Search

Abstract Background People with serious mental illness (SMI) and people with intellectual disabilities/developmental disabilities (ID/DD) are at higher risk for COVID-19 and more severe outcomes. We compare a tailored versus general best practice COVID-19 prevention program in group homes (GHs) for people with SMI or ID/DD in Massachusetts (MA). Methods A hybrid effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized control trial compared a four-component implementation strategy (Tailored Best Practices: TBP) to dissemination of standard prevention guidelines (General Best-Practices: GBP) in GHs across six MA behavioral health agencies. GBP consisted of standard best practices for preventing COVID-19. TBP included GBP plus four components including: (1) trusted-messenger peer testimonials on benefits of vaccination; (2) motivational interviewing; (3) interactive education on preventive practices; and (4) fidelity feedback dashboards for GHs. Primary implementation outcomes were full COVID-19 vaccination rates (baseline: 1/1/2021–3/31/2021) and fidelity scores (baseline: 5/1/21–7/30/21), at 3-month intervals to 15-month follow-up until October 2022. The primary effectiveness outcome was COVID-19 infection (baseline: 1/1/2021–3/31/2021), measured every 3 months to 15-month follow-up. Cumulative incidence of vaccinations were estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves. Cox frailty models evaluate differences in vaccination uptake and secondary outcomes. Linear mixed models (LMMs) and Poisson generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) were used to evaluate differences in fidelity scores and incidence of COVID-19 infections. Results GHs (n=415) were randomized to TBP (n=208) and GBP (n=207) including 3,836 residents (1,041 ID/DD; 2,795 SMI) and 5,538 staff. No differences were found in fidelity scores or COVID-19 incidence rates between TBP and GBP, however TBP had greater acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. No overall differences in vaccination rates were found between TBP and GBP. However, among unvaccinated group home residents with mental disabilities, non-White residents achieved full vaccination status at double the rate for TBP (28.6%) compared to GBP (14.4%) at 15 months. Additionally, the impact of TBP on vaccine uptake was over two-times greater for non-White residents compared to non-Hispanic White residents (ratio of HR for TBP between non-White and non-Hispanic White: 2.28, p = 0.03). Conclusion Tailored COVID-19 prevention strategies are beneficial as a feasible and acceptable implementation strategy with the potential to reduce disparities in vaccine acceptance among the subgroup of non-White individuals with mental disabilities. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04726371, 27/01/2021. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04726371 .

Iezzoni LI: Risk adjusting rehabilitation outcomes: An overview of methodologic issues. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2004;83:316'''326.The complexity and mix of rehabilitation patients varies across clinicians and institutions. Comparisons of outcomes across providers must therefore adjust for differences in risk factors across patient populations. Research on risk adjustment has generally focused on acute care hospital outcomes, although techniques for risk adjusting financial outcomes are fairly well developed in rehabilitation, primarily to support Medicare and other prospective payment systems. This article reviews important methodologic issues in risk adjusting rehabilitation outcomes in observational studies of routine clinical practice or for management, such as assessing quality or costs of care. Risk adjusting rehabilitation outcomes is more difficult than risk adjusting other clinical results, such as outcomes of many acute care services. At the outset, characterizing rehabilitation interventions is frequently difficult. Furthermore, outcomes are diverse and depend on myriad factors, including patients''' physical and cognitive abilities, underlying medical diseases, sensory and emotional factors, willingness to participate in care, and supportive environments. No risk-adjustment approach can control for every factor affecting outcomes of care. Knowing which risk factors are missing helps guide interpretation of the results and determines how well risk-adjusted outcomes fairly compare providers or treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many studies have reported large variations in age- and sex-adjusted rates of hospitalizations across small geographic areas. These variations have often been attributed to differences in medical practice style which are not reflected in differences in health care outcomes. There is, however, another potentially important source of variation that has not been examined much in the literature: geographic differences in the age–sex adjusted size of the pool of patients who present with the disease and are candidates for hospitalization. Previous studies of small area variations in hospitalization rates have only used data on hospitalizations. Thus, it has not been possible to distinguish the extent to which differences in hospitalization rates are due to (i) differences in the chance that patients diagnosed with a disease are admitted to a hospital, which we refer to as the ‘practice style effect,’ versus (ii) geographic differences in the total amount of diagnosed disease, which we refer to as the ‘disease effect.’ Elementary methods for estimating the relative strength of the two effects directly from the data can be misleading, since equal amounts of variability in each effect result in unequal impacts on hospitalization rates. In this paper we describe a model-based approach for estimating the relative importance of the practice style effect and the disease effect in explaining variations in hospitalization rates. The key to our approach is the use of data on both inpatient and outpatient visits. We use 1997 Medicare data for two respiratory medical conditions across 71 small areas in Massachusetts: chronic bronchitis and emphysema, and bacterial pneumonia. Based on a Poisson model for the process generating hospitalizations and outpatient visits, we use a Bayesian framework and Gibbs sampling to compute and compare the correlation between the number of people hospitalized and each of these two sources of variation. Our results show that for the two conditions, disease rate variation explains at least as much of the variation in hospitalization rates as does practice style variation. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

