Abstract
The first Academic Debate was held within the European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine (EARM) in Budapest in 2016. The question debated was: is it possible to provide a theory neutral framework to describe the lived experience of health or is there an appropriate theory to understand what constitute the most relevant factors in health (and well-being). First the link between the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and rehabilitation as a key health strategy was explained. It was then argued that supplementing the ICF by theory-based approaches (e.g. a theory of social productivity) may advance explanations with regard to participation and links with health and well-being. Thirdly, it was recalled that one of the strengths of the ICF is exactly being “theory neutral”. There was no doubt that there is a need for scientific theories to describe functioning and health. The theory of social productivity seems to be an important contribution towards this goal. However, the definition of wellbeing in relation to the operationalization of functioning and health needs to be further developed. The conclusion cannot be an “either-or” (classification vs theory). Projects should be set up both to further develop the ICF and to refine (or develop new) theories.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 244-247 |
| Number of pages | 4 |
| Journal | Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine |
| Volume | 51 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Jan 1 2019 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Health
- International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health
- Rehabilitation
- Social productivity
- Well-being
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
- Rehabilitation
Cite this
A European Academy of rehabilitation medicine academic debate : Describing experienced health on the basis of the Who’s model of functioning (ICF) or on the theory of social productivity. / Kiekens, Carlotte; Didier, Jean Pierre; Malmivaari, Antti; Negrini, Stefano; Gutenbrunner, Christoph.
In: Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, Vol. 51, No. 4, 01.01.2019, p. 244-247.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - A European Academy of rehabilitation medicine academic debate
T2 - Describing experienced health on the basis of the Who’s model of functioning (ICF) or on the theory of social productivity
AU - Kiekens, Carlotte
AU - Didier, Jean Pierre
AU - Malmivaari, Antti
AU - Negrini, Stefano
AU - Gutenbrunner, Christoph
PY - 2019/1/1
Y1 - 2019/1/1
N2 - The first Academic Debate was held within the European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine (EARM) in Budapest in 2016. The question debated was: is it possible to provide a theory neutral framework to describe the lived experience of health or is there an appropriate theory to understand what constitute the most relevant factors in health (and well-being). First the link between the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and rehabilitation as a key health strategy was explained. It was then argued that supplementing the ICF by theory-based approaches (e.g. a theory of social productivity) may advance explanations with regard to participation and links with health and well-being. Thirdly, it was recalled that one of the strengths of the ICF is exactly being “theory neutral”. There was no doubt that there is a need for scientific theories to describe functioning and health. The theory of social productivity seems to be an important contribution towards this goal. However, the definition of wellbeing in relation to the operationalization of functioning and health needs to be further developed. The conclusion cannot be an “either-or” (classification vs theory). Projects should be set up both to further develop the ICF and to refine (or develop new) theories.
AB - The first Academic Debate was held within the European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine (EARM) in Budapest in 2016. The question debated was: is it possible to provide a theory neutral framework to describe the lived experience of health or is there an appropriate theory to understand what constitute the most relevant factors in health (and well-being). First the link between the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and rehabilitation as a key health strategy was explained. It was then argued that supplementing the ICF by theory-based approaches (e.g. a theory of social productivity) may advance explanations with regard to participation and links with health and well-being. Thirdly, it was recalled that one of the strengths of the ICF is exactly being “theory neutral”. There was no doubt that there is a need for scientific theories to describe functioning and health. The theory of social productivity seems to be an important contribution towards this goal. However, the definition of wellbeing in relation to the operationalization of functioning and health needs to be further developed. The conclusion cannot be an “either-or” (classification vs theory). Projects should be set up both to further develop the ICF and to refine (or develop new) theories.
KW - Health
KW - International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health
KW - Rehabilitation
KW - Social productivity
KW - Well-being
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85063987208&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85063987208&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2340/16501977-2533
DO - 10.2340/16501977-2533
M3 - Article
C2 - 30767024
AN - SCOPUS:85063987208
VL - 51
SP - 244
EP - 247
JO - Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
JF - Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
SN - 1650-1977
IS - 4
ER -