Open Access

Development of the Global Disability Scale (Glo.Di.S): preliminary results

  • Konstantinos N Fountoulakis1Email author,
  • Eirini Lekka2,
  • Evangelia Kouidi3,
  • Ioanna Chouvarda2,
  • Asterios Deligiannis3 and
  • Nickolaos Maglaveras2
Annals of General Psychiatry201211:14

https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-859X-11-14

Received: 24 January 2012

Accepted: 24 April 2012

Published: 17 May 2012

Abstract

Background

The assessment of functioning and disability is an important part of the clinical evaluation, since it measures disease burden and reflects the effectiveness of therapeutic planning and interventions. The aim of the current study was to develop such a self-report instrument on the basis of a review of the literature, and compatible with the WHO approach.

Material and methods

The review of the literature led to the development of the Global Disability Scale (Glo.Di.S) with 25 items assessing different aspects of disability. The study sample included 728 persons from vulnerable populations (homeless, jobless, very low income, single parent families etc.; (29.12% males and 70.88% females; aged 55.96 ± 15.22 years). The protocol included also the STAI and the CES-D. The statistical analysis included factor analysis item analysis and ANCOVA.

Results

The factor analysis revealed the presence of 4 factors explaining 71% of total variance (Everyday functioning, Social and interpersonal functioning, Severity and Mental disability). Chronbach’s alpha for the whole scale was 0.95 and for subscales were 0.74–0.94.

Discussion

The results of the current study suggest that the Glo.Di.S. has the potential to serve as a reliable and valid tool for assessing functioning and disability. Further research is needed to prove that it could be useful across countries, populations and diseases, and whether it provides data that are culturally meaningful and comparable. It can be used in surveys and in clinical research settings and it can generate information of use in evaluating health needs and the effectiveness of interventions to reduce disability and improve health.

Keywords

Disability Burden Functioning ICF Development Impairment

Background

During the last few decades, the assessment of functioning and disability became important and part of the clinical evaluation, since it shows the ability of an individual to function in general areas of life. Along with mortality, morbidity and other rates reflecting a population’s health status, disability is important in order to measure disease burden and to evaluate the effectiveness of therapeutic planning and interventions. The description of clinical symptoms and their response to treatment alone does not seem to be sufficient for the comprehensive understanding of the disease and the needs of the patients. The addition of the assessment of disability enhances patient management, intervention design and the reporting of health [1].

The literature strongly suggests that symptom severity does not always correlate strongly with disability and only specific domains of the clinical picture seem to be responsible for the observed functional impairment. It is also reported that only a small proportion of the observed variability for disability is explained by any combination of clinical symptoms [28].

However, in spite of recommendations, this assessment has not yet become part of routine every day clinical practice. This is partially because defining and measuring disability has always been a challenge. In clinical practice it is a challenge both in terms of skills and time consuming to assess the individual patients’ broad spectrum of problems precisely, and areas like life satisfaction, quality of life or sexual functioning are poorly covered by interviewers [9].

In order to address this challenge, several instruments have been developed so far and a huge number of concepts and definitions have been developed and operationalized [10].

The World Health Organization (WHO) established the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) [11]. The joint use of the ICD-10 [12] and the ICF serves this purpose [1]. The WHO also developed a standard instrument the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) [13]. The WHODAS captures an individual’s level of functioning in six major life domains: (i) cognition (understanding and communication); (ii) mobility (ability to move and get around); (iii) self-care (ability to attend to personal hygiene, dressing and eating, and to live alone); (iv) getting along (ability to interact with other people); (v) life activities (ability to carry out responsibilities at home, work and school); (vi) participation in society (ability to engage in community, civil and recreational activities).

It is true that existing disability measures in psychiatry are either comprehensive but lengthy, or too short and uni-dimentional. There is a need for a user friendly, relatively short but comprehensive, simple, cost-effective, and sensitive measure of disability and functional impairment in clinical practice. The aim of the current study was to develop such a self-report instrument on the basis of a systematic review of the literature, and compatible with the WHO approach.

Material and methods

Development of the scale

The first step was to review the literature and indentify scales assessing disability. The MEDLINE search returned 104 articles relevant for the current study. The review led to the development of 25 items assessing different aspects of disability. They comprised the Global Disability Scale (Glo.Di.S). It is essential to report that the WHODAS [13] and its content were extremely influential in the development of this scale.

