HP Logo

6

Disability and
Secondary Conditions

spacerspacerspacer

Co-Lead Agencies:

spacer

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, U.S. Department of Education

[Note: The Healthy People 2010 Information Access Project has provided direct PubMed search links available references in this chapter to make information and evidence-based strategies related to the chapter easier to find.]

Contents

GoalPage 6-3

Overview. Page 6-3

spacerIssues. Page 6-3

spacerTrends. Page 6-4

spacerDisparities. Page 6-5

spacerOpportunities. Page 6-6

Interim Progress Toward Year 2000 Objectives. Page 6-7

Healthy People 2010—Summary of Objectives. Page 6-8

Healthy People 2010 Objectives. Page 6-9

Related Objectives From Other Focus Areas. Page 6-22

Terminology. Page 6-25

References. Page 6-26



Goal

Promote the health of people with disabilities, prevent secondary conditions, and eliminate disparities between people with and without disabilities in the U.S. population.

Overview

Because disability status has been traditionally equated with health status, the health and well-being of people with disabilities has been addressed primarily in a medical care, rehabilitation, and long-term care financing context. Four main misconceptions emerge from this contextual approach: (1) all people with disabilities automatically have poor health, (2) public health should focus only on preventing disabling conditions, (3) a standard definition of “disability” or “people with disabilities” is not needed for public health purposes, and (4) the environment plays no role in the disabling process. These misconceptions have led to an underemphasis of health promotion and disease prevention activities targeting people with disabilities and an increase in the occurrence of secondary conditions (medical, social, emotional, family, or community problems that a person with a primary disabling condition likely experiences).

Issues

Challenging these misconceptions will help to clarify the health status of people with disabilities and address the environmental barriers that undermine their health, well-being, and participation in life activities. A broad array of health promotion activities are relevant to all people experiencing a disability, whether they are categorized by racial or ethnic group, gender, and primary conditions or diagnoses, such as major depression, cerebral palsy, diabetes, spinal cord injury, or fetal alcohol syndrome. The similarities among people with disabilities are as important as or more important than the differences among clinical diagnostic groups. Caregiver issues also have been considered, as well as environmental barriers. Environmental factors affect the health and well-being of people with disabilities in many ways. For example, weather can hamper wheelchair mobility, medical offices and equipment may not be accessible, and shelters or fitness centers may not be staffed or equipped for people with disabilities. Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) would help overcome some of these barriers. A crosscutting goal is to eliminate disparities with the nondisabled population.

The International Classification of Functioning and Disability (ICIDH-2), developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) with the input of numerous nations—including the United States—provides uniform language and a framework for describing functioning, health, and disability status among all people.[1] This framework clarifies definitional issues and includes environmental factors.

Trends

An estimated 54 million persons in the United States, or nearly 20 percent of the population, currently live with disabilities.[2] Data for the period 1970 to 1994 suggest that the proportion is increasing.[3] The increase in disability among all age groups indicates a growing need for public health programs serving people with disabilities.

From 1990 to 1994, disability rates increased among youth under age 18 years.3 There was a 33 percent increase in activity limitations among girls, from 4.2 percent to 5.6 percent, and a 40 percent increase in activity limitations among boys, from 5.6 percent to 7.9 percent.

Among adults aged 18 to 44 years, there was a 16 percent increase in activity limitations, from 8.8 percent in 1990 to 10.3 percent in 1994.3 This increase suggests that 3.1 million more people aged 18 to 44 years were limited in 1994 than in 1990.

The absolute number of adults aged 65 years and older with disabilities increased from 26.9 million in 1982 to 34.1 million in 1996.  Because the total number of adults aged 65 years and older increased even faster, the proportion of those with disabilities declined from 24.9 percent in 1982 to 21.3 percent in 1994.3 However, the rise in numbers indicates a growing need for programs and services to serve this older population.

The direct medical and indirect annual costs associated with disability are more than $300 billion, or 4 percent of the gross domestic product.[4] This total cost includes $160 billion in medical care expenditures (1994 dollars) and lost productivity costs approaching $155 billion.

The health promotion and disease prevention needs of people with disabilities are not nullified because they are born with an impairing condition or have experienced a disease or injury that has long-term consequences.[5] People with disabilities have increased health concerns and susceptibility to secondary conditions. Having a long-term condition increases the need for health promotion that can be medical, physical, social, emotional, or societal.

People who have activity limitations report having had more days of pain, depression, anxiety, and sleeplessness and fewer days of vitality during the previous month than people not reporting activity limitations.[6] Increased emotional distress, however, does not arise directly from the person’s limitations. The distress is likely to stem from encounters with environmental barriers that reduce the individual’s ability to participate in life activities and that undermine physical and emotional health. In view of the increased rates of disability among youth, it is particularly important to target activities and services that address all aspects of health and well-being, including promoting health, preventing secondary conditions, and removing environmental barriers, as well as providing access to medical care. For an older person with a disability, it is important to target worsening coexisting conditions that may intensify and thus threaten general well-being. For example, declining vision combined with declining hearing can greatly impair mobility, nutrition, and fitness.[7]

Disparities

Disability can be viewed as a universal phenomenon everyone experiences at some time.[8] Disability also can be viewed as representing a minority of the population, in that people with disabilities may be less visible, undercounted, and underserved.[9] As a potentially underserved group, people with disabilities would be expected to experience disadvantages in health and well-being compared with the general population. People with disabilities may experience lack of access to health services and medical care and may be considered at increased risk for various conditions.


