Search

The current lack of a common basis for collecting data on population-level prevention and health promotion interventions causes public health to be relatively invisible within broader health systems, making it vulnerable to funding cuts when there is pressure to reduce spending. Further, the inconsistent use of terms for describing interventions hinders knowledge translation and building an evidence base for public health practice and policy. The International Classification of Health Interventions (ICHI), being developed by the World Health Organization, is a standard statistical classification for interventions across the full scope of health systems. ICHI has potential to meet the need for a common language and structure for describing and capturing information about prevention and health promotion interventions. We report on a developmental appraisal conducted to examine the strengths and limitations of ICHI for coding interventions delivered for public health purposes. Our findings highlight classification challenges in relation to: consistently identifying separate components within multi-component interventions; operationalizing the ICHI concept of intervention target when there are intermediary targets as well as an ultimate target; coding an intervention component that involves more than one ICHI target or action; and standardising what is being counted. We propose that, alongside its purpose as a statistical classification, ICHI can play a valuable role as an 'epistemic hub', to be used flexibly by public health actors to meet a range of information needs, and as a basis for improved communication and exchange. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is increasing recognition of the value of coproduction and inclusion of people with disability in research, and a growing literature on inclusive methods, particularly involving people with intellectual disability. This article critically examines the ways leadership by, and collaboration and consultation with, people with disability informed the development of a framework to monitor Australia's progress on reducing inequalities in the social determinants of health and wellbeing for people with disability. It focuses especially on the contribution of an expert panel of advice comprising people who live with disability. Input from the expert panel resulted in changes to the language, shape, and detail of the framework and highlighted the complexity easily hidden when people's lives and experiences are measured and quantified. The article provides a practical illustration of the value of lived expertise and challenges universities and researchers to work harder to ensure people with disability shape the research agenda. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This paper describes a three-year research project leading to the development of the CBR Monitoring Manual and Menu (MM&M). The MM&M is a practical toolkit that meets the needs of CBR managers and stakeholders, and is consistent with the philosophy of CBR and communitybased disability-inclusive development. It is designed to produce meaningful and locally useful information and data, based on international data standards where possible, to enable aggregation at regional, national and international levels. Methods: Five complementary workstreams of research were carried out from 2011 to 2014: 1) literature review and analysis; 2) participatory action research with CBR stakeholders; 3) analysis and refinement of validity of concepts and structures; 4) consultation and review; and 5) synthesis of results. This article documents the method and key results of each of the five workstreams, and the lessons learned along the way. Results: The MM&M is now freely available on-line at thttp://sydney.edu. au/health-sciences/cdrp/projects/cbr-monitoring.shtml. Collaboration among members of the development team continues, chiefly via an on-line group to which new members have been welcomed. Conclusion and Implications: At the time of writing, the MM&M is the only international monitoring product, known to the authors, that consciously sets out to reflect both a 'bottom- up' and 'top-down' perspective of monitoring information and data.To achieve this for a complex programme such as CBR, and to align with its principles, it was essential to use a multi-component and multi-stage strategy for tool development, involving a diverse multidisciplinary team including collaboration with CBR stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This paper seeks to contribute to thoughtful description, recording and measurement of functioning, by discussing some fundamental questions to consider before starting, framed as: why, what, how and who. Method: Generic literature on measurement methods and the more specialised literature on application of the ICF over the last decade inform the consideration of these questions. The context of recording or measurement is examined, including the moral and legal framework of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and the technical framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Results: Whatever the setting in which describing, recording or measuring is being undertaken - in policy development, service planning and management, clinical management or population health monitoring - determining the purpose is the key starting point. Purpose (why) frames the consideration of content (what), method (how) and source (who). Many generic measurement methods can be applied in the disability field, but there are challenges particular to the field. The perspectives of people with disabilities and 'patients' require consideration, especially with the trend to person-centred care and the social justice principles emanating from the UNCRPD. Conclusions: Considering these basic questions is a pre-requisite to meaningful recording and measurement of functioning and disability. Future challenges include: incorporating environmental factors into measurement; setting thresholds on the disability spectrum; and combining the views of the person concerned with those of various professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]