitt","doi":"10.1017/jrc.2020.14","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In 2010, we proposed a personal factor classification which was published in this journal. Since then, the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the biopsychosocial model were increasingly incorporated into the German Social Law Code for participation and rehabilitation, implying that personal factors are indispensable for individual assessments. For the present study, we aimed to come up with an updated version of the personal factors classification based on current research. To achieve this goal, we employed a qualitative approach to re-examine the basic structure, consistency, and selection of categories in the classification from our 2010 study, to amend and supplement the categories to reflect best practice personal factor classifications. Our findings indicate that the basic structure remained largely unchanged, with relatively minor changes, including the deletion of 5 categories from our 2010 classification, 10 categories revised in format or content, and 13 new categories. We believe our revised classification to be useful for supporting users in systematically, comprehensively, and transparently reporting influences on specific aspects of individuals’ life and living background on their functioning and participation, thus facilitating an equitable allocation of disability benefits.","PeriodicalId":303913,"journal":{"name":"The Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jrc.2020.14","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Abstract In 2010, we proposed a personal factor classification which was published in this journal. Since then, the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the biopsychosocial model were increasingly incorporated into the German Social Law Code for participation and rehabilitation, implying that personal factors are indispensable for individual assessments. For the present study, we aimed to come up with an updated version of the personal factors classification based on current research. To achieve this goal, we employed a qualitative approach to re-examine the basic structure, consistency, and selection of categories in the classification from our 2010 study, to amend and supplement the categories to reflect best practice personal factor classifications. Our findings indicate that the basic structure remained largely unchanged, with relatively minor changes, including the deletion of 5 categories from our 2010 classification, 10 categories revised in format or content, and 13 new categories. We believe our revised classification to be useful for supporting users in systematically, comprehensively, and transparently reporting influences on specific aspects of individuals’ life and living background on their functioning and participation, thus facilitating an equitable allocation of disability benefits.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重新审视个人因素分类:参照世界卫生组织(世卫组织)生物心理社会模型的建议
2010年,我们提出了一种个人因素分类方法,并发表在该杂志上。此后,世界卫生组织(世卫组织)的国际功能、残疾和健康分类(ICF)和生物心理社会模式越来越多地纳入德国社会法典,用于参与和康复,这意味着个人因素对于个人评估是不可或缺的。在本研究中,我们的目标是在现有研究的基础上提出一个更新版本的个人因素分类。为了实现这一目标,我们采用定性方法重新审视2010年研究中分类的基本结构、一致性和类别选择,并对类别进行修正和补充,以反映最佳实践的个人因素分类。我们的研究结果表明,基本结构基本保持不变,只有相对较小的变化,包括从2010年的分类中删除了5个类别,修改了10个类别的格式或内容,以及13个新类别。我们认为,修订后的分类有助于支持用户系统、全面和透明地报告个人生活和生活背景对其功能和参与的具体方面的影响,从而促进公平分配残疾福利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Closing the rehabilitation utilization gap of New Zealand’s (Aotearoa) Māori people: Multiple case studies Preliminary evidence on combined cognitive behavioral therapy and motivational interviewing intervention efficacy to improve employment motivation for persons with intellectual disability Correlates of vocational outcomes of youth with co-occurring mental illness and substance use disorders: Evidence from a vocational rehabilitation program Factors influencing workplace accommodations requests among employees with visual impairments Families of veterans with traumatic brain injury in Australia and the United States: implications for rehabilitation counselors
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1