Disability graph

Few data systems identify people with disabilities as a subpopulation. Disparities need to be identified to plan appropriate public health programs. Despite the paucity of data, some disparities between people with and without disabilities have been noted. These disparities include excess weight, reduced physical activity, increased stress, and less frequent mammograms for women over age 55 years with disabilities.[10]

Opportunities

Health promotion programs that focus on improving functioning across a spectrum of diagnoses and a range of age groups are effective in reducing secondary conditions and outpatient physician visits among people with disabilities.[11], [12], [13] For example, a focus on improving muscle tone, flexibility, and strength can accrue benefits for mobility-impaired people in wheelchairs and mobility-impaired people with arthritis.[14] For people with communication disabilities and disorders, interventions can improve access to health-enhancement programs. People with sight impairments can have access to readable job applications, food labels, and medications. People with hearing impairments can have access to televised or videotaped exercise programs that are captioned or signed by interpreters depicted within an inset of a video screen. Often, the most effective interventions may be environmental rather than medical.

Many health promotion interventions already in place for the population at large may be easily adapted to the needs of people with disabilities. New strategies can be influenced by results from studies that describe risk factors for secondary conditions or protective factors against additional impairments. For example, the number of cases of secondary osteoporosis among able-bodied women and their range of bone mineral density deficits can be estimated by using existing Federal data sets. The degree to which women exercise and ingest calcium or estrogen supplements also can be estimated, leading to measurements of the influence of both risk and protective factors associated with osteoporosis in the able-bodied population. Because women with mobility impairments experience an elevated risk for secondary osteoporosis at earlier ages, their risk factors, including diminished bone mineral density, and their potential protective factors, including optimal calcium or estrogen supplementation and types of exercise, become critically important epidemiologic parameters.[15], [16] The results of investigations of secondary osteoporosis already influence health promotion strategies among able-bodied women. Similar investigations can augment the development of health promotion strategies among women with disabilities.

Current guidelines provide opportunity to design health promotion interventions targeting people with disabilities that accommodate ongoing evidence-based evaluation[17] and demonstrate cost-effectiveness.[18], [19] For example, clinical interventions that focus on appropriate and timely medical care can be equally accessible for people with and without disabilities. Mammography screening is recommended every 1 to 2 years, with or without an annual clinical breast examination, for able-bodied women aged 50 to 69 years.[20] This recommendation also can be adapted for women with disabilities. Clinical providers, however, must first recognize the reasons women with disabilities often refrain from seeking mammography services, such as the lack of adaptive equipment on mammography screening machines or unfamiliarity with the needs of people with disabilities expressed by clinicians. Counseling to prevent injuries among all adults also is recommended. For example, men and women with disabilities, especially those with skeletal insufficiencies or calcium deficits, are at increased risk for fractures. Adding bone mineral screening and fitness counseling during clinical encounters may be beneficial in preventing injuries. In these ways, evidence-based health promotion and disease prevention programs can be developed, implemented, and evaluated to target the health and injury disparities between people with and without disabilities.

Health promotion interventions for people with disabilities—in the community, clinical settings, or elsewhere—should include culturally and linguistically appropriate elements.

Interim Progress Toward Year 2000 Objectives

Healthy People 2000 did not have a chapter specifically establishing health objectives for people with disabilities. However, some objectives targeted people with disabilities, including leisure-time physical activity, use of community support programs by people with severe mental disorders, treatment for depression, activity limitations associated with chronic conditions and back conditions, and receipt of recommended clinical preventive services. A progress review held in January 1997 showed that none of these specific objectives relevant to people with disabilities had been met,10 and parity with the nondisabled population will continue to be monitored.

People with disabilities reporting no leisure-time physical activity declined from the 1985 baseline of 35 percent to 29 percent in 1995, short of the target of 20 percent for 2000. In addition, the review noted several disparities: 40 percent of people with disabilities aged 20 years and older reported being overweight compared with 35 percent of the general population and short of the goal of 25 percent; 49 percent of people aged 18 years and older with disabilities reported adverse health effects from stress compared with 34 percent of the general population; and clinical preventive services showed disparities for data on tetanus boosters (56 percent versus 59 percent for the general population), Pap tests (69 percent versus 77 percent of women aged 18 years and over in 1994), and breast exams and mammograms (50 percent versus 56 percent for women aged 50 years and over).

Note: Unless otherwise noted, data are from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Healthy People 2000 Review, 1998–99.


Healthy People 2010—Summary of Objectives

Disability and Secondary Conditions

Goal: Promote the health of people with disabilities, prevent secondary conditions, and eliminate disparities between people with and without disabilities in the U.S. population.

