.: ORİJİNAL ARAŞTIRMA
Demografik Faktörlere Göre Engelli Bireylerin Toplumsal Katılım ile Çevre Algılarının Karşılaştırılması: Kesitsel Bir Araştırma
Comparison of Community Participation and Environmental Perceptions of Individuals with Disabilities According to Demographic Factors: A Cross-Sectional Study
Turkiye Klinikleri J Health Sci. 2023;8(1):65-75
doi: 10.5336/healthsci.2022-90425
Makale Dili: TR
Tam Metin
ÖZET
Amaç: Bu çalışmada, demografik özelliklerine göre engelli bireylerin toplumsal katılım ve çevre algılarının karşılaştırılması amaçlandı. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışma, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Ergoterapi Bölümünde takip edilen kronik engelli bireyler ile gerçekleştirildi. Çalışmaya dâhil edilen 134 engelli bireye (87'si erkek, 47'si kadın) sosyodemografik bilgi formu, Çevre Kalite Ölçeği-Kısa Form ve Dünya Sağlık Örgütü-Yetiyitimi Değerlendirme Çizelgesi- II uygulandı. Veriler gruplar arası karşılaştırma yöntemlerinden bağımsız gruplar Student t, ANOVA ve Kruskall-Wallis testleri ile analiz edildi. Gruplar arası farklar Bonferroni ve Mann-Whitney U testleri ile analiz edildi. Bulgular: Engelli bireylerin demografik özelliklerine göre toplumsal katılımı ve çevresel algılarının karşılaştırıldığı bu çalışmada, cinsiyet (p=0,001) ve medeni durumun (p=0,043) çevresel algılarını; yardımcı cihaz kullanımı (p=0,001) ve eğitim düzeyinin (p=0,011) toplumsal katılımlarını; gelir durumu (sırasıyla p=0,001; p=0,001; p=0,041) ve engel farklılıklarının ise (p=0,001; p=0,011; p=0,005; p<0,001) hem toplumsal katılım hem de çevresel algılarını olumsuz etkilediği bulundu. Sonuç: Engelli bireylerin sahip oldukları bazı demografik özelliklere göre (cinsiyet, medeni durum, yardımcı cihaz kullanımı, eğitim, gelir durumu ve engel durumu) toplumsal katılım ve/veya çevresel algılarının olumsuz yönde farklılıklara neden olduğu gösterildi. Bu çalışma, engelli bireyler için toplumsal katılım, çevresel adaptasyon müdahalesi planlarken, sağlık profesyonellerinin demografik değişkenlere göre bireysel farklılıkları göz önüne alması ve birey merkezli müdahale planı oluşturmasının önemini gösterdi.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Bireysellik; çevre; demografi; engelli kişiler; toplumsal katılım
Amaç: Bu çalışmada, demografik özelliklerine göre engelli bireylerin toplumsal katılım ve çevre algılarının karşılaştırılması amaçlandı. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışma, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Ergoterapi Bölümünde takip edilen kronik engelli bireyler ile gerçekleştirildi. Çalışmaya dâhil edilen 134 engelli bireye (87'si erkek, 47'si kadın) sosyodemografik bilgi formu, Çevre Kalite Ölçeği-Kısa Form ve Dünya Sağlık Örgütü-Yetiyitimi Değerlendirme Çizelgesi- II uygulandı. Veriler gruplar arası karşılaştırma yöntemlerinden bağımsız gruplar Student t, ANOVA ve Kruskall-Wallis testleri ile analiz edildi. Gruplar arası farklar Bonferroni ve Mann-Whitney U testleri ile analiz edildi. Bulgular: Engelli bireylerin demografik özelliklerine göre toplumsal katılımı ve çevresel algılarının karşılaştırıldığı bu çalışmada, cinsiyet (p=0,001) ve medeni durumun (p=0,043) çevresel algılarını; yardımcı cihaz kullanımı (p=0,001) ve eğitim düzeyinin (p=0,011) toplumsal katılımlarını; gelir durumu (sırasıyla p=0,001; p=0,001; p=0,041) ve engel farklılıklarının ise (p=0,001; p=0,011; p=0,005; p<0,001) hem toplumsal katılım hem de çevresel algılarını olumsuz etkilediği bulundu. Sonuç: Engelli bireylerin sahip oldukları bazı demografik özelliklere göre (cinsiyet, medeni durum, yardımcı cihaz kullanımı, eğitim, gelir durumu ve engel durumu) toplumsal katılım ve/veya çevresel algılarının olumsuz yönde farklılıklara neden olduğu gösterildi. Bu çalışma, engelli bireyler için toplumsal katılım, çevresel adaptasyon müdahalesi planlarken, sağlık profesyonellerinin demografik değişkenlere göre bireysel farklılıkları göz önüne alması ve birey merkezli müdahale planı oluşturmasının önemini gösterdi.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Bireysellik; çevre; demografi; engelli kişiler; toplumsal katılım
ABSTRACT
Objective: In this study, it was aimed to compare the community participation and environmental perceptions of people with disabilities according to their demographic factors. Material and Methods: The study was carried out with chronically people with disabilities followed in Hacettepe University Occupational Therapy Department. Sociodemographic information form, Measure of Quality of the Environments-Short Form and World Health Organization-Disability Assessment Schedule-II were applied to 134 people of disabilities (87 men, 47 women) included in the study. Data were analyzed with independent Student's t, ANOVA and Kruskall-Wallis tests for inter-group comparison methods. Differences between groups were analyzed with the Bonferroni and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: In this study, in which the community participation and environmental perceptions of people with disabilities were compared according to their demographic characteristics, gender (p=0.001) and marital status (p=0.043) were found to decrease environmental perceptions; assistive device use (p=0.001) and education level (p=0.011) were found to decrease community participation; income status (respectively, p=0.001; p=0.001; p=0.041) and disability status (p=0.001; p=0.011; p=0.005; p<0.001) were found to decrease both community participation and environmental perceptions. Conclusion: It has been shown that social participation and/or environmental perceptions of people with disabilities cause negative differences according to some demographic characteristics (gender, marital status, use of walking aids, educational status, income status and disability status). This study showed the importance of health professionals considering individual differences according to demographic factors and creating a client-centered intervention plan when planning community participation and environmental adaptation interventions for people with disabilities.
