ICF Update Platform

changes in block d330-d349

Help

Descriptions of the Fields of a Proposal

The title of the proposal

Proposal ID: A numerical ID automatically given by the system.

Proposal State: The state that the proposal is in (see the Proposal Lifecycle and the Changing the State of a Proposal sections of the User's Guide for more information)

Update or Revision Proposal: This field shows whether the proposal suggests an update that can be achieved in the usual ICD update cycle or whether it is made for the ICD-11 revision.

Primary Code affected: The primary ICD cide affected by this proposal. (See also the section: Selecting where to attach the proposal in the user's guide)

Secondary Codes affected: See the section: Selecting where to attach the proposal from the User's guide. Volumes Affected: The list of ICD volumes that will be changed as a result of this proposal.

Proposal Type: The type of this proposal. The originator selects this from a predefined list

Change Reason: Similar to above, the originator selects this from a predefined list

Updates Specific to a Language Version*: This field is dislayed only when the proposal is suggesting a change to a specific language version of ICD. Not having this field means that the proposal applies to all language versions.

Detailed Description: This is where the user explains the proposal. He/She may provide the updated version of the ICD text using strikethrough text for the removed parts.

Rationale: This field includes the information on why this change is necessary.

Supporting web links*: Some web links attached to the proposal which are related to this proposal.

Supporting Publications *: A list of uploaded files that related to this proposal. They can be in one of these formats: pdf, doc, rtf, txt, or xls.

Proposal Summary: If the proposal is a revision proposal, a summary of the proposal and the discussions are prepared by the editor and placed in this field after the discussions.

Reason for Deletion*: If the proposal is deleted or rejected, the reason can be placed in this field. This field is accessible only when the proposal is Deleted or Rejected.

Scheduled Implementation Date*: Available only after the state of the proposal is changed to "Accepted".

VOTES*: Displayed only when the proposal is voted by the Update and Revision Committee. The summary of the voting is dislayed here. If the user clicks on "Show details" text then the page includes all votes given by the voting members together with their voting comments.

COMMENTS*: Displayed if there are comments attached sent by other users of the platform.

Add a new comment: Users may write their comments on the proposals by clicking on this link. If this link is not available, it shows that the proposal is closed for user comments at the moment.

*optional fields: Displayed if relevant information is available

Proposal ID : 431 - Proposal State : In Open Discussion Layer Proposal for Update

Originator : Lucilla Frattura - Last Update made by : Paula Tonel

Creation Date : 30-Jan-2020 16:19 CET - Last Update : 28-Dec-2020 19:55 CET

Previously Discussed in the group(s): FDRG, RVW

Primary Code Affected : d330-d349

Secondary Codes Affected : None

Proposal Type : Enhancements to the tabular list (such as the addition of an inclusion term to an existing code; the addition of an exclusion note)

Change Reason : Need to improve clarity or reduce ambiguity in the tabular list

Detailed Description

~~Communicating - p~~Producing messages (d330-d349)

....

d331 Producing Nnon-speech vocal expression

...

~~d345~~ ~~Writing messages~~

~~Producing the literal and implied meanings of messages that are conveyed through written language, such as writing a letter to a friend.~~

d349 ~~Communicating - p~~Producing messages, other specified and unspecified

Archived Versions

28/12/2020	Paula Tonel
30/01/2020	Lucilla Frattura

Rationale

ICF users in Italy (mainly in education sector) remark that the block d330-d349 is easier to use if the code titles are directly about producing messages.The overlap between "d170 writing" and "d345 writing" messages is shown by the users in any training initiative around ICF.

CSAC secretariat (26 Feb 2020): IRG review completed: proposal moved to FDRG layer.

CSAC secretariat (May 5, 2020): FDRG review completed: proposal moved to Open Discussion layer.

CSAC Secretariat (Jul 20, 2020): proposal moved to Closed Discussion Layer.

CSAC (28 Dec, 2020): proposal moved back to Open Discussion layer for further work.