The scoring method was developed after consensus by three of the researchers (KNF, AD and NM) and it was assumed that a mentally and physically healthy person aged below 50 would receive a score close to zero in all items of the scale. The scoring method included four options as response to each item (0 = not at all, 1 = a little, 2 = moderately, 3 = severely and 4 = very severe or complete disability). The Glo.Di.S scale and its subscales are shown in the Additional file 1.

The gathering of the data was done by four trained psychologists with the use of an internet-based electronic platform. In this frame, although he Glo.Di.S was developed as a self-report tool, for the particular study the questions were read by the interviewer and the subject was choosing the right answer as it is was a strict structured interview with no input at all from the side of the interviewer.

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Aristotle University Medical School. All subjects gave their informed consent. All procedures were approved by the National Authority for the protection of personal and private data.

Study population

In the frame of a study on vulnerable populations (homeless, jobless, very low income, single parent families etc.) sponsored by the Municipality of Thessaloniki Greece, these items were applied to 728 subjects from this particular population (29.12% males and 70.88% females) aged 55.96 ± 15.22 (range 19–94 years).

Psychometric assessment

Apart from demographic variables, the protocol included the registration of health status with codes for the major disease categories according to the ICD-10 [12] and the World Health Organization. It also registered height and weight, details about current and past occupational status and alcohol and drug use and abuse. Anxiety was assessed with the STAI [14] and depression with the CES-D [15]. The test-retest reliability was not studied. It is also important to note that the collection of the data has been completed by 2009, that is, essentially before the current economic crisis really began.

Statistical analysis

The analysis included the development of descriptive statistic tables for the study sample, and specifically frequency tables for each reply in each item of the new scale.

The statistical analysis included factor analysis with Varimax normalized rotation, item analysis and the calculation of Cronbach’s alpha, and the calculation of Pearson Product moment correlation coefficient between the new scale and age, BMI, STAI-S, STAI-T and CES-D. The Analysis of Covariate (ANCOVA) was also performed with total Glo.Di.S. score and subscales scores as dependent variables, sex as categorical predictor and age, BMI, STAI-S and T and CES-D scores as continues predictors.

Results

The frequencies and mean scores for each of the scale items are shown in Table 1. The factor analysis revealed the presence of 4 factors explaining 71% of total variance. The first one included items 1–10, 16 and 21, the second included 17–20 and 22, the third included 1, 11–13, 21 and 23–25 while the fourth included 8, 14–16, 18 and 21. Items 1, 8, 16 and 18 loaded almost equally in two factors, while item 21 (sexual life) loaded in three factors (Table 2). Secondary factor analysis revealed a single secondary factor structure.
Table 1

Frequency of responses and mean score in the various items and subscales of the Glo.Di.S

Item no.

Item

Frequency of responses

Score

0

1

2

3

4

mean

SD

1

Stand up from sitting

70.76

10.76

9.38

6.34

2.76

0.60

1.07

2

Dress by yourself

91.60

2.20

2.89

2.07

1.24

0.19

0.70

3

Eat by yourself

96.69

1.24

0.41

0.97

0.69

0.08

0.47

4

Move around your house by yourself

87.72

4.97

2.76

3.31

1.24

0.25

0.77

5

Take a bath or a shower by yourself

87.05

3.72

3.03

4.27

1.93

0.30

0.87

6

Carryout the most important works in the house

75.59

9.52

6.07

6.21

2.62

0.51

1.03

7

Complete all the works of the house

74.90

8.83

6.90

6.62

2.76

0.54

1.06

8

Carry on your everyday work

77.76

5.94

5.25

8.29

2.76

0.52

1.09

9

Stay alone for a few days

78.65

4.82

5.10

7.44

3.99

0.53

1.13

10

Get out of the house for a walk, shopping etc.

81.40

5.65

4.41

5.79

2.75

0.43

1.01

11

Deal with various obstacles or physically demanding situations (stairs, taking the bus etc.)

53.52

14.48

9.24

17.66

5.10

1.06

1.34

12

Stand for some time (15–30 minutes)

58.26

10.19

8.40

16.12

7.02

1.03

1.39

13

Walk for a distance of around a kilometer

58.34

9.38

7.72

16.14

8.41

1.07

1.44

14

Concentrate on something for 5–10 minutes (Newspaper, TV, cooking)

88.57

4.55

3.44

3.17

0.28

0.22

0.68

15

Learn something new (how to go to a new place, a new recipe etc)

83.03

4.97

3.59

6.76

1.66

0.39

0.96

16

Participate in the activities of the community (e.g. religious, celebrations etc.)

80.80

4.42

5.52

7.73

1.52

0.45

1.00

17

Handle your relationships with people close to you (friends, relatives etc.)