Number

Objective Short Title

6-1

Standard definition of people with disabilities in data sets

6-2

Feelings and depression among children with disabilities

6-3

Feelings and depression interfering with activities among adults with disabilities

6-4

Social participation among adults with disabilities

6-5

Sufficient emotional support among adults with disabilities

6-6

Satisfaction with life among adults with disabilities

6-7

Congregate care of children and adults with disabilities

6-8

Employment parity

6-9

Inclusion of children and youth with disabilities in regular education
programs

6-10

Accessibility of health and wellness programs

6-11

Assistive devices and technology

6-12

Environmental barriers affecting participation in activities

6-13

Surveillance and health promotion programs

 


Healthy People 2010 Objectives

spacerspacerspacer

6-1.

spacer

Include in the core of all relevant Healthy People 2010 surveillance instruments a standardized set of questions that identify "people with disabilities."

Target: 100 percent.

Baseline: No Healthy People 2010 surveillance instruments include a standard set of questions that identify people with disabilities in 1999.

Target setting method: Total coverage.

Data source: CDC, NCEH.

The call for statistics on people with disabilities is longstanding and increasing. Various Federal agencies have attempted to collect these data in several research areas.[21] Two separate issues exist regarding data collection: (1) using different operational definitions of disability and (2) not collecting information from people with disabilities during surveys. None of the federally funded surveys attempting to collect data on people with disabilities is using the same definition of disability. This lack of standardization has made it difficult to (1) identify and include individuals with a disability, (2) measure the nature and extent of disability in the United States, (3) assess the impact of various disabilities on the person’s ability to participate in society, (4) assess the extent of secondary conditions among people with disabilities, and (5) identify environmental barriers to participation and risk factors for poor health in this population.

The issue of not including people with disabilities is reflected in the initial survey design. Most studies are not designed to include, target, and analyze data on people with disabilities. People with disabilities could be included as a select population if, for example, the data collection method ensured appropriate access and outreach.

To remedy these gaps, a set of survey questions has been developed and is being tested to identify individuals with varying degrees of disability in terms of activity limitations.[22] This short set of questions may be placed in the core of all Healthy People surveillance instruments that collect demographic data to include and standardize information on people with disabilities. On the basis of standardization and inclusion in the Nation’s disability data collection activities, the call for disability statistics may be satisfied. Once collected, these data will help government policymakers, consumers and advocates, researchers, and clinicians make better informed choices to promote the health status and well-being of people with disabilities.

spacerspacerspacer

6-2.

spacer

Reduce the proportion of children and adolescents with disabilities who are reported to be sad, unhappy, or depressed.

Target: 17 percent.

Baseline: 31 percent of children and adolescents aged 4 to 11 years with disabilities were reported to be sad, unhappy, or depressed in 1997.

Target setting method: 45 percent improvement (parity with children and adolescents without disabilities in 1997).

Data source: National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), CDC, NCHS.

Children and Adolescents Aged 4 to 11 Years, 1997

Reported To Be Sad,
Unhappy, or Depressed

With
Disabilities

Without
Disabilities*

Percent

TOTAL

31

17

Race and ethnicity

American Indian or Alaska Native

DSU

DSU

Asian or Pacific Islander

DSU

13

Asian

DSU

16

Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander

DSU

DSU

Black or African American

DSU

16

White

31

17

 

Hispanic or Latino

32

16

Not Hispanic or Latino

30

17

Black or African American

DSU

17

White

31

18

Gender

Female

32

16

Male

30

18

Family income level

Poor

37

20

Near Poor

31

17

Middle/high income

27

17

Geographic location

Urban

27

17

Rural

39

16

DNA = Data have not been analyzed. DNC = Data are not collected. DSU = Data are statistically unreliable.
*The total represents the target. Data for population groups by race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, and geographic location are displayed to further characterize the issue.

spacerspacerspacer

6-3.

spacer

Reduce the proportion of adults with disabilities who report feelings such as sadness, unhappiness, or depression that prevent them from being active.

Target: 7 percent.

Baseline: 28 percent of adults aged 18 years and older with disabilities reported feelings that prevented them from being active in 1997 (age adjusted to the year 2000 standard population).

Target setting method: 75 percent improvement (parity with adults aged 18 years and older without disabilities in 1997).

Data source: National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), CDC, NCHS.

Adults Aged 18 Years and Older, 1997

Reported Feelings That
Prevent Activity

With
Disabilities

Without
Disabilities*

Percent

TOTAL

28

7

Race and ethnicity

American Indian or Alaska Native

22

15

Asian or Pacific Islander

30

7

Asian

DSU

6

Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander

DSU

14

Black or African American

31

8

White

28

7

 

Hispanic or Latino

40

9

Not Hispanic or Latino

27

7

Black or African American

31

8

White

27

6

Gender

Female

30

8

Male

26

6

Family income level

Poor

38

13

Near Poor

30

10

Middle/high income

21

6

Education level (aged 25 years and older)

Less than high school

34

10

High school graduate

29

7

At least some college

25

5

Geographical location

Urban

29

7

Rural

26

6

DNA = Data have not been analyzed. DNC = Data are not collected. DSU = Data are statistically unreliable.
Note: Age adjusted to the year 2000 standard population.
*The total represents the target. Data for population groups by race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, and geographic location are displayed to further characterize the issue.