Keywords: Individuality; environment; demography; people with disabilities; community participation
Objective: In this study, it was aimed to compare the community participation and environmental perceptions of people with disabilities according to their demographic factors. Material and Methods: The study was carried out with chronically people with disabilities followed in Hacettepe University Occupational Therapy Department. Sociodemographic information form, Measure of Quality of the Environments-Short Form and World Health Organization-Disability Assessment Schedule-II were applied to 134 people of disabilities (87 men, 47 women) included in the study. Data were analyzed with independent Student's t, ANOVA and Kruskall-Wallis tests for inter-group comparison methods. Differences between groups were analyzed with the Bonferroni and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: In this study, in which the community participation and environmental perceptions of people with disabilities were compared according to their demographic characteristics, gender (p=0.001) and marital status (p=0.043) were found to decrease environmental perceptions; assistive device use (p=0.001) and education level (p=0.011) were found to decrease community participation; income status (respectively, p=0.001; p=0.001; p=0.041) and disability status (p=0.001; p=0.011; p=0.005; p<0.001) were found to decrease both community participation and environmental perceptions. Conclusion: It has been shown that social participation and/or environmental perceptions of people with disabilities cause negative differences according to some demographic characteristics (gender, marital status, use of walking aids, educational status, income status and disability status). This study showed the importance of health professionals considering individual differences according to demographic factors and creating a client-centered intervention plan when planning community participation and environmental adaptation interventions for people with disabilities.
Keywords: Individuality; environment; demography; people with disabilities; community participation
REFERANSLAR:
- WHO. How to use the ICF: A practical manual for using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Exposure draft for comment. Geneva: WHO. 2013. p.13. [Link]
- Hammel J, Magasi S, Heinemann A, Whiteneck G, Bogner J, Rodriguez E. What does participation mean? An insider perspective from people with disabilities. Disabil Rehabil. 2008;30(19):1445-60. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Imms C, Granlund M, Wilson PH, Steenbergen B, Rosenbaum PL, Gordon AM. Participation, both a means and an end: a conceptual analysis of processes and outcomes in childhood disability. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2017;59(1):16-25. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Akyurek G, Bumin G, Crowe TK. The factors associated with community participation: Employment and education of people with disabilities in Turkey. Scand J Occup Ther. 2020;27(1):28-38. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Rimmer JH, Riley B, Wang E, Rauworth A, Jurkowski J. Physical activity participation among persons with disabilities: barriers and facilitators. Am J Prev Med. 2004;26(5):419-25. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Kirchner CE, Gerber EG, Smith BC. Designed to deter. Community barriers to physical activity for people with visual or motor impairments. Am J Prev Med. 2008;34(4):349-52. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Esatbeyoğlu F, Karahan BG. Engelli bireylerin fiziksel aktiviteye katılımlarının önündeki engeller [Perceived participation barriers to physical activity among individuals with disabilities]. Spor Bilimleri Dergisi. 2014;25(2):43-55. [Link]
- Clarke PJ, Ailshire JA, Nieuwenhuijsen ER, de Kleijn-de Vrankrijker MW. Participation among adults with disability: the role of the urban environment. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(10):1674-84. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Desrosiers J, Wanet-Defalque MC, Témisjian K, Gresset J, Dubois MF, Renaud J, et al. Participation in daily activities and social roles of older adults with visual impairment. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31(15):1227-34. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Desrosiers J, Bourbonnais D, Noreau L, Rochette A, Bravo G, Bourget A. Participation after stroke compared to normal aging. J Rehabil Med. 2005;37(6):353-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Kyaw-Myint SM, Harris D, Denronden H. Workforce participation barriers for people with disability. International Journal of Disability Management. 2012;7(2012):1-9. [Crossref]
- Alberto M, Butterworth J, Hart D. Postsecondary education and employment outcomes for youth with intellectual disabilities. Think College Fast Facts 1.1. 2009. [Link]
- Australian Bureau of Statistics. Disability, ageing and carers, Australia: Summary of findings. 2018. Erişim tarihi: 21.01.2022 [Link]