84.00

4.69

6.07

4.55

0.69

0.33

0.84

18

Socialize with people you don’t know

86.60

4.56

5.11

3.59

0.14

0.26

0.73

19

Keep a friendship

87.02

4.42

4.56

4.01

0.00

0.26

0.72

20

Make new friends

81.24

4.83

5.66

8.00

0.28

0.41

0.93

21

Have sexual life

75.21

2.62

3.99

12.12

6.06

0.71

1.32

22

Live with dignity because of your problem

73.76

6.49

5.80

12.85

1.10

0.61

1.12

23

How much time you dedicated to your health issues and their consequences?

60.33

11.43

9.78

17.36

1.10

0.87

1.22

24

How emotionally distressed are you because of your health?

56.14

7.59

10.76

22.07

3.45

1.09

1.36

25

How much of an economic burden to you and your family is your health?

69.15

7.85

8.82

12.40

1.79

0.70

1.16

 

Everyday functioning

       
 

Social and interpersonal functioning

       
 

Severity

       
 

Mental disability

       
 

Glo.Di.S total score

       
Table 2

Factor analysis

Glo.Di.S item

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

Factor 4

Stand up from sitting

0.57

0.11

0.63

0.23

Dress by yourself

0.84

0.14

0.25

0.10

Eat by yourself

0.73

0.31

-0.05

-0.15

Move around your house by yourself

0.81

0.12

0.32

0.21

Take a bath or a shower by yourself

0.80

0.13

0.31

0.25

Carryout the most important works in the house

0.70

0.14

0.40

0.45

Complete all the works of the house

0.65

0.11

0.45

0.44

Carry on your everyday work

0.54

0.28

0.37

 

Stay alone for a few days

0.54

0.21

0.31

0.22

Get out of the house for a walk, shopping etc.

0.68

0.08

0.47

0.37

Deal with various obstacles or physically demanding situations (stairs, taking the bus etc.)

0.29

0.14

0.83

0.08

Stand for some time (15–30 minutes)

0.28

0.15

0.85

0.13

Walk for a distance of around a kilometer

0.27

0.13

0.85

0.13

Concentrate on something for 5–10 minutes (Newspaper, TV, cooking)

0.09

0.27

0.17

0.73

Learn something new (how to go to a new place, a new recipe etc)

0.26

0.33

0.17

0.64

Participate in the activities of the community (e.g. religious, celebrations etc.)

0.43

0.34

0.39

0.54

Handle your relationships with people close to you (friends, relatives etc.)

0.18

0.64

0.20

0.21

Socialize with people you don’t know

0.26

0.66

0.10

0.51

Keep a friendship

0.20

0.82

0.09

0.25

Make new friends

0.05

0.84

0.13

0.23

Have sexual life

0.44

0.24

0.37

0.39

Live with dignity because of your problem

0.18

0.48

0.38

-0.11

How much time you dedicated to your health issues and their consequences?

0.20

0.25

0.69

0.38

How emotionally distressed are you because of your health?

0.13

0.33

0.66

0.39

How much of an economic burden to you and your family is your health?

0.34

0.03

0.55

0.42

Explained variance

5.85

3.36

5.38

3.35

Proportion of variance explained

23%

13%

22%

13%

Total variance explained

   

71%

These four factors correspond to four subscales. The first one is ‘everyday functioning’. The second corresponds to ‘Social and interpersonal functioning’, the third to ‘severity’ and the fourth to ‘mental disability’. The mean scores for each of the subscales as well as the mean total score are shown in Table 1.

Chronbach’s alpha for the whole scale was 0.95 and for subscales were 0.94, 0.74, 0.92 and 0.75 respectively.

The ANCOVA suggested no differences between males and females. However age, BMI and CES-D score were significantly correlated with disability. The correlation matrix between the new scale and age, BMI, STAI-S, STAI-T and CES-D is shown in Table 3.
Table 3

The correlation matrix between the new scale and age, BMI, STAI-S, STAI-T and CES-D

 

Total Glo.Di.S score

Everyday functioning

Social and interpersonal functioning

Severity

Mental disability

age

0.29

0.27

0.07

0.33

0.29

BMI

0.13

0.10

0.05

0.16

0.09

STAI-T

0.18

0.11

0.28

0.17

0.16

STAI-S

0.18

0.11

0.26

0.16

0.14

CES-D

0.34

0.25

0.40

0.33

0.29

All values significant at p < 0.05 are marked in bold italics underlined.

