4.5 Article

Course of employment in adults with cerebral palsy over a 14-year period

期刊

DEVELOPMENTAL MEDICINE AND CHILD NEUROLOGY
卷 59, 期 7, 页码 762-768

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/dmcn.13423

关键词

-

资金

  1. Phelps Foundation for the Spastics [2014.016]
  2. Children's Fund Adriaanstichting (KFA) [14.05.08 - 2014/0112]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AimTo explore the course of employment in adults with cerebral palsy (CP) over 14 years, and to identify subgroups at risk for unemployment. MethodSixty-five adults with CP (33 males, 32 females; baseline age 25y 8mo, standard deviation [SD] 3y 2mo; intellectual impairment 25%; bilateral CP 65%) participated in a prospective cohort study. Self-reports of employment and work hours per week in 1996, 2000, and 2010 were documented. The course of employment (including sheltered work) and work hours per week were analysed, using generalized estimating equations (GEE). ResultsOverall, employment rate was stable over time (38-45%, p=0.413), but lower than in the general population (75-86%, p<0.001). Employment rates were specifically low in adults with intellectual impairment, bilateral CP, and in adults with Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) levels IV and V. Work hours per week declined (35.0 [SD 7.9] to 31.2 [SD 10.3], p=0.033), especially among females (32.3 [SD 6.4] to 23.4 [SD 7.4], p<0.001). Similar to the general population, females often worked part-time. InterpretationEmployment was low compared with the general population, but remained stable in the long term; however, work hours per week decreased. Adults with intellectual impairment, bilateral CP, and GMFCS levels IV and V are subgroups at risk for unemployment. What this paper adds Employment in adults with cerebral palsy is consistently lower compared with the general population. Up to age 45, employment remains stable over time. Weekly work hours decline over time, specifically in females. This article is commented on by Michelsen on pages 678-679 of this issue.

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

4.5
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