Children and adults with disabilities and their families face issues of coping, adapting, adjusting, and learning to live well with the disability—a dynamic, ongoing process. Good mental health, including refusing to internalize the social stigma of disability and developing a positive attitude and strong self-esteem, is a key ingredient to overcoming these issues.[23] Improving mental health status among people with disabilities and their families will help address psychological barriers and enhance their ability to participate fully in society.[24]


spacerspacerspacer

6-4.

spacer

Increase the proportion of adults with disabilities who participate in social activities.

Target: 100 percent.

Baseline: 95.4 percent of adults aged 18 years and older with disabilities participated in social activities in 1997 (age adjusted to the year 2000 standard population).

Target setting method: Total participation (parity with adults aged 18 years and older without disabilities in 1997).

Data source: National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), CDC, NCHS.

Adults Aged 18 Years and Older, 1997

Participation in Social Activity

With
Disabilities

Without
Disabilities*

Percent

TOTAL

95.4

100.0

Race and ethnicity

American Indian or Alaska
Native

87.4

100.0

Asian or Pacific Islander

99.6

100.0

Asian

99.5

100.0

Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander

100.0

100.0

Black or African American

95.0

99.8

White

95.6

100.0

 

Hispanic or Latino

93.9

100.0

Not Hispanic or Latino

95.5

100.0

Black or African American

95.0

99.8

White

95.7

100.0

Gender

Female

95.2

99.9

Male

95.7

100.0

Family income level

Poor

93.1

99.9

Near Poor

95.8

99.9

Middle/high income

96.5

100.0

Education level (aged 25 years and older)

Less than high school

94.1

99.9

High school graduate

94.8

99.9

At least some college

96.0

100.0

Geographic location

Urban

95.3

100.0

Rural

95.6

99.9

DNA = Data have not been analyzed. DNC = Data are not collected. DSU = Data are statistically unreliable.
Note: Age adjusted to the year 2000 standard population.
*The total represents the target. Data for population groups by race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, and geographic location are displayed to further characterize the issue.

People with disabilities report significantly lower levels of social participation compared with people without disabilities.[25] Participating in social activities routinely requires personal interaction with the environment, a component of life that is vital to the well-being of all humanity. ICIDH-2, the International Classification of Functioning and Disability, highlights the importance of participating in social activities as a measurable outcome of living well with a disability.1 The ICIDH-2 framework indicates that the environment should be examined as a barrier to participation.

Social participation can include activities such as volunteering, shopping, going to the movies, or attending sporting events. Targeting increased participation in regular social activities such as traveling, socializing with friends and family, attending church or community events, and voting can result in improved functional status and well-being.

spacerspacerspacer

6-5.

spacer

Increase the proportion of adults with disabilities reporting sufficient emotional support.

Target: 79 percent.

Baseline: 71 percent of adults aged 18 years and older with disabilities reported sufficient emotional support in 1998 (data from 11 States and the District of columbia; age adjusted to the year 2000 standard population).

Target setting method: 11 percent improvement (parity with adults aged 18 years and older without disabilities in 1998).

Data source: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), CDC, NCCDPHP.

Adults Aged 18 Years and Older, 1998

Reported Sufficient
Emotional Support*

With
Disabilities

Without
Disabilities
**

Percent

TOTAL

71

79

Race and ethnicity

American Indian or Alaska Native

56

72

Asian or Pacific Islander

49

66

Asian

DSU

DSU

Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander

DSU

DSU

Black or African American

53

68

White

74

82

 

Hispanic or Latino

44

68

Not Hispanic or Latino

72

80

Black or African American

DNA

DNA

White

DNA

DNA

Gender

Female

70

79

Male

70

78

Education level (aged 25 years and older)

Less than high school

58

70

High school graduate

74

76

At least some college

74

83

DNA = Data have not been analyzed. DNC = Data are not collected. DSU = Data are statistically unreliable.
Note: Age adjusted to the year 2000 standard population.
*Data are from 11 States and the District of Columbia.
**The total represents the target. Data for population groups by race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, and geographic location are displayed to further characterize the issue.

Emotional support often is derived from a person’s social support systems. Two hypotheses suggest that social support helps a person cope with stress and that supportive relationships are a protective factor in various life situations.[26] With the information gained by monitoring the personal perspective, the United States may better meet the needs of people with disabilities.

spacerspacerspacer

6-6.

spacer

Increase the proportion of adults with disabilities reporting satisfaction with life.

Target: 96 percent.

Baseline: 87 percent of adults aged 18 years and older with disabilities reported satisfaction with life in 1998 (data from 11 States and the District of Columbia; age adjusted to the year 2000 standard population).

Target setting method: 10 percent improvement (parity with adults without disabilities in 1998).

