Introduction
Methods
Search procedure
Electronic database search
Snowball sampling
Selection procedure
Screening
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Data extraction and analysis
Results
Study characteristics
Theoretical models explaining the concept of disability | |
---|---|
Author (year) | Contribution |
Name (if applicable) | |
Nagi (1965) Disablement Model | • Describes a linear main pathway consisting of four distinct concepts: active pathology, impairment, functional limitation, and disability • Mainly focusing on the internal process of disability, without considering the role of the environment |
Lawton and Nahemow (1973) Competence–environmental press model | • Presents the relationship between ageing individuals and their environment • The interaction between the individual’s competences and the pressure that is put upon the individual by the environment determines how the individual functions in that environment |
World Health Organization (1980) (WHO) ICIDH | • Describes a linear main pathway consisting of four distinct concepts: disease, impairment, disability, and handicap • Mainly focusing on the internal process of disability, without considering the role of the environment |
Kahana (1982) Congruence model of person–environment interaction | • Comment on Lawton and Nahemow’s model: a fit between the individual and their environment is based on both the environment’s characteristics and the individual’s preferences and needs, rather than their competences |
Nagi (1991) | • Redefines the term disability as ‘an inability or limitation in performing socially defined roles and tasks expected of an individual within the sociocultural and physical environment’, meaning it was not merely inherent in the individual • Lists several factors that could interfere with the links between different stages of the linear pathway (both individual characteristics, as well as the role of the individual’s social and physical environment and the individual’s reaction to this) |
Pope and Tarlov (1991) (IOM) | • Adds risk factors to the ICIDH model, which could predispose the individual to disability. These factors could interfere with each stage of the main pathway • Adds QoL to the model as an integral part. QoL affects and is affected by the outcomes of each stage of the main pathway |
National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research (1993) (NCMRR) | • Extends the model presented by the IOM with societal limitations, defined as ‘restrictions attributable to social policy or barriers which limit fulfilment of roles or deny access to services and opportunities associated with full participation in society’ |
Verbrugge and Jette (1994) The disablement process | • Elaborates the linear pathway with Lawton’s environmental-press model. The main pathway is extended with personal and environmental factors that speed up or slow down disability by altering the demand of the environment or the capabilities of the individual |
Brandt and Pope (1997) Enabling – disabling process | • Adds bidirectional arrows between the concepts of the main pathway described by Nagi, allowing the pathway to be reversed towards rehabilitation • Presents disability as an interaction of the individual with the environment and not solely an inherent part of the individual • Focusses on health and functioning and therefore, deletes the term ‘disability’ in the main pathway. The concept ‘no disabling condition’ is added at the beginning of the main pathway, indicating that there is also an ending to the pathway when no pathology, impairment, or functional limitation is present |
Lawton (2000) | • Comments on the criticism of Kahana in 1982, and notes that the greater the competence of individuals, the more environmental resources are available to fulfil their needs and wishes |
World Health Organization (2001) (WHO) ICF | • Provides a bidirectional and nonlinear representation instead of the linear main pathway. This allows for a more dynamic interaction between the individual’s functioning, and their health condition and environmental factors • Introduces different concepts: health condition, functions/structure, activity, and participation • Counters the view that people’s disability is a natural consequence of disease and presents a functional model instead of a medical model by including the positive aspects of functioning |
Kahana et al. (2003) | • Extends the previous model from the institutional setting to the community setting |
McDougall et al. (2010) | • Includes QoL in the graphical representation of the ICF as an outer subsystem around the original scheme, implying that it is incorporated in all aspects of functioning |
Ravenek et al. (2013) | • Changes ‘health condition’ to ‘health’ in order to be all-inclusive • Presents the model as concentric circles, emphasizing the relationship between components and their potential interaction that takes place as part of human functioning • Presents human functioning as an interaction between body functions and structures, activities, and participation |
Heerkens et al. (2018) | • Deletes the concept of ‘health’ and includes it in the component ‘personal factors’ as a (co)morbidity instead • Averts the emphasis from the biological components of the model by putting participation at the centre of the model |
