Content validity is a fundamental requirement of outcome measures. After reviewing operational needs and existing definitions, content validity we as defined as: the extent to which a measure provides a comprehensive and true assessment of the key relevant elements of a specified construct or attribute across a defined range, clearly and equitably for a stated target audience and context. ICF linkage rules from 2002, 2005, and 2019 have provide increasingly clear processes for describing and evaluating content of outcome measures. ICF Core Sets provide international reference standards of the core constructs of importance for different health conditions. Both are important as reference standards during content validation. To summarize their use as reference standards, the following summary indicators were proposed: (1) Measure to ICF linkage, (2) Measure to (Brief or Comprehensive) Core Set Absolute Linkage, (3) Measure to (Brief or Comprehensive) Core Set Unique Linkage, (4) Core Set Representation, and (5) Core Set Unique Disability Representation. Methods to assess how respondents engage with content are needed to complement ICF-linking. Cognitive interviewing is an ideal method since it used to explore how respondents interpret and calibrate response to individual items on an outcome measure. We proposed a framework for classifying these responses: Clarity/Comprehension, Relevance, Inadequate response definition, Reference Point, Perspective modification, and Calibration Across Items. Our analysis of 24 manuscripts that used ICF linking for content validation since updated linking rules were published found that authors typically used linking to validate existing measures, involved multiple raters, used 2005 linking rules, summarized content at a concept level (e.g., impairment, activity, participation) and/or use core sets as a reference standard. Infrequently, ICF linking was used to create item pools/conceptual frameworks for new measures, applied the full scope of the 2019 linking rules, used summary indicators, or integrated ICF-linking with qualitative methods like cognitive interviews. We conclude that ICF linkage is a powerful tool for content validity during development or validation of PROM. Best practices include use of updated ICF linking rules, triangulation of ICF linking with participant assessments of clarity and relevance preferably obtained using cognitive interview methods, and application of defined summary indicators.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the most frequently utilized functional status assessment instruments for patients with brain tumors, compare their contents, using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), and their psychometric properties.
METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to explore possible assessment instruments and summarize the evidence. A systematic literature search was performed for identification of the frequently used functional assessment tool in clinical trials in PubMed, ScienceDirect, and ProQuest databases. The content of most used instruments was linked to the ICF categories. The psychometric qualities of these assessment tools were systematically searched and analyzed.
RESULTS: Nine most used assessment tools in clinical trials were identified. The most frequently used assessment instrument is the Karnofsky Performance Scale, which is developed for a general assessment of oncological patients. Out of four self-assessment tools, two were disease-specific (EORTC QLQ-BN20 and FACT-Br), EORTC QLQ-C30 has been shown good psychometric properties in patients with brain tumors as well as in patients with various oncological diseases, similar to the SF-36, it is used in patients with brain tumors as well as in patients with various diseases. The Functional Independence Measure and the Barthel Index were two objective assessment tools that described functioning, but two were neuropsychological tests (MMSE and Trial Making Test). Two hundred eighty-three meaningful concepts were identified and linked to 102 most relevant second-level categories covering all components of the ICF. Forty-nine studies reporting psychometric properties of those nine assessment tools were identified, indicating good reliability and validity for all the instruments.
CONCLUSIONS: Nine most frequently utilized functional status assessment instruments for patients with brain tumors represent all components of the ICF and have good psychometric properties. However, the choice of the tool depends on the clinical question posed and the aim of its use.

METHODS: Systematic review.
BACKGROUND: A patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or osteoarthritis (OA) may have functional impairments, decreased quality of life, and productivity reductions. The International Classification of Functioning (ICF) provides a scientific basis for understanding health, outcomes, and determinants.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to critically appraise the current literature for outcome measures associated with the management of OA or RA to determine if they describe the components of the ICF that includes body functions and structures, activities, participation, environmental factors, as well as quality of life. The secondary purpose is to examine if patient satisfaction was addressed in the interventions associated with management of OA or RA.
METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in the CINAHL and PubMed databases using the search terms joint protection, hand OA, hand RA, and assistive devices.
RESULTS: Six of the outcome measures were linked to body structures and body functions, three were associated with activity limitations and participation restrictions, one was linked to environmental factors, and two outcome measures addressed quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS: Practitioners should incorporate outcome measures that address environmental factors and quality of life as they relate to the ICF.
CONCLUSIONS: Most of the outcome measures associated with hand OA or RA are related to body structures and body functions or activity limitations and participation restrictions.

Climate change and climate-sensitive disasters significantly impact health. Linking Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) is essential for addressing these ever present, complex and increasing risks. Recent calls have been made to build these links in health. However, there is a need to clearly articulate why linking DRR and CCA is important in health. Furthermore, little is known about how DRR and CCA should be linked in health. By extensively examining relevant literature, this review presents the current state of knowledge of linking DRR and CCA in health. This includes the potential for maximising conceptual synergies such as building resilience, and reducing vulnerability and risk. Additionally, technical and operational synergies are identified to link DRR and CCA in health, including: policy, Early Warning Systems, vulnerability and risk assessment, health systems strengthening, infrastructure resilience, disaster preparedness and response, and health impact pathways. Public health actors have a central role in building these links due to their expertise, work functions, and experience in addressing complex health risks. The review concludes with recommendations for future research, including how to better link DRR and CCA in health; and the opportunities, challenges and enablers to build and sustain these links.

Poor health and health inequalities persist despite increasing investment in health improvement programmes across high-income countries. Evidence suggests that to reduce health inequalities, a range of activities targeted at different levels within society and throughout the life course should be employed. There is a particular focus on addressing inequalities in early years as this may influence the experience of health in adulthood. To address the wider determinants of health at a community level, a key intervention which can be considered is supporting patients to access wider community resources. This can include processes such as signposting, referral and facilitation. There is a lack of evidence synthesis in relation to the most effective methods for linking individuals from health services to other services within communities, especially when considering interventions aimed at families with young children.
The aim of this study is to understand the way health services can best help parents, carers and families with pre-school children to engage with local services, groups and agencies to address their wider health and social needs. The review may inform future guidance to support families to address wider determinants of health. The study is a systematic review, and papers will be identified from the following electronic databases: Web of Science, Embase, MEDLINE and CINAHL. A grey literature search will be conducted using an internet search engine and specific grey literature databases (TRiP, EThOS and Open Grey). Reference lists/bibliographies of selected papers will be searched. Quality will be assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool for quantitative studies and the CASP tool for qualitative studies. Data will be synthesised in a narrative form and weighted by study quality.
It is important to understand how health services can facilitate access to wider services for their patients to address the wider determinants of health. This may impact on the experience of health inequalities. This review focuses on how this can be achieved for families with pre-school children, and the evidence obtained will be useful for informing future guidance on this topic.
PROSPERO CRD42016034066.