Suppr超能文献

比较功能障碍测量与自我认定残疾:对健康政策的启示。

Comparing Measures Of Functional Difficulty With Self-Identified Disability: Implications For Health Policy.

机构信息

Jean P. Hall (

Noelle K. Kurth, University of Kansas.

出版信息

Health Aff (Millwood). 2022 Oct;41(10):1433-1441. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2022.00395.

Abstract

The Affordable Care Act mandated data collection standards to identify people with disabilities in federal surveys to better understand and address health disparities within this population. Most federal surveys use six questions from the American Community Survey (ACS-6) to identify people with disabilities, whereas many international surveys use the six-item Washington Group Short Set (WG-SS). The National Survey on Health and Disability (NSHD), which focuses on working-age adults ages 18-64, uses both question sets and contains other disability questions. We compared ACS-6 and WG-SS responses with self-reported disability types. The ACS-6 and WG-SS failed to identify 20 percent and 43 percent, respectively, of respondents who reported disabilities in response to other NSHD questions (a broader WG-SS version missed 4.4 percent of respondents). The ACS-6 and the WG-SS performed especially poorly in capturing respondents with psychiatric disabilities or chronic health conditions. Researchers and policy makers must augment or strengthen federal disability questions to improve the accuracy of disability prevalence counts, understanding of health disparities, and planning of appropriate services for a diverse and growing population.

摘要

平价医疗法案要求数据收集标准,以在联邦调查中确定残疾人士,从而更好地了解和解决这一人群中的健康差异问题。大多数联邦调查使用美国社区调查中的六个问题(ACS-6)来识别残疾人士,而许多国际调查则使用六项目华盛顿小组短集(WG-SS)。专注于 18-64 岁工作年龄成年人的国家健康和残疾调查(NSHD)同时使用这两套问题集,并包含其他残疾问题。我们将 ACS-6 和 WG-SS 的回答与自我报告的残疾类型进行了比较。ACS-6 和 WG-SS 分别未能识别出 20%和 43%的在其他 NSHD 问题中报告有残疾的受访者(一个更广泛的 WG-SS 版本则遗漏了 4.4%的受访者)。ACS-6 和 WG-SS 在捕捉有精神残疾或慢性健康状况的受访者方面表现尤其不佳。研究人员和政策制定者必须补充或加强联邦残疾问题,以提高残疾流行率计数的准确性、对健康差异的理解以及为多样化和不断增长的人口规划适当的服务。

相似文献

3
Comparative performance of disability measures.残疾评定指标的比较性能
PLoS One. 2025 Jan 31;20(1):e0318745. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0318745. eCollection 2025.
8
An evaluation of the American Community Survey indicators of disability.残疾美国社区调查指标评估。
Disabil Health J. 2017 Oct;10(4):485-491. doi: 10.1016/j.dhjo.2017.03.002. Epub 2017 Mar 15.

引用本文的文献

7
Comparative performance of disability measures.残疾评定指标的比较性能
PLoS One. 2025 Jan 31;20(1):e0318745. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0318745. eCollection 2025.

本文引用的文献

5
Defining long COVID: Going back to the start.定义长新冠:追溯起源。
Med. 2021 May 14;2(5):501-504. doi: 10.1016/j.medj.2021.03.003. Epub 2021 Mar 25.
6
Evaluating MTurk as a recruitment tool for rural people with disabilities.评估 MTurk 作为一种招募农村残疾人的工具。
Disabil Health J. 2021 Jan;14(1):100991. doi: 10.1016/j.dhjo.2020.100991. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
7
Health status changes with transitory disability over time.健康状况随时间推移的短暂性残疾而变化。
Soc Sci Med. 2020 Jan;244:112647. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112647. Epub 2019 Oct 31.

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