The ICF-CS for VR provide a framework to describe the functioning of individuals who are in or propose to enter an RTW program as well as to address RTW outcomes and the multiple factors associated with return to work [10]. Therefore, we suggest using the Brief ICF-CS for VR as a default for functioning assessment in this scenario. In addition, we also propose the use of the Disability Set as a default because its categories represent a standard to be reported in clinical settings. Included in the Disability Set are the 7 ICF categories of the Minimal Generic Set which should always be used as a minimal standard when using any of the ICF-CS [13, 14].

To address the influence of the claimant’s health condition on work disability, we recommend to add the categories of the brief version of the condition-specific ICF-CS. Optional and depending on the claimant’s specific problems, categories from the Comprehensive ICF-CS for VR, the comprehensive version of the condition-specific ICF-CS, or also ICF categories not included in the ICF-CS can be added to complete the claimant’s functioning profile.

Developed for determining eligibility for benefits rather than for the RTW context [15, 25], the EUMASS Set was not selected for scenario A. Furthermore, it contains no environmental factors that would be relevant for intervention planning and assigning claimants to appropriate RTW programs that are directly influenced by the “environment” such as labor or health policy and services provided by the state. In contrast to the EUMASS set, the Brief ICF-CS for VR includes the environmental factors e310 Immediate family; e330 People in positions of authority; e580 Health services, systems and policies; and e590 Labour and employment services, systems and policies.

For Scenario B we suggest to apply the EUMASS Set as a default because it offers categories specifically selected for a proper evaluation of rights to long-term benefits [15]. In addition, we propose to use the Disability Set which can be applied across a variety of clinical settings, including eligibility determination for benefits. The overlap between the EUMASS Set and the Disability Set is only moderate (seven categories of the EUMASS Set are included in the Disability Set as well). When analyzing the categories from the EUMASS Set missing in the Disability Set such as d430 Lifting and carrying objects or d440 Fine hand use, it becomes apparent that the EUMASS Set has a stronger focus on work- and mobility-related aspects. However, using the EUMASS Set alone would be insufficient for transparent documentation of work disability due to again the absence of environmental factors. Guidelines for disability evaluation recommend to the medical experts to first present a holistic picture of the claimant’s functioning including environmental influences before discarding their influence from the overall judgment of work disability [7]. For transparent reporting in this scenario, it is, therefore, crucial to also address environmental factors although functional limitations caused by environmental influences do not usually entitle an individual to disability benefits.

The brief version of the condition-specific ICF-CS is recommended for use in scenario B as well. Likewise, categories from the corresponding comprehensive ICF-CS or ICF categories not included in the ICF-CS can be added optionally depending on the specific case.

The Brief ICF-CS for VR was not selected for scenario B since it focuses on RTW programs rather than on eligibility determination for benefits. This is reflected in the fact that only five categories of the Brief ICF-CS for VR overlap with the EUMASS Set.

For scenario C we suggest the Brief ICF-CS for VR, the Disability Set, and the EUMASS Set jointly as default sets. Although the EUMASS Set is neither comprehensive nor geared toward functioning assessments in the RTW context, we still propose using it for this scenario as well, because it has been specifically developed for functioning assessments toward eligibility determination for disability benefits. Also in scenario C, the brief condition-specific ICF-CS should be considered, and categories from the Comprehensive ICF-CS for VR and the comprehensive condition-specific ICF-CS may be selected if appropriate to provide a proper description of the claimant’s functioning. The joint use of the Brief ICF-CS for VR and the two other ICF sets promises a more comprehensive evaluation for this scenario that deals with two decision-making directions. The latter argument is in agreement with Escorpizo and Stucki [25] who argue that a combined use of the ICF-CS for VR and the EUMASS Set could be beneficial given that in many cases disability evaluation related to return to work and eligibility determination for disability benefits lies on a continuum.

Table 19.3 gives an overview on the suggested combinations of ICF sets for the different scenarios of functioning assessments in disability evaluation.