Assessment of Capacity Impairment in Patients with Mental Disorders by Routine Clinical Assessment and by Structured Assessment with the Mini-ICF-APP

Self- and observer ratings of capacity limitations in patients with neurological conditions

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the self- and observer ratings of capacity limitations in patients with neurological conditions. Research on this topic is relevant for assessing the patients' ability to participate in work and social life and improving collaborative patient-clinician relationships.

METHOD

The self- and observer ratings of capacity limitations in a sample of N = 245 patients with neurological conditions from a rehabilitation facility were compared and assessed using the short rating of activity limitations and participation restrictions in mental disorders according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (Mini-ICF-APP) and the equivalent self-rating questionnaire (Mini-ICF-APP-S).

RESULTS

Paired-samples t-tests revealed significant differences between the self- and observer ratings for six out of 13 capacity dimensions. On average, the patients rated the capacity dimensions adherence to regulations, planning and structuring of tasks, professional competency and endurance as significantly less limited, in comparison to the observers (small to medium effect sizes). The self-ratings for limitation of contact with others and self-care were only marginally higher than the observer ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings show that psychological capacity limitations occur in patients with neurological conditions. In clinical practice, limitations in each capacity dimension and discrepancies in patient- and clinician-ratings should be thoroughly assessed. This is especially relevant in patients with neurological conditions who have a potential tendency to underestimate or deny their disability.

Residual Work Capacity and (In)Ability to Work Fulltime Among a Year-Cohort of Disability Benefit Applicants Diagnosed with Mental and Behavioural Disorders

AIMS

Residual work capacity and inability to work fulltime are important outcomes in disability benefit assessment for workers with mental and behavioural disorders. The aim of this study is to gain insight into the prevalence and associations of socio-demographic and disease-related factors of these outcomes across different mental and behavioural diagnoses groups.

METHODS

A year cohort of anonymized register-data of patients diagnosed with a mental or behavioural disorder who claim a work disability benefit after two years of sick-leave was used (n = 12,325, age 44.5 ± 10.9, 55.5% female). Limitations in mental and physical functioning caused by disease are indicated according to the Functional Ability List (FAL). No residual work capacity was defined as having no possibilities to work, whereas inability to work fulltime was defined as being able to work less than 8 h per day.

RESULTS

The majority (77.5%) of the applicants were assessed with residual work capacity, of these 58.6% had an ability to work fulltime. Applicants diagnosed with (post-traumatic) stress, mood affective and delusional disorders showed significant higher odds for no residual work capacity and for inability to work fulltime, while other diagnoses groups, like adjustment and anxiety disorders, showed decreased odds for both assessment outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The type of mental and behavioural disorder seems important in the assessment of residual work capacity and inability to work fulltime, as the associations differ significantly between the specific diagnoses groups.

The assessment of capacity limitations in psychiatric work disability evaluations by the social functioning scale Mini-ICF-APP

OBJECTIVE

Insurers frequently commission medical experts to estimate the degree of the remaining work capacity (RWC) in claimants for disability benefits. The social functioning scale Mini-ICF-APP allows for a rating of activity and participation limitations in thirteen capacity domains, considered as particularly relevant for work ability. The current study sought to evaluate the role of the Mini-ICF-APP ratings in psychiatric work disability evaluations, by examining how the capacity limitation ratings varied with the claimants' primary psychiatric diagnoses and how the ratings were related to RWC estimates.

METHODS

Medical experts estimated the RWC of 946 claimants with mental disorders and rated their activity and participation limitations using the Mini-ICF-APP, with higher ratings reflecting more severe limitations. The ratings were compared between claimants with different psychiatric diagnoses by analyses of variance. The mean Mini-ICF-APP rating across all capacity domains as well as all capacity-specific ratings were entered in simple or multiple regression models to predict the RWC in an alternative job.

RESULTS

The Mini-ICF-APP capacity limitation ratings in all domains but mobility were higher for claimants with personality and behavior disorders as compared to those with mood disorders or with neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders. The largest differences were observed in social capacities (e.g. group integration: F _{2, 847} = 78.300, P < 0.001). In claimants with depression, all ratings increased with the severity of the diagnosis (all Fs _{2, 203} > 16.393, all Ps < 0.001). In the overall sample, the mean Mini-ICF-APP rating showed a strong negative correlation with the estimated RWC (r = -.720, P < 0.001). Adding the capacity-specific ratings to the prediction model improved this prediction only marginally.

DISCUSSION

The Mini-ICF-APP allows for documenting claimants' activity and participation limitations, which is likely to increase the transparency of medical experts' RWC estimates and enables them to check the plausibility of such estimates. However, our study showed that despite the strong association between RWC and Mini-ICF-APP ratings, half of the RWC variance was unrelated to the capacity limitations documented in the Mini-ICF-APP.