4.1 Article

Determinants of Utilization of Health Services Provided for Children with Cerebral Palsy in Jordan

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10882-018-9629-6

关键词

Utilization of service; Cerebral palsy; Jordan; Anderson model; Satisfaction; Children

资金

  1. Deanship of Scientific Research-The University of Jordan Amman-Jordan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Enhancing services utilization for children with cerebral palsy is a national priority particularly in middle and low income countries. Based on Andersen's (1995) Behavioral Model of Health Services Use and previous research findings, a conceptual model was developed to identify child, family, and service determinants of utilization of services by children with cerebral palsy in Jordan. 1 hundred and 16 families of children with cerebral palsy agreed to participate in the study. Children were 4.6 +/- 4.3years of age. The most common types of cerebral palsy were spastic quadriplegia followed by spastic diplegia. Data were collected in 2 sessions. Physiotherapists' research assistants administered the Gross Motor Classification System, the Gross Motor Function Measure-66-Item Set Version, Child Information Questionnaire, the Family Support Scale, the Family Resources Scale, Family Information Questionnaire, Services Questionnaire, and the Measure of Processes of Care-20 Item Version. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis by blocks was used to determine the predictors of the utilization of services. The model explained 57.5% of the variance in access to services. Satisfaction with services was the most influential determinant of utilization of services followed by family resources, child needs for services, associated health problems, father employment, and processes of care. Professionals and policy makers are encouraged to attend to parents' satisfaction with services, processes of care, and family resources as key indicators of improving access and utilization of services by families of children with cerebral palsy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据