- Jang SN, Kawachi I. Care inequality: care received according to gender, marital status, and socioeconomic status among Korean older adults with disability. Int J Equity Health. 2019;18(1):105. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Jespersen LN, Michelsen SI, Tjørnhøj-Thomsen T, Svensson MK, Holstein BE, Due P. Living with a disability: a qualitative study of associations between social relations, social participation and quality of life. Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41(11):1275-86. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Fougeyrollas P, Noreau L, St-Michel G, Boschen K. Measure of the quality of the environment. (2002). Version 2.0. Lac St-Charles, Quebec: INDCP. [Link]
- Akyurek G, Bumin G. The Measure of Quality of the Environments' Turkish Validity and Reliability. OTJR (Thorofare N J). 2019;39(4):239-46. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Uluğ B, Ertuğrul A, Göğüş A, Kabakçi E. Yetiyitimi değerlendirme çizelgesinin (WHO-DAS-II) şizofreni hastalarında geçerlilik ve güvenilirliği [Reliability and validity of the Turkish Version of the World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule-II (WHO-DAS-II) in Schizophrenia]. Turk Psikiyatri Derg. 2001;12(2):121-30. [Link]
- Umb-Carlsson O, Sonnander K. Living conditions of adults with intellectual disabilities from a gender perspective. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2006;50(Pt 5):326-34. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Dusseljee JC, Rijken PM, Cardol M, Curfs LM, Groenewegen PP. Participation in daytime activities among people with mild or moderate intellectual disability. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2011;55(1):4-18. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Cardol M, de Jong BA, van den Bos GA, Beelem A, de Groot IJ, de Haan RJ. Beyond disability: perceived participation in people with a chronic disabling condition. Clin Rehabil. 2002;16(1):27-35. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Barf HA, Post MW, Verhoef M, Jennekens-Schinkel A, Gooskens RH, Prevo AJ. Restrictions in social participation of young adults with spina bifida. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31(11):921-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Chang FH, Wang YH, Jang Y, Wang CW. Factors associated with quality of life among people with spinal cord injury: application of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health model. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93(12):2264-70. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Kılıç E. Az gören erişkin bireylerde serbest zamanla ilişkili aktivite performansini etkileyen faktörlerin kişi-çevre-aktivite modeli ile incelenmesi [Yüksek lisans tezi]. Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi; 2018. Erişim tarihi: 22.01.2022 [Link]
- Burcu E. Türkiye'de Özürlü Birey Olma Temel Sosyolojik Özellikleri ve Sorunları Üzerine Bir Araştırma. 1. Baskı. Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversite Yayınları; 2007.
- Carroll DD, Courtney-Long EA, Stevens AC, Sloan ML, Lullo C, Visser SN, et al. Vital signs: disability and physical activity-United States, 2009-2012. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2014;63(18):407-13. [Link]
- Biernat E, Piatkowska M. Physical activity of disabled individuals in the context of meeting WHO recommendations and support of local authorities. Turk J Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;63(2):107-16. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Jensen J, Sathiyandra S, Rochford M, Jones D, Krishnan V, McLeod K. Work participation among people with disabilities: Does the type of disability influence the outcome? Social Policy Journal of New Zealand. 2005;24:134-59. [Link]
- Cho C, Shin W, Kong S. Participation in regular physical activity according to the type of disability, sex, point of disability diagnosis, and ability to walk independently in South Korea. Healthcare (Basel). 2021;9(8):1079. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Gürboğa C, Kargın T. İşitme engelli yetişkinlerin farklı ortamlarda kullandıkları iletişim yöntemlerinin/becerilerinin incelenmesi. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi. 2003;36(1):51-64. [Crossref]
- Smith M, Manduchi B, Burke É, Carroll R, McCallion P, McCarron M. Communication difficulties in adults with Intellectual Disability: Results from a national cross-sectional study. Res Dev Disabil. 2020;97:103557. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Patel DR, Cabral MD, Ho A, Merrick J. A clinical primer on intellectual disability. Transl Pediatr. 2020;9(Suppl 1):S23-S35. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Hogan A, Kyaw-Myint SM, Harris D, Denronden H. Workforce participation barriers for people with disability. International Journal of Disability Management. 2012;7(1):1-9. [Crossref]
- Ostir GV, Granger CV, Black T, Roberts P, Burgos L, Martinkewiz P, et al. Preliminary results for the PAR-PRO: a measure of home and community participation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87(8):1043-51. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Achterberg TJ, Wind H, de Boer AG, Frings-Dresen MH. Factors that promote or hinder young disabled people in work participation: a systematic review. J Occup Rehabil. 2009;19(2):129-41. [Crossref] [PubMed]
.: İşlem Listesi