Mobility problems and perceptions of disability by self-respondents and proxy respondents

Medical Care

Volumn 38, Issue 10, 2000, Pages 1051-1057

  Iezzoni, Lisa I ^a,b   McCarthy, Ellen P ^a   Davis, Roger B ^a   Siebens, Hiliary ^a  

^a HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Disability; Impairment; Mobility; Proxy respondents

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DISABLED PERSON; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; LOCOMOTION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; SELF CONCEPT; SOCIOECONOMICS; UNITED STATES; WHEELCHAIR;

ADULT; AGED; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DISABLED PERSONS; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEYS; HUMANS; LOCOMOTION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; SELF CONCEPT; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; UNITED STATES; WHEELCHAIRS;

EID: 0034296942     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200010000-00009     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Pope AM, Tarlov AR. Disability in America: Toward a national agenda for prevention. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, Institute of Medicine; 1991.
2. Brandt EN Jr, Pope AM, eds. Enabling America: Assessing the role of rehabilitation sciences and engineering. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine; 1997.
3. ICIDH-2: International classification of impairments, activities and participation: A manual of dimensions of disablement and functioning. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1997. Beta-1 draft for field testing.
4. Jette AM, Badley E. Conceptual issues in the measurement of work disability. In: Mathiowetz N, Wunderlich GS, eds. Survey measurement of work disability: Summary of a workshop. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000:4-27.
5. Oliver M. Understanding disability: From theory to practice. New York, NY: St Martin's Press; 1996.
6. Stone DA. The disabled state. Philadelphia, Pa: Temple University Press; 1984.
7. Adams PF, Marano MA. Current estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 1994. Atlanta, Ga: National Center for Health Statistics; 1995. Vital Health Stat 10 (193).
8. Data collection survey instruments questionnaires for 1994 National Health Interview Survey supplement booklet, disability phase I, and 1995 National Health Interview Survey supplement booklet: Disability phase I. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/ major/nhis_dis/nhis_dis.htm.
9. Joyce BM, Kirby RL. Canes, crutches and walkers. Am Fam Physician 1991;43:535-542.
10. Ragnarsson KT. Lower extremity orthotics, shoes, and gait aids. In: DeLisa JA, Gans BM, eds. Rehabilitation medicine: Principles and practice. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott-Raven Publishers; 1998:651-667.
11. Karp G. Life on wheels: For the active wheelchair user. Sebastpol, Calif: O'Reilley & Associates; 1999.
12. Warren CG. Powered mobility and its implications. J Rehabil Res Dev 1990;2(clin suppl):74-85.
13. Alexander NB. Gait disorders in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 1996;44:434-451.
14. Freedman VA, Martin LG. Understanding trends in functional limitations among older Americans. Am J Public Health 1998;88:1457-1462.
15. Shapiro JP. No pity: people with disabilities forging a new civil rights movement. New York, NY: Times Books; 1994.
16. Young JM. Equality of opportunity: The making of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Washington, DC: National Council on Disability; 1997.
17. Epstein AM, Hall JA, Tognetti J, et al. Using proxies to evaluate quality of life: Can they provide valid information about patients' health status and satisfaction with medical care? Med Care 1989;27(suppl 3):S91-S98.
18. Zola IK. Missing pieces: A chronicle of living with a disability. Philadelphia, Pa: Temple University Press; 1982:202.
19. Iezzoni LI, McCarthy EP, Davis RB, et al. Mobility impairments and use of screening and preventive services. Am J Public Health 2000;90:953-961.
20. Briscoe ME. Proxy responses in health surveys: A methodological issue. Sociol Health Illn 1984;6:359-365.
21. Berk ML, Horgan CM, Meyers SM. The reporting of stigmatizing health conditions: A comparison of proxy and self-reports. J Econ Soc Meas 1986;14:197-205.
22. Branch LG, Meyers AR. Assessing physical function in the elderly. Clin Geriatr Med 1987;3:29-51.
23. Magaziner J, Simonsick EM, Kashner TM, et al. Patient-proxy response comparability on measures of patient health and functional status. J Clin Epidemiol 1988;41:1065-1074.
24. Rothman ML, Hedrick SC, Bulcroft KA, et al. The validity of proxy-generated scores as measures of patient health status. Med Care 1991;29:115-124.
25. Dorevitch MI, Cossar RM, Bailey FJ, et al. The accuracy of self and informant rating of physical functional capacity in the elderly. J Clin Epidemiol 1992;45:791-798.
26. Spragers MA, Aaronson NK. The role of health care providers and significant others in evaluating the quality of life of patients with chronic disease: a review. J Clin Epidemiol 1992;45:743-760.
27. Sneeuw KC, Aaronson NK, Osoba D, et al. The use of significant others as proxy raters of the quality of life of patients with brain cancer. Med Care 1997;35:490-506.
28. Kelly-Hayes M, Jette AM, Wolf PA, et al. Functional limitations and disability among elders in the Framingham study. Am J Public Health 1992;82:841-845.
29. Mathiowetz NA, Lair TJ. Getting better? Change or error in the measurement of functional limitations. J Econ Soc Measure 1994;20:237-262.