Understanding abuse of women with physical disabilities: An overview of the abuse pathways model

Advances in Nursing Science

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 70-80

  Hassouneh Phillips, Dena ^a  

^a OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Abuse; Caregiving; Physical disability; Theory; Violence; Women

Indexed keywords

ABUSE; ADULT; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; EXPERIENCE; FEMALE; HUMAN; LIFE HISTORY; PHYSICAL DISABILITY; REVIEW; SOCIAL ASPECT; THEORETICAL MODEL; VULNERABLE POPULATION;

EID: 14844347543     PISSN: 01619268     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00012272-200501000-00008     Document Type: Review

References (20)

1. Berkeley Planning Associates. Priorities for Future Research: Results of BPA's Delphi Survey of Disabled Women. Oakland, Calif: Berkeley Planning Associates; 1996.
2. United Nations. Declaration on the elimination of violence against women. General Assembly Resolution 48/104. 1993. Available at: http://www.ohchr. org/english/law/eliminationvaw.htm. Accessed January 7, 2005.
3. World Health Organization. Violence against women. Fact Sheet No. 239. Available at: http://www.who. int/mediacentre/factsheets/Fs239/en/. Accessed October 12, 2004.
4. Young E, Nosek M, Howland C, Changpon G, Rintala D. Prevalence of abuse of women with physical disabilities. Arch Phys Med Rehabil Spec Issue. 1997;78:S34-S38.
5. Powers L, Curry MA, Oschwald M, Saxton M, Eckels K. Barriers and strategies in addressing abuse: a survey of disabled women's experiences. J Rehabil. 2002;68(1):4-13.
6. Curry MA, Hassouneh-Phillips D, Johnston-Silverberg A. Abuse of women with disabilities: an ecological model and review. Violence Against Women Int Interdiscip J. 2001;7(1):60-79.
7. Hassouneh-Phillips D, Curry MA. Abuse of women with disabilities: state of the science. Rehabil Counsel Bull. 2002;45(2):96-104.
8. Gilson S, Cramer E, Depoy E. Redefining abuse of women with disabilities: a paradox of limitation and expansion. Affilia. 2001;16(2):220-235.
9. Mertens D. Mixed methods and the politics of human research: the transformative-emancipatory perspective. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C, eds. Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage; 2003:135-164.
10. Seidman I. Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences. New York: Teachers College Press; 1991.
11. Benner P. The tradition and skill of interpretive phenomenology in studying health, illness, and caring practices. In: Benner P, ed. Interpretive Phenomenology: Embodiment, Caring, and Ethics in Health and Illness. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage; 1994:99-128.
12. Nvivo 2.0 [computer program]. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage; 2003.
13. Parker B, Ulrich Y, Bullock L, et al. A protocol of research on abuse of women. Nurs Res. 1990;39(4):248-250.
14. Creswell J. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage; 1998.
15. Lincoln Y, Cuba E. Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage; 1985.
16. Gill C, ed. Dating and Relationship Issues. Baltimore: Paul Brooks; 1996.
17. Krotoski M, Nosek M, Turk M, eds. Women With Physical Disabilities - Achieving and Maintaining Health and Well-Being. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks Publishers; 1996.
18. Wendell S. The Rejected Body - Feminist Philosophical Reflections on Disability. New York: Routledge; 1996.
19. Lonsdale S. Women and Disability - The Experience of Physical Disability Among Women. New York: St Martin's Press; 1990.
20. Thomas C. Female Forms - Experiencing and Understanding Disability. Philadelphia: Open University Press; 1998.