Data source: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), CDC, NCCDPHP.

Adults Aged 18 Years and Older, 1998

Reported Satisfaction
With Life*

With
Disabilities

Without
Disabilities
**

Percent

TOTAL

87

96

Race and ethnicity

American Indian or Alaska Native

78

92

Asian or Pacific Islander

78

98

Asian

DSU

DSU

Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander

DSU

DSU

Black or African American

83

92

White

88

96

 

Hispanic or Latino

80

93

Not Hispanic or Latino

87

96

Black or African American

DNA

DNA

White

DNA

DNA

Gender

Female

87

95

Male

86

96

Education level (aged 25 years and older)

Less than high school

84

94

High school graduate

87

95

At least some college

89

97

DNA = Data have not been analyzed. DNC = Data are not collected. DSU = Data are statistically unreliable.
Note: Age adjusted to the year 2000 standard population.
*Data are from 11 States and the District of Columbia.
**The total represents the target. Data for population groups by race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, and geographic location are displayed to further characterize the issue.

Satisfaction with life is associated with the more general term “quality of life,” which is a personal evaluation of one’s own position in numerous dimensions of life, including physical, emotional, social, spiritual, environmental support, and level of independence.[27] Monitoring the life satisfaction of people with disabilities, as well as that of the broader population, allows an opportunity to evaluate society’s progress in accommodating the needs of people with disabilities.

spacerspacerspacer

6-7.

spacer

Reduce the number of people with disabilities in congregate care facilities, consistent with permanency planning principles.

Target and baseline:

Objective

Reduction in People With
Disabilities in Congregate
Care Facilities

1997
Baseline

2010
Target

 

 

Number of Persons

6-7a.

Persons aged 22 years and older
in 16 or more bed congregate
facilities

93,362

46,681

6-7b.

Persons aged 21 years and under in congregate care facilities

24,300

0

Target setting method: 50 percent improvement for 6-7a; total elimination for 6-7b.

Data source: Survey of State Developmental Disabilities Directors, University of Minnesota.

Many people with activity limitations or cognitive impairments need ongoing and long-term assistance, yet some do not require institutional care.[28] From the 1970s through the 1990s, States began reducing the size of and closing State institutions that served people with mental retardation or developmental disabilities. This social, political, and economic movement resulted in a dramatic growth in the total number of individuals served in community residential settings—from 5,000 in 1960 to 255,117 in 1996.[29], [30] This movement, coupled with increases in life expectancy and an expanding elderly population, resulted in the development of several community-based and in-home assistance programs, such as home-delivered meals, hospice care, and homemaker and home-health services. The goal to increase home and community-based care will broaden health and lifestyle choices for people with disabilities and their families.[31]

Much of this expansion in community services is funded through the Medicaid Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) Waiver Program, a Federal-State partnership authorized in 1981 under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. Between 1990 and 1997, the HCBS Program demonstrated a 25.8 percent increase in benefits per person.30 Despite this dramatic growth to support home and community-based care, in 1993, only 11 percent of long-term Medicaid expenditures and 5.3 percent of total Medicaid expenditures went toward community-based care.[32] The other sources of support for community-based long-term care are Medicare, Title III of the Older Americans Act, and the Social Services Block Grant.32

spacerspacerspacer

6-8.

spacer

Eliminate disparities in employment rates between working-aged adults with and without disabilities.

Target: 82 percent.

Baseline: 52 percent of adults aged 21 through 64 years with disabilities were employed in 1994–95.

Target setting method: 58 percent improvement (parity with adults without disabilities in 1994–95).

Data source: Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), U.S. department of commerce, bureau of the census.

Adults Aged 21 through 64 Years, 1994–95

Employment of People With
Disabilities

Employment of People Without Disabilities*

Percent

TOTAL

52

82

Race and ethnicity

American Indian or Alaska Native

41

77

Asian or Pacific Islander

48

78

Asian

DNC

DNC

Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander

DNC

DNC

Black or African American

37

77

White

DNA

DNA

 

Hispanic or Latino

45

76

Not Hispanic or Latino

DNA

DNA

Black or African American

DNA

DNA

White

57

84

Gender

Female

46

75

Male

60

90

Education level

Less than high school

34

69

High school graduate

54

81

At least some college

63

83

DNA = Data have not been analyzed. DNC = Data are not collected. DSU = Data are statistically unreliable.
*The total represents the target. Data for population groups by race, ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status are displayed to further characterize the issue.

The ability to work has implications for economic and social self-sufficiency, for full inclusion and integration into society, and for personal self-esteem. Work and disability are understood best within the context of a person’s abilities and the role of accommodation, accessibility, and legal mandates. The Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults with Disabilities emphasized the need for a coordinated and aggressive national policy to address the many components of work and disability.[33] Changes in economic policies and benefits underscore the need to continue to examine and address the structural, social, and psychological deterrents to work for some persons with disabilities.

