Content comparison of guideline-recommended instruments used in treatment for alcohol use disorders
Creators: name: Spies, Maren
name: Brütt, Anna Levke
name: Buchholz, Angela
Publisher: name: Taylor & Francis
Year: 2018
Subjects: subject: Medicine
subject: Biotechnology
subject: Sociology
subject: FOS: Sociology
subject: FOS: Sociology
subject: Cancer
subject: Science Policy
subject: 111714 Mental Health
subject: FOS: Health sciences
subject: FOS: Health sciences

description: <b>Purpose:</b> Practice guidelines recommend the use of standardized instruments in the treatment of alcohol use disorders (AUDs); however, the extent to which these instruments assess patients’ functioning is unclear. The aim of this study was to examine the domains of functioning and contextual factors contained in guideline-recommended instruments, using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) as a reference. <b>Materials and methods:</b> We identified instruments by reviewing AUD treatment guidelines used in Germany, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, United Kingdom, and United States. We included instruments which were available in English free of charge, we excluded instruments developed solely for diagnostic or epidemiological purposes and those for children or adolescents. Following a standardized set of rules, two health care researchers identified the concepts contained in the items on the instruments and independently linked them to ICF categories. <b>Results:</b> A total of 10 instruments were included. Among 517 items, 752 meaningful concepts (MCs) were derived, and 622 of them were linked to the ICF. Inter-rater agreement was κ = 0.61. One hundred eighty eight MCs referred to <i>personal factors</i>, 175 to <i>body functions</i>, 168 to <i>activity and participation</i>, and 91 to <i>environmental factors</i>. The most frequently linked ICF chapter was b1 (<i>mental functions)</i>. <b>Conclusions:</b> Instruments recommended in AUD treatment guidelines vary considerably in their assessment of patients’ functioning and contextual factors. Within the investigated instruments, environmental factors are under-represented in comparison to body functions and personal factors. ICF linkage provides guidance for clinicians and researchers in the selection of appropriate instruments.Implications for rehabilitationSince instruments that are recommended in alcohol treatment guidelines vary considerably in respect the functioning domains and context factors they cover, it may be challenging for clinicians to select instruments relevant to their treatment context.Using the ICF as framework, our results provide guidance for clinicians in how to select appropriate instruments.Within the investigated instruments, environmental factors and activities and participation are under-represented in comparison to body functions and personal factors. Clinicians may employ AUD-unspecific or ICF-based instruments to cover these components if needed. Since instruments that are recommended in alcohol treatment guidelines vary considerably in respect the functioning domains and context factors they cover, it may be challenging for clinicians to select instruments relevant to their treatment context. Using the ICF as framework, our results provide guidance for clinicians in how to select appropriate instruments. Within the investigated instruments, environmental factors and activities and participation are under-represented in comparison to body functions and personal factors. Clinicians may employ AUD-unspecific or ICF-based instruments to cover these components if needed.