Suppr超能文献

对BRFSS残疾问题的回答背后的具体残疾和限制类型有哪些?

What are the specific disability and limitation types underlying responses to the BRFSS disability questions?

作者信息

Mann Joshua, Balte Pallavi, Clarkson John, Nitcheva Daniela, Graham Catherine Leigh, McDermott Suzanne

机构信息

University of South Carolina, School of Medicine, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, 3209 Colonial Drive, Columbia, SC 29203, USA.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control - Division of Biostatistics, 2600 Bull Street, Columbia, SC 29201, USA.

出版信息

Disabil Health J. 2015 Jan;8(1):17-28. doi: 10.1016/j.dhjo.2014.06.007. Epub 2014 Jul 2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Researchers rely on resources such as BRFSS data to understand the health status of people with disability. However, the survey data rely on a limited definition of disability resulting in imprecise inferences about the nature of disability. Understanding how health varies among people with different types of disability is vital to tailoring interventions for improving health and eliminating disparities.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to utilize state added follow-up questions in the 2011 South Carolina BRFSS to describe the specific health conditions and limitations attributed to their disability and to compare health status across different types of disability.

METHODS

Participants reporting a disability were asked to name health condition(s) causing disability and describe their disability-related limitations. Descriptive statistics were calculated using weighted proportions. Logistic regression was used to model the associations of specific health conditions and limitations with the outcomes of self-rated general health and mental health status, controlling for demographic factors.

RESULTS

The 5 most commonly reported health condition categories were (weighted percentage): musculoskeletal (68.56%); pulmonary (10.41%); neurologic (8.48%); heart disease (8%) and mental health (7.31%). The 5 most commonly reported limitation categories were: mobility/balance limitations (46.29%); pain (23.22%); breathing problems (12.36%); general weakness/fatigue (9.57%) and limited lifting (8.24%). There was substantial variation in the degree of association between categories of conditions and limitations and the outcomes of self-rated physical and mental health.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers and practitioners should consider variability in the nature of disability when designing interventions to improve the health of people with a disability.

摘要

背景

研究人员依靠诸如行为危险因素监测系统(BRFSS)数据等资源来了解残疾人的健康状况。然而,该调查数据所依据的残疾定义有限,导致对残疾本质的推断不准确。了解不同类型残疾人的健康状况差异对于制定改善健康和消除差距的干预措施至关重要。

目的

本研究的目的是利用2011年南卡罗来纳州BRFSS中的州补充随访问题,描述因残疾导致的具体健康状况和限制,并比较不同类型残疾人群的健康状况。

方法

要求报告有残疾的参与者说出导致残疾的健康状况,并描述与残疾相关的限制。使用加权比例计算描述性统计数据。采用逻辑回归模型来分析特定健康状况和限制与自我评定的总体健康和心理健康状况结果之间的关联,并控制人口统计学因素。

结果

最常报告的5类健康状况为(加权百分比):肌肉骨骼疾病(68.56%);肺部疾病(10.41%);神经系统疾病(8.48%);心脏病(8%)和心理健康问题(7.31%)。最常报告的5类限制为:行动/平衡受限(46.29%);疼痛(23.22%);呼吸问题(12.36%);全身虚弱/疲劳(9.57%)和举重物受限(8.24%)。各类状况和限制与自我评定的身体和心理健康结果之间的关联程度存在很大差异。

结论

研究人员和从业者在设计改善残疾人健康的干预措施时,应考虑残疾本质的变异性。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验