Discussion

The current paper reports the preliminary results from the development of the Global Disability Scale (Glo.Di.S). This scale is a 25-items user friendly self report instrument which assesses disability in accord with the ICF approach of the WHO. It manifests high internal reliability (0.95) and consists of four subscales (Everyday functioning, Social and interpersonal functioning, Severity and Mental disability).

In comparison, the WHODAS-II has a mean Cronbach’s alpha equal to 0.65–0.98 [1625], test-retest coefficients from 0.71–0.96 [19, 23, 25, 26] and inter-rater reliability for individual subscales from 0.64–0.94 [20, 21, 25]. The short version might represent a single factor [27, 28]. The large version consists probably of 6 subscales (understanding and communicating, getting around, self-care, getting along with people, life activities and participation in society) and a single superfactor (a two-factor solution is also possible) [19, 24].

The screener part of the ICF Measure of Participation and ACTivities questionnaire (IMPACT-S) consists of 9 scales, reflecting the 9 activity and participation chapters of the ICF. Again the Chronbach’s alpha was satisfying for all 9 domains (0.75–0.89) and excellent for the total score (0.96). The test-retest reliability was good at item level (0.44–0.72), domain level (0.72–0.92) and total score (0.94) [29]. The Lam Employment Absence and Productivity Scale (LEAPS), which is a 10-item self-report questionnaire has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.89 [30]. The widely used self-report Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) has a single factor structure [3134] and Chronbach’s alpha >0.70 [3133, 35]. The test-retest reliability was 0.73 [33].

The Glo.Di.S manifests psychometric properties similar to the WHODAS and maybe superior to the other scales in terms of internal consistency.

The above instruments have already been used in the study of disability across a number of sociodemographic variables and different diseases and disorders, including acne vulgaris with social phobia [36], bipolar disorder [3739], undifferentiated peripheral inflammatory arthritis [40], adult-onset hearing loss [41], psychotic disorders [4247], multiple sclerosis [47], depression and anxiety [7, 46, 4860], injury [6163], alcohol abuse [64], sex differences [53, 6567], arthritis [60], chronic spinal pain [60], high blood pressure [60], social anxiety [68], obsessive-compulsive disorder [69], on-pump coronary artery bypass [70], dementia [71], cancer with pain [72, 73], obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus [74], mental-physical disorders comorbidity [75, 76], leprosy [77], ADHD [78, 79], anxiety in children [80], Parkinson’s disease [81], macular degeneration [48], inflammatory arthritis [23], migraine [8] and systemic sclerosis [82, 83].

All scales manifest a number of similar drawbacks. All of them fail to tackle specific aspects of disability. The WHODAS covers mainly the activities and participation domains of the ICF, so bodily impairments and environmental factors are not included. The SDS has similar limitations and is often inadequate to discern subtle, but important changes which may occur between measurements [84].

The Glo.Di.S. was developed in order to constitute a short, easy to use scale for the assessment of global disability and impairment. Its development aimed at constructing an instrument which would not mix functioning with symptomatology or subjective feelings and preferences. Instead the Glo.Di.S covers a broad area of disability and impairment and can be used in a variety of diseases including psychiatric disorders. Its structure will allow the comparison between disorders in an objective way.

Conclusion

The results of the current study suggest that the Glo.Di.S. has the potential to serve as a reliable and valid tool for assessing functioning and disability. Further research is needed to prove that it could be useful across countries, populations and diseases, and whether it provides data that are culturally meaningful and comparable. It can be used in surveys and in clinical research settings and it can generate information of use in evaluating health needs and the effectiveness of interventions to reduce disability and improve health.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The paper was in part supported by a grant of the Municipality of Thessaloniki for the study of vulnerable populations of the municipality.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
(2)
Lab of Medical Informatics, School of Medicine, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
(3)
Laboratory of Sports Medicine, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

