<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Owen, Randall</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bowers, A</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Heller, Tamar</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Unmet Needs and Health Services Appraisal: The Role of Disability Type and Service Delivery Approach.</style></title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2014</style></year></dates><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Poster presented at the American Public Health Association’s Annual Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana</style></pub-location><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background:&lt;/strong&gt; This study examines unmet needs for and appraisal of health services for people with disabilities in Medicaid receiving managed care (MC) versus fee-for-service (FFS) service delivery approaches by disability type.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods:&lt;/strong&gt;&amp;nbsp; The study uses survey data from 817 individuals receiving Medicaid in a Midwestern state. The disability type splits people into groups corresponding to their Medicaid waiver: intellectual/developmental (IDD, 193 respondents), physical (PD, 279), and mental health (MH, 198) disabilities and a group who don&amp;rsquo;t fit those groups (Other, 143). The delivery approach identifies people as receiving MC or FFS. &amp;nbsp;The survey measures health care appraisal and total unmet needs. A two-way ANOVA for those two outcomes with disability type and delivery approach as independent variables was followed by regressions including age, gender, race, disability, and delivery approach as independent variables.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results:&lt;/strong&gt; Both health appraisal and unmet needs are significantly related to disability group but not with delivery approach. For unmet needs, other (1.59) and PD (2.19) have significantly (p&amp;lt;.05) fewer unmet needs than MH (3.16) and IDD (3.37). However, for health appraisal, only the other group had significantly (p&amp;lt;.05) higher ratings than ID or MH. Results of regression analyses show that unmet needs is negatively related (p&amp;gt;.01) to health appraisal and unmet needs is higher for people with physical and mental health disabilities (p&amp;lt;.01) than for people without those conditions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;: Unmet needs are important for health plans (MC or FFS) to address. These results specify for which disability types unmet needs are highest so healthcare providers can address them.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Victorson, David</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Manly, Jennifer</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Wallner-Allen, Kathleen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Fox, Nathan</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Purnell, Christy</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hendrie, Hugh</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Havlik, Richard</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Harniss, Mark</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Magasi, Susan</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Correia, Helena</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gershon, Richard</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Using the NIH Toolbox in special populations: considerations for assessment of pediatric, geriatric, culturally diverse, non-English-speaking, and disabled individuals.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Neurology</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cultural Diversity</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Culture</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Disabled Persons</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Geriatrics</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Humans</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Language</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">National Institutes of Health (U.S.)</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pediatrics</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">United States</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013 Mar 12</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">80</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">S13-9</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;BACKGROUND: In order to develop health outcomes measures that are relevant and applicable to the general population, it is essential to consider the needs and requirements of special subgroups, such as the young, elderly, disabled, and people of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds, within that population. METHODS: The NIH Toolbox project convened several working groups to address assessment issues for the following subgroups: pediatric, geriatric, cultural, non-English-speaking, and disabled. Each group reviewed all NIH Toolbox instruments in their entirety. RESULTS: Each working group provided recommendations to the scientific study teams regarding instrument content, presentation, and administration. When feasible and appropriate, instruments and administration procedures have been modified in accordance with these recommendations. CONCLUSION: Health outcome measurement can benefit from expert input regarding assessment considerations for special subgroups.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">11 Suppl 3</style></issue></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Matsuda, Patricia Noritake</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Shumway-Cook, Anne</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ciol, Marcia A</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bombardier, Charles H</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kartin, Deborah A</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Understanding falls in multiple sclerosis: association of mobility status, concerns about falling, and accumulated impairments.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Physical therapy</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Phys Ther</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Accidental Falls</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Accidents, Home</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Adult</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Chi-Square Distribution</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cross-Sectional Studies</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Fear</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Female</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Humans</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Male</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mobility Limitation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Multiple Sclerosis</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Questionnaires</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Risk Factors</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Self-Help Devices</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012 Mar</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">92</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">407-15</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;BACKGROUND: Falls in people with multiple sclerosis (MS) are a serious health concern, and the percentage of people who restrict their activity because of concerns about falling (CAF) is not known. Mobility function and accumulated impairments are associated with fall risk in older adults but not in people with stroke and have not been studied in people with MS. OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were: (1) to estimate the percentage of people who have MS and report falling, CAF, and activity restrictions related to CAF; (2) to examine associations of these factors with fall status; and (3) to explore associations of fall status with mobility function and number of accumulated impairments. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey was conducted. METHODS: A total of 575 community-dwelling people with MS provided information about sociodemographics, falls, CAF, activity restrictions related to CAF, mobility function, and accumulated impairments. Chi-square statistics were used to explore associations among these factors. RESULTS: In all participants, about 62% reported CAF and about 67% reported activity restrictions related to CAF. In participants who did not experience falls, 25.9% reported CAF and 27.7% reported activity restrictions related to CAF. Mobility function was associated with fall status; participants reporting moderate mobility restrictions reported the highest percentage of falls, and participants who were nonwalkers (ie, had severely limited self-mobility) reported the lowest percentage. Falls were associated with accumulated impairments; the participants who reported the highest percentage of 2 or more falls were those with 10 impairments. LIMITATIONS: This cross-sectional study relied on self-reported falls, mobility, and impairment status, which were not objectively verified. CONCLUSIONS: Both CAF and activity restrictions related to CAF were common in people with MS and were reported by people who experienced falls and those who did not. The association of fall status with mobility function did not appear to be linear. Fall risk increased with declining mobility function; however, at a certain threshold, further declines in mobility function were associated with fewer falls, possibly because of reduced fall risk exposure.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></issue><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22135709?dopt=Abstract</style></custom1></record></records></xml>