Literature reviews of one or more theoretical models | |
---|---|
Author (year) | Contribution |
Kennedy and Minkler (1998) | |
Jette and Badley (2000) | • Criticizes the linear models for failing to see disablement as a dynamic process that is not unidirectional or linear. The linear models view disabling conditions as a simple linear progression that is a response to diseases • Highlights the negative connotation of the ICIDH presented in 1980 by the WHO. The focus of this classification was on deficiencies resulting from health conditions |
Nordenfelt (2003) | • Notes that the terms ‘disability’ and ‘handicap’ in the ICIDH are viewed as completely independent from the environment and the relationship between the person and his or her environment • Highlights two major changes made in the ICF: (1) includes positive aspects of functioning, and (2) grants a crucial role to the environment in this classification |
Ustün et al. (2003) | • Criticized the ICIDH for being too focused on the disabilities, rather than being a neutral classification of human functioning • Notes the lack of personal and environmental factors in the progression towards handicap throughout the ICIDH • States that the ICF combines the medical model of disability with the social model, meaning that disability is a combination of something inherent in the individual as well as a socially created problem due to an unaccommodating social environment |
Schneidert et al. (2003) | • Criticizes the ICIDH for its limited role of the environment and its focus on the individual in the path of disability |
Scheidt and Norris-Baker (2004) | • Elaborates on the development of Lawton and Nahemow’s competence–environmental press model after criticism received by Kahana (1982) on the lack of inclusion of needs and preferences of the individual |
Heikkinen (2006) | • Notes the linear and unidirectional character of Nagi’s Disablement Model where the main pathway is assumed a sequence of events leading towards disability |
Whiteneck (2006) | • Criticizes the ICIDH for not incorporating the role of environmental factors into the classification • States that the ICF improved by including environmental factors into their classification • Criticizes the ICF for not distinguishing ‘activities’ and ‘participation’ enough from each other. ‘Activities’ needs to be defined as something on the individual’s level, whereas ‘participation’ needs to be defined as something on a societal level |
Nordenfelt (2006) | • States that the focus of the ICIDH was mainly on the tasks individuals are unable to do because of diseases or injuries |
Jette (2006) | • Criticizes the linear models for failing to see disablement as a dynamic process that is not unidirectional or linear. The linear models view disabling conditions as a simple linear progression that is a response to diseases |
Masala and Petretto (2008) | • Emphasizes the lack of acknowledgement of the role played by the environment in the linear models of Nagi and the WHO • Highlights the improvements Nagi made to his Disablement Model in 1991, namely the recognition of the role of the characteristics of the individual and the environment in the disablement process • Notes that the role of the environment described in Nagi (1991) only refers to the demand it puts on an individual and therefore, disability is still viewed as part of the individual • Criticizes the model presented by the IOM in 1991 for its linearity without the possibility of reversing in the pathway • Criticizes the model presented by the IOM in 1991 for the limited role played by the environment, especially the social environment. The environment is only included as a risk factor instead of progression in the pathway |
Iecovich (2014) | • Criticizes the competence–environmental press model for not taking into account the individual’s attributes. The model does not acknowledge that the individual can manipulate the environment to reduce the press, or that they can use the environment as a resource to fulfil their needs and wishes • Highlights that the competence–environmental press model does not provide strategies to measure person–environment linkages |
Petretto et al. (2017) | • Highlights the importance of the ICF in terms of shifting the focus away from disability being a static event, towards a dynamic process that may vary over a life course |
Vaz et al. (2017) | • Criticizes Nagi’s Disablement Model and the ICIDH for their linear and unidirectional character, implying that a pathology triggers the disabling process consisting of stepwise negative consequences. This also highlights that the focus is on the disease and the negative consequences instead of health and functioning • Criticizes both linear models for being too organism-limited, meaning that they fail to identify the role played by the environment during this process • Highlights the major improvements made when developing the ICF: • The interactive and bidirectional character of the ICF emphasizes that the nature of disability and functioning lies within the interaction between health conditions and contextual factors; • The ICF counters the medical point of view, which states that disability is a natural consequence of diseases; • The ICF considers different influences on health and functioning (biological, individual, and social factors) |