In 1994–95, employment rates varied depending on degree of disability. For persons aged 21 through 64 years with no disability, the rate was 82 percent, whereas those with a nonsevere disability had a rate of 77 percent, and those with a severe disability had a rate of 26 percent. Analyses of rates by gender indicate similar patterns.2 Moreover, employment patterns for persons with disabilities mirror general social patterns of employment rates for age, race, and ethnicity.[34] Education has a positive association with employment for all people, although the association is strongest for adolescents and adults with a “work disability.”

spacerspacerspacer

6-9.

spacer

Increase the proportion of children and youth with disabilities who spend at least 80 percent of their time in regular education programs.

Target: 60 percent.

Baseline: 45 percent of children and youth aged 6 to 21 years with disabilities spent at least 80 percent of their time in regular education programs in the 1995–96 school year.

Target setting method: 33 percent improvement. (Better than the best will be used when data are available.)

Data source: Data Analysis System (DANS), U.S. Department of Education, office of special education.



Data for population groups currently are not analyzed.



This objective aims to improve the well-being of students with disabilities by encouraging academic and learning opportunities and nonacademic social and emotional experiences that can facilitate normal growth and development, postsecondary educational attainment, independent living skills, and economic participation as adults. Serving students with disabilities in regular nonspecial education classrooms is a concern that cuts across the goals of many Federal agencies. The current target of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services is that 60 percent of children and youth with disabilities aged 6 through 21 years will be reported by the States as being served in the regular education classroom at least 80 percent of the time. In support of the target, the 1997 Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act states that “to the maximum extent appropriate, children and youth with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled.”[35]

spacerspacerspacer

6-10.

spacer

(Developmental) Increase the proportion of health and wellness and treatment programs and facilities that provide full access for people with disabilities.

Potential data source: National Independent Living Centers Network.

For people with disabilities to have the opportunity for healthy lives, both physically and emotionally, programs and facilities that offer wellness and treatment services must be fully accessible. Effective enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act can improve services for people with disabilities and help prevent secondary disabilities.

spacerspacerspacer

6-11.

spacer

(Developmental) Reduce the proportion of people with disabilities who report not having the assistive devices and technology needed.

Potential data source: National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), CDC, NCHS.

In 1990, a one-time survey showed that 2.5 million people said they needed assistive technology that they did not have.[36] The inability to pay for such technology was the main reason given for the unmet need. Assistive technology can be critical in the lives of people with disabilities; thus, technology need, availability, and use must be studied.[37] Technology can aid the independence and self-sufficiency of people with disabilities and can enable people to work, attend school, and participate in community life. Without assistive technology, people with disabilities may become dependent and isolated.

spacerspacerspacer

6-12.

spacer

(Developmental) Reduce the proportion of people with disabilities reporting environmental barriers to participation in home, school, work, or community activities.

Potential data source: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), CDC, NCCDPHP.

The focus on measuring the environmental impact on people with disabilities echoes the underlying theme of the disability rights movement and the ADA.[38] Both argue that the most important outcome for persons with disabilities—in fact, for all persons in the United States—is their full participation as active, involved, and productive members of society. Indeed, this participation is the implicit outcome for the overarching Healthy People goals to achieve a healthier life and eliminate disparities.

A special 1999 Colorado Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey showed that compared to 43 percent of people without disabilities, 55 percent of adults aged 18 years and older with disabilities reported encountering environmental barriers daily or weekly and/or barriers that were very problematic.[39] Similar data will be collected from several other States.

Full participation cannot be achieved without eliminating environmental barriers found within architectural structures, technology, organizational policies and practices, and social attitudes and without moving toward universal design and nondiscriminatory elements. Thus public health agencies need to measure not only the nature and extent of disability in the United States but also the extent to which environmental barriers and universal design elements impede or facilitate social participation.

spacerspacerspacer

6-13.

spacer

Increase the number of Tribes, States, and the District of Columbia that have public health surveillance and health promotion programs for people with disabilities and caregivers.

Target and baseline:

Objective

Increase in Public Health
Surveillance and Health Promotion Programs for People With
Disabilities and Caregivers

1999
Baseline

2010
Target

 

 

Number

6-13a.

States and the District of Columbia

14

51

6-13b.

Tribes

Developmental

Target setting method: Total coverage.

Data sources: Tribal, State, and District of Columbia reports; Office on Disability and Health, CDC.

The needs of people with disabilities and caregivers should be addressed by public health activities. In a telephone survey, 23 percent of all U.S. households included at least one caregiver.[40] While not all people with disabilities are dependent on the services of an unpaid (usually a family member) or paid caregiver, meeting the needs of those who benefit from personal assistance cannot be easily separated from the needs of people who provide assistance.[41] Whether caring for infants, children, or adults with disabilities or for the increasing number of people who become activity-limited as they grow older, the caregiver is an important health component.[42]

Related Objectives From Other Focus Areas

spacerspacer

1.

Access to Quality Health Services

spacer spacer spacer spacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer

2.

Arthritis, Osteoporosis, and Chronic Back Conditions

spacer spacer spacer spacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer

3.

Cancer

spacer spacer spacer spacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer

4.

Chronic Kidney Disease

spacer spacer spacer spacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer

5.