References

  1. Kostanjsek N, Rubinelli S, Escorpizo R, Cieza A, Kennedy C, Selb M, Stucki G, Ustun TB: Assessing the impact of health conditions using the ICF. Disabil Rehabil. 2010, 33 (15–16): 1475-1482.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. McKibbin C, Patterson TL, Jeste DV: Assessing disability in older patients with schizophrenia: results from the WHODAS-II. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2004, 192 (6): 405-413.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. McLaughlin KA, Green JG, Gruber MJ, Sampson NA, Zaslavsky AM, Kessler RC: Childhood adversities and adult psychopathology in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R) III: associations with functional impairment related to DSM-IV disorders. Psychol Med. 2009, 40 (5): 847-859.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Sheehan DV, Meyers AL, Prakash A, Robinson MJ, Swindle RW, Russell JM, Mallinckrodt CH: The relationship between functional outcomes and the treatment of anxious and painful somatic symptoms in patients with generalized anxiety disorder. Curr Med Res Opin. 2008, 24 (9): 2457-2466.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Stein DJ, Bandelow B, Dolberg OT, Andersen HF, Baldwin DS: Anxiety symptom severity and functional recovery or relapse. Ann Clin Psychiatry. 2009, 21 (2): 81-88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Trivedi MH, Corey-Lisle PK, Guo Z, Lennox RD, Pikalov A, Kim E: Remission, response without remission, and nonresponse in major depressive disorder: impact on functioning. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 2009, 24 (3): 133-138.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Sheehan DV, Harnett-Sheehan K, Spann ME, Thompson HF, Prakash A: Assessing remission in major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder clinical trials with the discan metric of the Sheehan disability scale. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 2010, 26 (2): 75-83.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Bisdorff A, Andree C, Vaillant M, Sandor PS: Headache-associated dizziness in a headache population: prevalence and impact. Cephalalgia. 2011, 30 (7): 815-820.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Roe C, Sveen U, Bautz-Holter E: Retaining the patient perspective in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Core Set for low back pain. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2008, 2: 337-347.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Noonan VK, Kopec JA, Noreau L, Singer J, Chan A, Masse LC, Dvorak MF: Comparing the content of participation instruments using the international classification of functioning, disability and health. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009, 7: 93-PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. World Health Organization: International classification of functioning, disability and health. 2001, WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  12. World Health Organization: The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders: clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines. 1992, WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  13. World Health Organization: WHO Psychiatric Disability Assessment Schedule. 1988, WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  14. Fountoulakis KN, Papadopoulou M, Kleanthous S, Papadopoulou A, Bizeli V, Nimatoudis I, Iacovides A, Kaprinis GS: Reliability and psychometric properties of the Greek translation of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory form Y: preliminary data. Ann Gen Psychiatry. 2006, 5: 2-PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Fountoulakis K, Iacovides A, Kleanthous S, Samolis S, Kaprinis SG, Sitzoglou K, St Kaprinis G, Bech P: Reliability, validity and psychometric properties of the Greek translation of the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression (CES-D) Scale. BMC Psychiatry. 2001, 1: 3-PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Buist-Bouwman MA, Ormel J, De Graaf R, Vilagut G, Alonso J, Van Sonderen E, Vollebergh WA: Psychometric properties of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule used in the European Study of the Epidemiology of Mental Disorders. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2008, 17 (4): 185-197.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Garin O, Ayuso-Mateos JL, Almansa J, Nieto M, Chatterji S, Vilagut G, Alonso J, Cieza A, Svetskova O, Burger H, et al: Validation of the “World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule, WHODAS-2” in patients with chronic diseases. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011, 8: 51-View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Posl M, Cieza A, Stucki G: Psychometric properties of the WHODASII in rehabilitation patients. Qual Life Res. 2007, 16 (9): 1521-1531.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Kutlay S, Kucukdeveci AA, Elhan AH, Oztuna D, Koc N, Tennant A: Validation of the World Health Organization disability assessment schedule II (WHODAS-II) in patients with osteoarthritis. Rheumatol Int. 2009, 31 (3): 339-346.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Schlote A, Richter M, Wunderlich MT, Poppendick U, Moller C, Wallesch CW: Use of the WHODAS II with stroke patients and their relatives: reliability and inter-rater-reliability. Rehabilitation (Stuttg). 2008, 47 (1): 31-38.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Schlote A, Richter M, Wunderlich MT, Poppendick U, Moller C, Schwelm K, Wallesch CW: WHODAS II with people after stroke and their relatives. Disabil Rehabil. 