4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Access to health care for disabled people: a systematic review

      ,
      Social Care and Neurodisability
      Emerald

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references53

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: a new tool for understanding disability and health.

          Reliable and timely information about the health of populations is part of the World Health Organization's mandate in the development of international public health policy. To capture data concerning functioning and disability, or non-fatal health outcomes, WHO has recently published the revised International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). In this article, the authors briefly outline the revision process and discuss the rationale for the ICF and the needs that it serves in rehabilitation. The ICF is shown to be an essential tool for identifying and measuring efficacy and effectiveness of rehabilitation services, both through functional profiling and intervention targeting. Existing applications of the ICF in rehabilitation are then surveyed. The ICF, in short, offers an international, scientific tool for understanding human functioning and disability for clinical, research, policy development and a range of other public health uses.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Mobility impairments and use of screening and preventive services.

            Primary care for people with disabilities often concentrates on underlying debilitating disorders to the exclusion of preventive health concerns. This study examined use of screening and preventive services among adults with mobility problems (difficulty walking, climbing stairs, or standing for extended periods). The responses of non-institutionalized adults to the 1994 National Health Interview Survey, including the disability and Healthy People 2000 supplements, were analyzed. Multivariable logistic regressions predicted service use on the basis of mobility level, demographic characteristics, and indicators of health care access. Ten percent of the sample reported some mobility impairment; 3% experienced major problems. People with mobility problems were as likely as others to receive pneumonia and influenza immunizations but were less likely to receive other services. Adjusted odds ratios for women with major mobility difficulties were 0.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.4, 0.9) for the Papanicolaou test and 0.7 (95% CI = 0.5, 0.9) for mammography. More attention should be paid to screening and preventive services for people with mobility difficulties. Shortened appointment times, physically inaccessible care sites, and inadequate equipment could further compromise preventive care for this population.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Self reported receipt of care consistent with 32 quality indicators: national population survey of adults aged 50 or more in England

              Objective To assess the receipt of effective healthcare interventions in England by adults aged 50 or more with serious health conditions. Design National structured survey questionnaire with face to face interviews covering medical panel endorsed quality of care indicators for both publicly and privately provided care. Setting Private households across England. Participants 8688 participants in the English longitudinal study of ageing, of whom 4417 reported diagnoses of one or more of 13 conditions. Main outcome measures Percentage of indicated interventions received by eligible participants for 32 clinical indicators and seven questions on patient centred care, and aggregate scores. Results Participants were eligible for 19 082 items of indicated care. Receipt of indicated care varied substantially by condition. The percentage of indicated care received by eligible participants was highest for ischaemic heart disease (83%, 95% confidence interval 80% to 86%), followed by hearing problems (79%, 77% to 81%), pain management (78%, 73% to 83%), diabetes (74%, 72% to 76%), smoking cessation (74%, 71% to 76%), hypertension (72%, 69% to 76%), stroke (65%, 54% to 76%), depression (64%, 57% to 70%), patient centred care (58%, 57% to 60%), poor vision (58%, 54% to 63%), osteoporosis (53%, 49% to 57%), urinary incontinence (51%, 47% to 54%), falls management (44%, 37% to 51%), osteoarthritis (29%, 26% to 32%), and overall (62%, 62% to 63%). Substantially more indicated care was received for general medical (74%, 73% to 76%) than for geriatric conditions (57%, 55% to 58%), and for conditions included in the general practice pay for performance contract (75%, 73% to 76%) than excluded from it (58%, 56% to 59%). Conclusions Shortfalls in receipt of basic recommended care by adults aged 50 or more with common health conditions in England were most noticeable in areas associated with disability and frailty, but few areas were exempt. Efforts to improve care have substantial scope to achieve better health outcomes and particularly need to include chronic conditions that affect quality of life of older people.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Social Care and Neurodisability
                Social Care Neurodisability
                Emerald
                2042-0919
                October 20 2010
                October 20 2010
                : 1
                : 3
                : 21-31
                Article
                10.5042/scn.2010.0599
                c2712189-2450-49d4-ab30-fc2aa9b99620
                © 2010
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article