4.4 Article

Levels of ability and functioning: using the WHODAS II in an Irish context

期刊

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION
卷 26, 期 9, 页码 506-517

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/0963828042000202257

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: During pilot implementation of the National Physical and Sensory Disability Database in the Republic of Ireland, data were collected that allowed activity limitations and participation restrictions experienced by adults with physical or sensory disability to be assessed. This research will explore the relationships between socio-demographic variables, causes of disability and the domains of ability and functioning of the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule II (i.e., understanding and communication, getting around, self-care, getting along with people, life activities and participation in society). Method: 1304 people with a physical/ sensory disability, less than 66 years of age and receiving or needing a specialised health and personal social service completed the WHODAS II. Results: 'Life Activities', 'Getting around' and 'Participation in Society' were the domains where there was greatest difficulty, as experienced by the complete sample. Females experienced greater difficulty in 'getting around' and 'life activities' than males. Furthermore, an increase in age was associated with an increase in the difficulty of getting around and undertaking life activities and less difficulty in getting along with people. There was also a significant difference in each domain on diagnostic category. Interestingly, a high level of difficulty in 'Participation in Society' was recorded for each of the diagnostic categories. Conclusions: Further research is required to explore the variability in levels of ability and functioning. This type of research could also be used as a baseline to measure changes over time. Finally, it is important not to become complacent about the ongoing efforts towards inclusiveness and greater participation.

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

4.4
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