2009, 31 (11): 855-864.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Meesters JJ, Verhoef J, Liem IS, Putter H, Vliet Vlieland TP: Validity and responsiveness of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II to assess disability in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2009, 49 (2): 326-333.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Baron M, Schieir O, Hudson M, Steele R, Kolahi S, Berkson L, Couture F, Fitzcharles MA, Gagne M, Garfield B, et al: The clinimetric properties of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II in early inflammatory arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2008, 59 (3): 382-390.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Sousa RM, Dewey ME, Acosta D, Jotheeswaran AT, Castro-Costa E, Ferri CP, Guerra M, Huang Y, Jacob KS, Rodriguez-Pichardo JG, et al: Measuring disability across cultures–the psychometric properties of the WHODAS II in older people from seven low- and middle-income countries, The 10/66 Dementia Research Group population-based survey. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2010, 19 (1): 1-17.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Ustun TB, Chatterji S, Kostanjsek N, Rehm J, Kennedy C, Epping-Jordan J, Saxena S, von Korff M, Pull C: Developing the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. Bull World Health Organ. 2010, 88 (11): 815-823.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Chopra PK, Couper JW, Herrman H: The assessment of patients with long-term psychotic disorders: application of the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule II. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2004, 38 (9): 753-759.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Andrews G, Kemp A, Sunderland M, von Korff M, Ustun TB: Normative data for the 12 item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. PLoS One. 2009, 4 (12): e8343-PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Novak SP, Colpe LJ, Barker PR, Gfroerer JC: Development of a brief mental health impairment scale using a nationally representative sample in the USA. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2010, 19 (Suppl 1): 49-60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Post MW, de Witte LP, Reichrath E, Verdonschot MM, Wijlhuizen GJ, Perenboom RJ: Development and validation of IMPACT-S, an ICF-based questionnaire to measure activities and participation. J Rehabil Med. 2008, 40 (8): 620-627.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Lam RW, Michalak EE, Yatham LN: A new clinical rating scale for work absence and productivity: validation in patients with major depressive disorder. BMC Psychiatry. 2009, 9: 78-PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Leon AC, Olfson M, Portera L, Farber L, Sheehan DV: Assessing psychiatric impairment in primary care with the Sheehan Disability Scale. Int J Psychiatry Med. 1997, 27 (2): 93-105.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Luciano JV, Bertsch J, Salvador-Carulla L, Tomas JM, Fernandez A, Pinto-Meza A, Haro JM, Palao DJ, Serrano-Blanco A: Factor structure, internal consistency and construct validity of the Sheehan Disability Scale in a Spanish primary care sample. J Eval Clin Pract. 2010, 16 (5): 895-901.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Arbuckle R, Frye MA, Brecher M, Paulsson B, Rajagopalan K, Palmer S, Degl’ Innocenti A: The psychometric validation of the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) in patients with bipolar disorder. Psychiatry Res. 2009, 165 (1–2): 163-174.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Sheehan DV, Harnett-Sheehan K, Raj BA: The measurement of disability. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 1996, 11 (Suppl 3): 89-95.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Bobes J, Badia X, Luque A, Garcia M, Gonzalez MP, Dal-Re R: Validation of the Spanish version of the Liebowitz social anxiety scale, social anxiety and distress scale and Sheehan disability inventory for the evaluation of social phobia. Med Clin (Barc). 1999, 112 (14): 530-538.Google Scholar
  36. Bez Y, Yesilova Y, Kaya MC, Sir A: High social phobia frequency and related disability in patients with acne vulgaris. Eur J Dermatol. 2011, 21 (5): 756-760.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Calabrese JR, Hirschfeld RM, Reed M, Davies MA, Frye MA, Keck PE, Lewis L, McElroy SL, McNulty JP, Wagner KD: Impact of bipolar disorder on a U.S. community sample. J Clin Psychiatry. 2003, 64 (4): 425-432.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Chiu JF, Chokka PR: Prevalence of Bipolar Disorder symptoms in Primary Care (ProBiD-PC): A Canadian study. Can Fam Physician. 2011, 57 (2): e58-e67.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Gutierrez-Rojas L, Jurado D, Gurpegui M: Factors associated with work, social life and family life disability in bipolar disorder patients. Psychiatry Res. 2011, 186 (2–3): 254-260.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Castrejon I, Silva-Fernandez L, Bombardier C, Carmona L: Clinical composite measures of disease activity for diagnosis and followup of undifferentiated peripheral inflammatory arthritis: a systematic review. J Rheumatol Suppl. 2011, 87: 48-53.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Chisolm TH, Abrams HB, McArdle R, Wilson RH, Doyle PJ: The WHO-DAS II: psychometric properties in the measurement of functional health status in adults with acquired hearing loss. Trends Amplif. 