Diabetes

spacer spacer spacer spacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer

7.

Educational and Community-Based Programs

spacer spacer spacer spacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer

9.

Family Planning

spacer spacer spacer spacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer

12.

Heart Disease and Stroke

spacer spacer spacer spacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer

14.

Immunization and Infectious Diseases

spacer spacer spacer spacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer

16.

Maternal, Infant, and Child Health

spacer spacer spacer spacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer

17.

Medical Product Safety

spacer spacer spacer spacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer

18.

Mental Health and Mental Disorders

spacer spacer spacer spacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer

19.

Nutrition and Overweight

spacer spacer spacer spacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer

20.

Occupational Safety and Health

spacer spacer spacer spacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer

21.

Oral Health

spacer spacer spacer spacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer

22.

Physical Activity and Fitness

spacer spacer spacer spacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer

23.

Public Health Infrastructure

spacer spacer spacer spacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer

24.

Respiratory Diseases

spacer spacer spacer spacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer

27.

Tobacco Use

spacer spacer spacer spacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer

28.

Vision and Hearing

spacer spacer spacer spacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer
spacerspacer

Terminology

(A listing of abbreviations and acronyms used in this publication appears in Appendix H.)

Activity limitations: Problems in a persons performance of everyday functions such as communication, self-care, mobility, learning, and behavior.

Assistive devices and technology: Under the Assistive Technology Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-394), any item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquired commercially, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities.

Congregate care facilities: An out-of-home facility that provides housing for people with disabilities in which rotating staff members provide care16 or more beds when referring to adults and any number of beds when referring to children and youth under age 21 years. Congregate care excludes foster care, adoptive homes, residential schools, correctional facilities, and nursing facilities.30

Disability: The general term used to represent the interactions between individuals with a health condition and barriers in their environment.

Environmental factors: The policies, systems, social contexts, and physical barriers or facilitators that affect a persons participation in activities, including work, school, leisure, and community events.

Health promotion: Efforts to create healthy lifestyles and a healthy environment to prevent medical and other secondary conditions, such as teaching people how to address their health care needs and increasing opportunities to participate in usual life activities.

ICIDH-2: International Classification of Functioning and Disability, the World Health Organizations conceptual and coding framework for describing a persons functioning and disability associated with his or her health condition.

People with disabilities: People identified as having an activity limitation or who use assistance or who perceive themselves as having a disability.

Permanency planning: A planning process undertaken by public and private agencies on behalf of a child with developmental disabilities and their families with the explicit goal of securing a permanent living arrangement that enhances the childs growth and development.41

Secondary conditions: Medical, social, emotional, mental, family, or community problems that a person with a primary disabling condition likely experiences.

References


[1] World Health Organization (WHO). International Classification of Functioning and Disability (ICIDH-2): Beta-1 Draft for Field Trials. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO, 1997, 11-21, 206-215, 221-225.

[2] McNeil, J.M. Americans with disabilities 1994–95. Current Populations Report P7061:3-6, August 1997.

[3] National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. Trends in Disability Prevalence and Their Causes: Proceedings of the Fourth National Disability Statistics and Policy Forum, May 16, 1997, Washington, DC. San Francisco, CA: The Disability Statistics Rehabilitation Research and Training Center, 1998.

[4] Institute of Medicine. Enabling America: Assessing the Role of Rehabilitation Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1997, 2.

[5] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Healthy People 2000: National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives. Pub. No. (PHS) 91-50213. Washington, DC: HHS, Public Health Service (PHS), Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (ODPHP), 1991, 39-42.

[6] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Health-related quality of life and activity limitation—Eight states, 1995. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (47):134-140, 1998. PubMed; PMID 9498296

[7] Manton, K.; Corder, L.; and Stallard, E. Chronic Disability Trends in Elderly in United States Populations 1982–1994. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1997, 2593-2598.

[8] Zola, I. Disability statistics, what we count and what it tells us, a personal and political analysis. Journal of Disability Policy Studies 4(2):10-39, 1993.

[9] Hahn, H. The political implications of disability definitions and data. Journal of Disability Policy Studies 4(2):42-52, 1993.

[10] HHS. Healthy People 2000 Progress Review, People With Disabilities. Washington, DC: HHS, PHS, ODPHP, 1997, 1-3.

[11] Seekins, T.; White, G.; Ravesloot, C.; et al. Developing and evaluating community-based health promotion programs for people with disabilities. In: Secondary Conditions Among People With Disabilities: Current Research and Trends. Pacific Grove, CA: Brookes-Cole Publisher, in press.

[12] Lorig, K. A workplace health education program that reduces outpatient visits. Medical Care 9:1044-1054, 1995.  PubMed; PMID 4033235

[13] Research and Training Center on Rural Rehabilitation. Cost Containment Through Disability Prevention: Preliminary Results of a Health Promotion Workshop for People With Physical Disabilities. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, the Center, 1996.

