Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (11)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kersten, P
Right arrow Articles by Mullee, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kersten, P
Right arrow Articles by Mullee, M.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Journal of Public Health Medicine 22:393-399 (2000)
© 2000 Faculty of Public Health Medicine of the Royal Colleges of Physicians of the United Kingdom

Disabled people and professionals differ in their perceptions of rehabilitation needs


P Kersten0,z
S George0
L McLellan0
JAE Smith1
MA Mullee2

0 School of Health Professions and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
2 Health Care Research Unit, University of Southampton, Mailpoint 805, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK
1 Southampton University Hospital Trust, Highcroft, Romsey Road, Winchester SO22 5DH, UK
z Corresponding author
E-mail: paula@soton.ac.uk

Background.This study set out to explore whether there are systematic differences in unmet needs for rehabilitation services and resources as identified by disabled people and nominated key professionals.

Method.A cross-sectional interview survey of 87 pairs of community-dwelling disabled people (aged 16-65) and their nominated key professionals was conducted in southern England. The Southampton Needs Assessment Questionnaire (SNAQ) was used to examine unmet needs and the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) Disability and Severity Scale to Examine level of disability.

Results.Eighty-seven pairs of disabled people and their nominated key professionals participated. People were severely disabled (median OPCS score 8; interquartile range 6-9). Disabled participants reported significantly more unmet needs than did professionals. There was zero concordance on identified unmet needs between disabled participants and professionals in 56 per cent of cases. Concordance between disabled participants and professionals was significantly better if the disabled participant had reported more unmet needs. There was a trend for general practitioners to be poorer at reporting disabled participants' needs than other professionals. There was fair agreement between disabled participants and professionals in five areas of unmet need only (in descending order): adaptations, physiotherapy, equipment, assistance with 'non-care' activities and the use of a day centre. In all the other areas of unmet need the agreement was poor.

Conclusion.Needs for rehabilitation services and resources (for disabled people) are perceived differently by disabled people and professionals. Until we know who is right about rehabilitation needs, it is important to determine both users' and providers' views when planning and commissioning services.

Keywords: rehabilitation needs, disabled people, professionals, Southampton Needs Assessment Questionnaire


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Neurol. Neurosurg. PsychiatryHome page
C A Young
Assessment of health needs in multidisciplinary care
J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, January 1, 2003; 74(1): 5 - 5.
[Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.