2005, 9 (3): 111-126.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Braga RJ, Mendlowicz MV, Marrocos RP, Figueira IL: Anxiety disorders in outpatients with schizophrenia: prevalence and impact on the subjective quality of life. J Psychiatr Res. 2005, 39 (4): 409-414.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Velthorst E, Nieman DH, Linszen D, Becker H, de Haan L, Dingemans PM, Birchwood M, Patterson P, Salokangas RK, Heinimaa M, et al: Disability in people clinically at high risk of psychosis. Br J Psychiatry. 2010, 197 (4): 278-284.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. de Portugal E, Gonzalez N, Miriam V, Haro JM, Usall J, Cervilla JA: Gender differences in delusional disorder: Evidence from an outpatient sample. Psychiatry Res. 2011, 177 (1–2): 235-239.Google Scholar
  45. de Portugal E, Martinez C, Gonzalez N, del Amo V, Haro JM, Cervilla JA: Clinical and cognitive correlates of psychiatric comorbidity in delusional disorder outpatients. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2011, 45 (5): 416-425.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Dan A, Kumar S, Avasthi A, Grover S: A comparative study on quality of life of patients of schizophrenia with and without depression. Psychiatry Res. 2011, 182 (2): 185-189.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Chopra P, Herrman H, Kennedy G: Comparison of disability and quality of life measures in patients with long-term psychotic disorders and patients with multiple sclerosis: an application of the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule II and WHO Quality of Life-BREF. Int J Rehabil Res. 2008, 31 (2): 141-149.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Banerjee A, Kumar S, Kulhara P, Gupta A: Prevalence of depression and its effect on disability in patients with age-related macular degeneration. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2008, 56 (6): 469-474.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Lin EH, VonKorff M, Russo J, Katon W, Simon GE, Unutzer J, Bush T, Walker E, Ludman E: Can depression treatment in primary care reduce disability? A stepped care approach. Arch Fam Med. 2000, 9 (10): 1052-1058.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Von Korff M, Katon W, Rutter C, Ludman E, Simon G, Lin E, Bush T: Effect on disability outcomes of a depression relapse prevention program. Psychosom Med. 2003, 65 (6): 938-943.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Verger P, Guagliardo V, Gilbert F, Rouillon F, Kovess-Masfety V: Psychiatric disorders in students in six French universities: 12-month prevalence, comorbidity, impairment and help-seeking. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2009, 45 (2): 189-199.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. van der Werff E, Verboom CE, Penninx BW, Nolen WA, Ormel J: Explaining heterogeneity in disability associated with current major depressive disorder: effects of illness characteristics and comorbid mental disorders. J Affect Disord. 2010, 127 (1–3): 203-210.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Scott KM, Collings SC: Gender and the association between mental disorders and disability. J Affect Disord. 2010, 125 (1–3): 207-212.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Olfson M, Broadhead WE, Weissman MM, Leon AC, Farber L, Hoven C, Kathol R: Subthreshold psychiatric symptoms in a primary care group practice. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1996, 53 (10): 880-886.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Olfson M, Fireman B, Weissman MM, Leon AC, Sheehan DV, Kathol RG, Hoven C, Farber L: Mental disorders and disability among patients in a primary care group practice. Am J Psychiatry. 1997, 154 (12): 1734-1740.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Neal LA, Green G, Turner MA: Post-traumatic stress and disability. Br J Psychiatry. 2004, 184: 247-250.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Langlieb AM, Guico-Pabia CJ: Beyond symptomatic improvement:assessing real-world outcomes in patients with major depressive disorder. Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry. 2010, 12 (2): -Google Scholar
  58. Kennedy BL, Lin Y, Schwab JJ: Work, social, and family disabilities of subjects with anxiety and depression. South Med J. 2002, 95 (12): 1424-1427.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Karsten J, Hartman CA, Ormel J, Nolen WA, Penninx BW: Subthreshold depression based on functional impairment better defined by symptom severity than by number of DSM-IV symptoms. J Affect Disord. 2011, 123 (1–3): 230-237.Google Scholar
  60. Gureje O, Ademola A, Olley BO: Depression and disability: comparisons with common physical conditions in the Ibadan study of aging. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008, 56 (11): 2033-2038.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Soberg HL, Bautz-Holter E, Roise O, Finset A: Long-term multidimensional functional consequences of severe multiple injuries two years after trauma: a prospective longitudinal cohort study. J Trauma. 2007, 62 (2): 461-470.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Derrett S, Davie G, Ameratunga S, Langley J: Capturing outcomes following injury: a New Zealand pilot study. N Z Med J. 2011, 123 (1316): 66-74.Google Scholar
