An ICF framework analysis of the CVID quality of life questionnaire

This study aimed to link the Common Variable Immune Deficiency Quality of Life (CVID-QoL) and Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaires to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) using ICF linking rules and to compare their ICF-based content coverage.

Two researchers independently analyzed each CVID-QoL and SF-36 item following the ICF linking rules by Cieza et al. Meaningful concepts were identified, linked to the most appropriate ICF categories, and evaluated for inter-rater agreement using kappa, with discrepancies resolved by expert consultation.

A total of 32 CVID-QoL items yielded 47 ICF code assignments, corresponding to 25 unique ICF categories, whereas the SF-36 yielded 61 assignments, corresponding to 25 unique ICF categories. In the CVID-QoL, the most represented main-concept domains were b1 mental functions, b4 cardiovascular, hematological, immunological, and respiratory functions, and d7 interpersonal interactions and relationships, whereas in the SF-36 the most represented domains were b1 mental functions, d2 general tasks and demands, and d4 mobility.

The CVID-QoL appears to assess the disease more broadly, as it includes content related to body functions and structures, activities and participation, and environmental factors. Therefore, compared with the generic SF-36, it may better reflect the disease-specific impact of CVID.Implications for RehabilitationUsing ICF-linked disease-specific tools in clinical practice can improve the assessment process and guide more holistic, patient-centered interventions for individuals with Common Variable Immunodeficiency (CVID).Linking the Common Variable Immune Deficiency Quality of Life (CVID-QoL) questionnaire to the ICF framework enables a comprehensive understanding of disease-specific functional limitations in patients with Common Variable Immune Deficiency (CVID).The Common Variable Immune Deficiency Quality of Life (CVID-QoL) captures unique aspects of physical, emotional, and environmental challenges not addressed in generic Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) tools, such as the SF-36, highlighting its relevance for individualized rehabilitation planning.