Voting

Show Details

Comments

25-Feb-2020 12:47 CET by Ulrike Trinks

Comment of IRG on proposal 431

1. Has the author correctly entered the “Primary Code Affected” in that field on the Platform? Yes

2. Are there any “Secondary Codes Affected”? Has to be discussed

3. Has the author correctly entered the “Secondary Codes Affected” in that field on the Platform? See P.2

4. Does the proposal affect the Descriptive Note in a given ICF code text? No

5. Does the proposal affect Inclusions in a given ICF code text? No

6. Does the proposal affect Exclusions in a given ICF code text? No

7. Is the proposal age specific? No

8. Does the proposal have plausibility as a classification entity in the ICF? Yes

9. Does the proposal add any additional value as a new classification entity? NA

10. Would the proposal, if adopted, affect the described ICF situations in all cultures? Yes

11. Does the proposal address a genuine underlying need or deficiency within the ICF? Has to be discussed

12. Has the author incorporated sufficient rationale to justify adopting their proposal, as written, into a harmonized ICF? Yes

13. Is the author’s rationale for the proposal evidence-based? No

14. Is the proposal consistent with the existing structure and content of the ICF? Yes

15. Is the proposal consistent with conceptual and taxonomic principles in the ICF? Yes

16. If adopted, would this proposal be consistent with the goal of ensuring standardization and comparability of data reporting? Yes

Initial Reviewer’s recommendation:
This proposal can go to the FDRG layer for further discussion

05-May-2020 17:59 CET by Paula Tonel

Comments from FDRG TC, April 2020

Comments from FDRG TC, April 2020. Liane Simon (Germany), Jaana Paltamaa (Finland), Haejung Lee (South Korea), Olaf Kraus de Camargo (Canada):

Producing a message implies a content but producing could also be just babbling without a clear message. The same is valid for writing - one can be writing just as an exercise or write a message to someone. Therefore the overlap is related to the activity and the distinction of one or the other is the aspect of participation.

Recommendation: keep original ICF code

26-Jun-2020 17:18 CET by Christine Haas

#431

After consultation with our German experts we can give the following feedback:

- We support the statement of the FDRG TC April 2020 (05-May-2020) to keep the original ICF structure and text as it is.

30-Jun-2020 13:33 CET by Ann-Helene Almborg

Comment from Nordic ICF Network

Comments from Nordic ICF-Network 2020-06-29 (Jaana P, Solvejg B, Thomas M, Ann-Helene A). We suggest further discussion about both proposals 430 and 431 at the annual meeting to improve the consistency in these proposals.

We support the recommendation from the FDRG meeting , to keep the original ICF-codes, but we suggest to add “messages” to the title of block level to be consistent to proposal 430 and title of d310-d329 as following:
Communicating - producing messages (d330-d349)

23-Aug-2020 13:33 CET by Catherine Sykes

Comment attached to the vote of the user for Round 1 of year 2020. Voted:No

Keep original code.

23-Aug-2020 19:25 CET by Ann-Helene Almborg

Comment attached to the vote of the user for Round 1 of year 2020. Voted:Can't Decide

Suggest to keep the original ICF-codes. Suggest to add “messages” to the title of block level to be consistent to proposal 430 and title of d310-d329 as following:
Communicating - producing messages (d330-d349)

09-Sep-2020 09:38 CET by Coen H. van Gool

Comment attached to the vote of the user for Round 2 of year 2020. Voted:Can't Decide

We understand where the proposal comes from, but unsure if it will clarify the code like intended.

15-Sep-2020 10:53 CET by Keisuke TAKAHASHI

Comment attached to the vote of the user for Round 2 of year 2020. Voted:No

Keeping original code may be better.

15-Sep-2020 16:41 CET by Marie Cuenot

Comment attached to the vote of the user for Round 2 of year 2020. Voted:Can't Decide

Agree with the proposed changes
-in d330-d349 and d349 : change communicating into producing messages
-in d331.
Can’t decide about d345 : agree that there is a potential overlap with d170. Would there be also a link to make with d360 «Using communication devices and techniques»?

17-Sep-2020 17:40 CET by Ann-Helene Almborg

Comment attached to the vote of the user for Round 2 of year 2020. Voted:No

I do not agree to delete d345 as this is a different concept d170 Writing. If we delete d345 than we lost the possible to code the person's ability to communicate by Writing messages

25-Sep-2020 17:32 CET by Solvejg Merete Bang

Comment attached to the vote of the user for Round 2 of year 2020. Voted:No

I agree with Ann-Helene