IntroductionPeople with disabilities are underrepresented in higher education, facing systematic obstacles such as inaccessible communication and physical environments and difficulties obtaining accommodations. This study aims to shed light on barriers to accessibility and disability inclusion in research institutions through confidential qualitative interviews with researchers with disabilities.MethodsWe recruited participants via virtual flyers. Eligibility criteria included working in the United States (U.S.) as researchers that had applied for grant funding (last five years), and self-identifying as having a disability. We offered participants (total n = 35) the option of either semi-structured one-on-one live or written interviews based on their preference. Two study team members analyzed written and live responses using thematic analysis to identify themes.ResultsThemes included identity/visibility, career trajectories, accessibility, accommodations, bias, representation, and inclusion. Some participants reported not disclosing their disabilities at work or during hiring processes due to fear of negative perceptions from peers or potential employers. Experiences around stigma and bias were noted both in professional relationships and when interacting with disability service offices, underscoring difficulties and delays in processes to secure accommodations. Respondents highlighted the lack of disability inclusion and low representation of people with disabilities in academia and elevated the importance of self-advocacy and of role models and mentors in shaping career pathways for future researchers with disabilities.ConclusionResearchers with disabilities encounter systematic barriers at academic institutions, and lack of acknowledgement and research on these experiences has held back institutional and policy changes. To reduce disparities for researchers with disabilities, academic leadership must allocate resources to address ableism, create more inclusive environments, and raise standards beyond compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Between 1% and 2% of the U.S. population has an intellectual disability (ID) and often experience disparities in health care. Communication patterns and sedation use for routine medical procedures are important aspects of care for this population. We explored physicians' communication patterns and sedation use in caring for patients with significant levels of ID through a mailed survey of 1,400 physicians among seven specialties in outpatient settings (response rate = 61.0%). Among physicians who saw at least one patient with significant levels of ID in an average month, 74.8% reported usually/always communicating primarily with someone other than the patient. Among specialists, 85.5% (95% CI: 80.5%-90.5%) reported doing so, compared to 69.9% (95% CI: 64.4%-75.4%) for primary care physicians (p < 0.001). Also, 11.4% reported sedating at least one patient with significant levels of ID for a routine procedure. Three quarters of physicians reported communicating primarily with persons other than the patient usually or always-an approach that, in some instances, may not align with best medical practice. The percentage of physicians who report sedating at least one individual is associated with significant ID and the physician's volume of patients with significant ID., (©AAIDD.)

People with disabilities face barriers when attempting to gain access to health care settings. Using qualitative analysis of three physician focus groups, we identified physical, communication, knowledge, structural, and attitudinal barriers to care for people with disabilities. Physicians reported feeling overwhelmed by the demands of practicing medicine in general and the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 specifically; in particular, they felt that they were inadequately reimbursed for accommodations. Some physicians reported that because of these concerns, they attempted to discharge people with disabilities from their practices. Increasing health care access for people with disabilities will require increasing the accessibility of space and the availability of proper equipment, improving the education of clinicians about the care of people with disabilities, and removing structural barriers in the health care delivery system. Our findings also suggest that physicians' bias and general reluctance to care for people with disabilities play a role in perpetuating the health care disparities they experience.

Pandemic-related disruptions in access to medical care services, along with elevated rates of comorbidity, increase the risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19 for people with disabilities. Analyzing data from the 2020 National Health Interview Survey, we examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on adults' access to medical care services by presence and type of disability. Adults with disabilities, including in each disability category, experienced significant disparities in delayed and unmet need for medical care during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Improving data collection on disabled Americans according to disability status and type of disability, designating people with disabilities as a Special Medically Underserved Population under the Public Health Services Act, and incorporating standardized disability data in electronic health record systems would inform policies, programs, and interventions to achieve equitable access to high-quality medical care services that meet the needs of all people with disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

For almost fifty years, federal civil rights laws such as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 and the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, and Section 1557 and other provisions of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act have prohibited discrimination against Americans with disabilities, including in health care. Despite these laws, disabled Americans continue to experience disparities in health and health care, from preventive care to home and community-based services. In its 2022 Health Equity Framework for People with Disabilities, the National Council on Disability highlighted some of these disparities and recommended remedies. To explore these concerns, this article examines disability inequities and potential solutions within six areas. It concludes by recommending the ratification of the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to reinvigorate US efforts to maximize the health and dignity of disabled Americans and support their full participation in the community.

