残疾类型对公共卫生政策和实践有影响吗

A. Reichard, Michelle L. Stransky, K. Phillips, C. Drum, M. McClain
{"title":"残疾类型对公共卫生政策和实践有影响吗","authors":"A. Reichard, Michelle L. Stransky, K. Phillips, C. Drum, M. McClain","doi":"10.32398/CJHP.V13I2.1821","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Surveillance has been insufficient to inform and evaluate public health practices for people with disabilities. No studies have investigated whether there is statistical justification for subdividing the large, heterogeneous group of people with disabilities into subpopulations, for surveillance. Methods: Pooled data from the Medical Expenditures Panel Survey (2004-2010, unweighted n=132,198) included the following disability types: physical, cognitive, visual, hearing loss, and multiple disabilities. We examined differences among the disability subgroups and the no disability group on receipt of flu shot, dental exam, and timely care; insurance status; usual source of care (USOC); mental and physical health; and multiple chronic conditions (MCC). Results: The disability subgroups were sociodemographically heterogeneous and differed from each other and the no disability group on health status (mental, physical, and MCC) and healthcare outcomes (flu shot, dental exam, timely receipt of care, USOC, insurance status). Conclusion: Findings demonstrate that disability subgroups differ in the magnitude of the disparities they experience compared to each other and to people without disabilities. Disability subgroups should be examined separately for public health measures to enable effective tailoring of public health policies and programs to better meet the needs for all people. © 2015 Californian Journal of Health Promotion. All rights reserved.","PeriodicalId":87431,"journal":{"name":"Californian journal of health promotion","volume":"51 1","pages":"25-36"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does Type of Disability Matter to Public Health Policy and Practice\",\"authors\":\"A. Reichard, Michelle L. Stransky, K. Phillips, C. Drum, M. McClain\",\"doi\":\"10.32398/CJHP.V13I2.1821\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Surveillance has been insufficient to inform and evaluate public health practices for people with disabilities. No studies have investigated whether there is statistical justification for subdividing the large, heterogeneous group of people with disabilities into subpopulations, for surveillance. Methods: Pooled data from the Medical Expenditures Panel Survey (2004-2010, unweighted n=132,198) included the following disability types: physical, cognitive, visual, hearing loss, and multiple disabilities. We examined differences among the disability subgroups and the no disability group on receipt of flu shot, dental exam, and timely care; insurance status; usual source of care (USOC); mental and physical health; and multiple chronic conditions (MCC). Results: The disability subgroups were sociodemographically heterogeneous and differed from each other and the no disability group on health status (mental, physical, and MCC) and healthcare outcomes (flu shot, dental exam, timely receipt of care, USOC, insurance status). Conclusion: Findings demonstrate that disability subgroups differ in the magnitude of the disparities they experience compared to each other and to people without disabilities. Disability subgroups should be examined separately for public health measures to enable effective tailoring of public health policies and programs to better meet the needs for all people. © 2015 Californian Journal of Health Promotion. All rights reserved.\",\"PeriodicalId\":87431,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Californian journal of health promotion\",\"volume\":\"51 1\",\"pages\":\"25-36\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Californian journal of health promotion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.32398/CJHP.V13I2.1821\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Californian journal of health promotion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32398/CJHP.V13I2.1821","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

背景:监测不足以告知和评估针对残疾人的公共卫生做法。没有研究调查是否有统计学上的理由将庞大的异质残疾人群体细分为亚群进行监测。方法:来自医疗支出小组调查(2004-2010年,未加权n=132,198)的汇总数据包括以下残疾类型:身体、认知、视觉、听力损失和多重残疾。我们检查了残疾亚组和无残疾组在接受流感疫苗、牙科检查和及时护理方面的差异;保险状态;通常护理来源(USOC);身心健康;和多重慢性疾病(MCC)。结果:残疾亚组在社会人口统计学上具有异质性,并且在健康状况(精神、身体和MCC)和医疗保健结果(流感疫苗、牙科检查、及时接受护理、USOC、保险状况)上与非残疾组存在差异。结论:研究结果表明,残疾亚群体之间以及与非残疾人相比,他们所经历的差异程度有所不同。在采取公共卫生措施时,应单独审查残疾分组,以便能够有效地调整公共卫生政策和方案,更好地满足所有人的需要。©2015加州健康促进杂志。版权所有。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Does Type of Disability Matter to Public Health Policy and Practice
Background: Surveillance has been insufficient to inform and evaluate public health practices for people with disabilities. No studies have investigated whether there is statistical justification for subdividing the large, heterogeneous group of people with disabilities into subpopulations, for surveillance. Methods: Pooled data from the Medical Expenditures Panel Survey (2004-2010, unweighted n=132,198) included the following disability types: physical, cognitive, visual, hearing loss, and multiple disabilities. We examined differences among the disability subgroups and the no disability group on receipt of flu shot, dental exam, and timely care; insurance status; usual source of care (USOC); mental and physical health; and multiple chronic conditions (MCC). Results: The disability subgroups were sociodemographically heterogeneous and differed from each other and the no disability group on health status (mental, physical, and MCC) and healthcare outcomes (flu shot, dental exam, timely receipt of care, USOC, insurance status). Conclusion: Findings demonstrate that disability subgroups differ in the magnitude of the disparities they experience compared to each other and to people without disabilities. Disability subgroups should be examined separately for public health measures to enable effective tailoring of public health policies and programs to better meet the needs for all people. © 2015 Californian Journal of Health Promotion. All rights reserved.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
26 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信