  63. Derrett S, Langley J, Hokowhitu B, Ameratunga S, Hansen P, Davie G, Wyeth E, Lilley R: Prospective outcomes of injury study. Inj Prev. 2009, 15 (5): e3-View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Ferrulli A, Leggio L, Cardone S, D’Angelo C, Mirijello A, Vonghia L, Miceli A, Gasbarrini G, Addolorato G: Psychosocial findings in alcohol-dependent patients before and after three months of total alcohol abstinence. Front Psychiatry. 2011, 1: 17-Google Scholar
  65. Badr HE, Abd El Aziz HM: Role of Gender in Coping Capabilities among Young Visually Disabled Students. J Egypt Public Health Assoc. 2007, 82 (5–6): 365-377.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Badr HE, Mourad H: Assessment of visual disability using the WHO disability assessment scale (WHO-DAS-II): role of gender. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009, 93 (10): 1365-1370.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Gallagher P, Mulvany F: Levels of ability and functioning: using the WHODAS II in an Irish context. Disabil Rehabil. 2004, 26 (9): 506-517.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Hambrick JP, Turk CL, Heimberg RG, Schneier FR, Liebowitz MR: Psychometric properties of disability measures among patients with social anxiety disorder. J Anxiety Disord. 2004, 18 (6): 825-839.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Hollander E, Stein DJ, Fineberg NA, Marteau F, Legault M: Quality of life outcomes in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder: relationship to treatment response and symptom relapse. J Clin Psychiatry. 2011, 71 (6): 784-792.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  70. Khoueiry G, Flory M, Abi Rafeh N, Zgheib MH, Goldman M, Abdallah T, Wettimuny S, Telesford B, Costantino T, McGinn JT: Depression, disability, and quality of life after off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: a prospective 9-month follow-up study. Heart Lung. 2010, 40 (3): 217-225.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Kim JM, Stewart R, Glozier N, Prince M, Kim SW, Yang SJ, Shin IS, Yoon JS: Physical health, depression and cognitive function as correlates of disability in an older Korean population. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2005, 20 (2): 160-167.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Wang HL, Kroenke K, Wu J, Tu W, Theobald D, Rawl SM: Cancer-Related Pain and Disability: A Longitudinal Study. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2011, 42 (6): 813-821.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Kroenke K, Zhong X, Theobald D, Wu J, Tu W, Carpenter JS: Somatic symptoms in patients with cancer experiencing pain or depression: prevalence, disability, and health care use. Arch Intern Med. 2010, 170 (18): 1686-1694.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Rodbard HW, Fox KM, Grandy S: Impact of obesity on work productivity and role disability in individuals with and at risk for diabetes mellitus. Am J Health Promot. 2009, 23 (5): 353-360.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Norton J, de Roquefeuil G, Benjamins A, Boulenger JP, Mann A: Psychiatric morbidity, disability and service use amongst primary care attenders in France. Eur Psychiatry. 2004, 19 (3): 164-167.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Scott KM, Von Korff M, Alonso J, Angermeyer MC, Bromet E, Fayyad J, de Girolamo G, Demyttenaere K, Gasquet I, Gureje O, et al: Mental-physical co-morbidity and its relationship with disability: results from the World Mental Health Surveys. Psychol Med. 2009, 39 (1): 33-43.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Slim FJ, van Schie CH, Keukenkamp R, Faber WR, Nollet F: Effects of impairments on activities and participation in people affected by leprosy in The Netherlands. J Rehabil Med. 2010, 42 (6): 536-543.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Buitelaar JK, Casas M, Philipsen A, Kooij JJ, Ramos-Quiroga JA, Dejonckheere J, van Oene JC, Schauble B: Functional improvement and correlations with symptomatic improvement in adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder receiving long-acting methylphenidate. Psychol Med. 2011, 42 (1): 195-204.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Buitelaar JK, Trott GE, Hofecker M, Waechter S, Berwaerts J, Dejonkheere J, Schauble B: Long-term efficacy and safety outcomes with OROS-MPH in adults with ADHD. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2011, 29: 1-13.Google Scholar
  80. Whiteside SP: Adapting the Sheehan disability scale to assess child and parent impairment related to childhood anxiety disorders. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2009, 38 (5): 721-730.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Arun MP, Bharath S, Pal PK, Singh G: Relationship of depression, disability, and quality of life in Parkinson’s disease: a hospital-based case–control study. Neurol India. 2011, 59 (2): 185-189.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Hudson M, Steele R, Taillefer S, Baron M: Quality of life in systemic sclerosis: psychometric properties of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II. Arthritis Rheum. 2008, 59 (2): 270-278.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Hudson M, Thombs BD, Steele R, Watterson R, Taillefer S, Baron M: Clinical correlates of quality of life in systemic sclerosis measured with the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II. Arthritis Rheum. 2008, 59 (2): 279-284.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Placchi M: Measuring disability in subjects with anxiety disorders. Eur Psychiatry. 1997, 12 (Suppl 3): 249s-253s.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Fountoulakis et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.