More than thirty years since the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), people with disability continue to experience health care disparities. The ADA mandates that patients with disability receive reasonable accommodations. In our survey of 714 US physicians in outpatient practices, 35.8 percent reported knowing little or nothing about their legal responsibilities under the ADA, 71.2 percent answered incorrectly about who determines reasonable accommodations, 20.5 percent did not correctly identify who pays for these accommodations, and 68.4 felt that they were at risk for ADA lawsuits. Physicians who felt that lack of formal education or training was a moderate or large barrier to caring for patients with disability were more likely to report little or no knowledge of their responsibilities under the law and were more likely to believe that they were at risk for an ADA lawsuit. To achieve equitable care and social justice for patients with disability, considerable improvements are needed to educate physicians and make health care delivery systems more accessible and accommodating.

More than sixty-one million Americans have disabilities, and increasing evidence documents that they experience health care disparities. Although many factors likely contribute to these disparities, one little-studied but potential cause involves physicians' perceptions of people with disability. In our survey of 714 practicing US physicians nationwide, 82.4 percent reported that people with significant disability have worse quality of life than nondisabled people. Only 40.7 percent of physicians were very confident about their ability to provide the same quality of care to patients with disability, just 56.5 percent strongly agreed that they welcomed patients with disability into their practices, and 18.1 percent strongly agreed that the health care system often treats these patients unfairly. More than thirty years after the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 was enacted, these findings about physicians' perceptions of this population raise questions about ensuring equitable care to people with disability. Potentially biased views among physicians could contribute to persistent health care disparities affecting people with disability.

A person with primary progressive multiple sclerosis manages a complex scheme of personal assistance services to remain living at home.

Americans generally want to remain in their homes even if they develop chronic health problems or disabilities that qualify them for nursing home care. While family members or friends provide the preponderance of home-based support, millions of Americans use paid personal assistance services (PAS). Inexorable demographic trends are increasing the numbers of people who need paid home-based PAS, with this need rapidly outstripping the capacity of the paid PAS workforce. While many factors contribute to this widening discrepancy, its roots reach back more than eighty years to asynchrony among various policies affecting home-based supports for people with functional impairments and policies affecting home-based PAS workers. Finding solutions to the growing gap between demand for the services and the PAS workforce requires policies that cut across societal sectors and align incentives for consumers, workers, and other key stakeholders.

Disability civil rights laws require equitable treatment of the approximately sixty-one million Americans with disability. However, federal reports and numerous research studies indicate that this diverse and growing population often experiences health care disparities. To examine one possible contributing factor, we interviewed practicing physicians to explore their knowledge of their obligations to accommodate patients with disability under federal civil rights law. Interviewees reported having had little formal training about, and demonstrated superficial or incorrect understanding of, their obligations in three potentially problematic areas: deciding which accommodations their practices should implement, refusing patients with disability, and holding patients accountable for costs of accommodations. The fact that practicing physicians might not fully understand their legal responsibilities when caring for people with disability may contribute to persisting inequity in their care, and it suggests that further education in the Americans with Disabilities Act and other disability civil rights laws may be warranted.

Objective: This study describes how women with physical disability experience caregiving for a new infant and how they adapt their home environment and care tasks., Method: In 2013, we conducted 2-hr telephone interviews with 22 women with significant physical disability who had delivered babies within the previous 10 yr. The semistructured, open-ended interview protocol addressed wide-ranging pregnancy-related topics. NVivo was used to sort the texts for content analysis., Results: Night care, bathing, and carrying the baby were identified as the biggest challenges. Typical adaptations (with and without occupational therapy consultation) included use of a wrap for carrying the infant, furniture adaptations for mothers using wheelchairs, and assistance from caregivers., Conclusion: Women with physical disability can be fully capable of caring for an infant and can find ways to adapt their environment. Further research may determine the role of occupation therapy., (Copyright © 2016 by the American Occupational Therapy Association, Inc.)