[14] Lorig, K.; Lubeck, D.; Kraines, R.; et al. Outcomes of self-help education for patients with arthritis. Arthritis Rheumatism 28(6):680-685, 1985.  PubMed; PMID 4004977

[15] National Osteoporosis Foundation. Physician Guide to Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis. Washington, DC: the Foundation, 1998.

[16] Melnikova, N; Hough, J.; and Lollar, D. Osteoporosis among women with physical disabilities: Risk factors and protective factors. Paper presented at 126th Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association, Disability Forum Special Interest Group in Washington, DC, November 17, 1998.

[17] HHS. Healthy People in Healthy Communities: A Guide for Community Leaders. Washington, DC: HHS, PHS, Office of Public Health and Science (OPHS), ODPHP, 1998.

[18] HHS. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: Guide to Clinical Preventive Services. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: HHS, OPHS, ODPHP, 1995, Chapter V.

[19] HHS. Task Force on Community Preventive Services: Guide to Community Preventive Services. Washington, DC: HHS, in press.

[20] U.S. Public Health Service. Putting Prevention Into Practice: Clinicians Handbook of Preventive Services. 2nd ed. McLean, VA: International Medical Publishing, Inc., 1998, Chapter 36.

[21] National Council on Disability. Reorienting Disability Research: Letter to the United States President. Washington, DC: the Council, 1998, 1-17.

[22] Office on Disability and Health. 1999 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Disability Module. Atlanta, GA: CDC, 1999.

[23] Tuttle, D. Self Esteem and Adjusting With Blindness: The Process of Responding to Life Demands. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1984, 61, 145-158.

[24] Sowers, J., and Powers, L. Enhancing the participation and independence of students with severe and multiple disabilities in performing community activities. Mental Retardation 33(4):209-220, 1995.  PubMed; PMID 7565143

[25] Kaye, S. Is the status of people with disabilities improving? Disability Status Abstract (21):3-4, May 1998.

[26] Novack, T., and Gage, R. Assessment of family functioning and social support. In: Cushman, L., and Scherer, M., eds. Psychological Assessment in Medical Rehabilitation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1995, 286-297.

[27] Patrick, D. Rethinking prevention for people with disabilities part 1: A conceptual model for promoting health. American Journal of Health Promotion 11(4):25-260, 1997.  PubMed; PMID 10172932

[28] Swain, P. Helping disabled people: The users view. British Medical Journal 306(6883):990-992, 1993.  PubMed; PMID 8490483

[29] Braddock, D.; Hemp, R.; Parish, S.; et al. The State of the States in Developmental Disabilities. 5th ed. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation, 1998, 9-10.

[30] Prouty, R., and Lakin, K. Residential Services for Persons With Developmental Disabilities: Status and Trends Through 1997. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Research Training Center on Community Living, Institute on Community Integration, 1998, xii, 47, 53, 58, 60, 65-67, 76, 88, 101.

[31] Kane, R. Expanding the home care concept: Blurring distinctions among home care, institutional care and other long-term care facilities. Milbank Quarterly 73(2):161-186, 1995.  PubMed; PMID 7776944

[32] Hardwick, S.; Pack, J.; Donohoe, E.; et al. Across the States 1994: Profiles of Long-Term Care Systems. Washington, DC: American Association of Retired Persons, Center on Elderly People Living Alone, Public Policy Institute, 1994, 5-7.

[33] Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults with Disabilities. Recharting the Course: First Report. Washington, DC: the Task Force, 1998.

[34] Stoddard, S.; Jans, L.; Ripple, J.; et al. Chartbook on Work and Disabilities in the United States, 1998. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education (DoE), National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation, 1998.

[35] DoE. To Assure the Free Appropriate Public Education of All Children with Disabilities: Nineteenth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Section 618. Washington, DC: DoE, 1997.

[36] Laplante, M.; Hendershot, G.; and Moss, A. Assistive technology devices and home accessibility features: Prevalence, payment, need, and trends. In: Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics: No. 217. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 1992.

[37] National Council on Disability. Study on Financing of Assistive Technology Devices and Services for Individuals With Disabilities. Washington, DC: the Council, 1993.

[38] National Council on Disability. Equality of Opportunity: The Making of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Washington, DC: the Council, 1997, 9-21.

[39] Craig Hospital and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Craig Hospital Inventory of Environmental Factors. Short form (CHIEF SF). Colorado 1999 Behavioral Risk Surveillance System Disability Study. Englewood, CO: Craig Hospital, Denver, CO, and Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Survey Research Unit.

[40] National Alliance for Caregiving and the American Association of Retired Persons. Family Caregiving in the U.S.: Findings From a National Survey. Bethesda, MD: American Association of Retired Persons, Washington, DC, 1997, 8.

[41] Singer, G., and Irvin, L. Support for Caregiving Families: Enabling Positive Adaptation to Disability. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Company, 1989, 44.

[42] Pugliese, J.M.; Ingram, T.O.; and Edwards, G. Stability of Employment Status of Caregivers Who Have a Child With a Disability. Birmingham, AL: United Cerebral Palsy of Greater Birmingham, Inc., 1998.



Go to Healthy People 2010 Volume I Table of Contents

Go to main Table of Contents