Publication

At the intersection of chronic disease, disability and health services research: A scoping literature review

Downloadable Content

Persistent URL
Last modified
  • 05/15/2025
Type of Material
Authors
    Stephen P. Gulley, Brandeis UniversityElizabeth K. Rasch, National Institutes of HealthChristina D. Bethell, Johns Hopkins UniversityAdam C. Carle, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical CenterBenjamin G Druss, Emory UniversityAmy J. Houtrow, University of PittsburghAmanda Reichard, University of KansasLeighton Chan, National Institutes of Health
Language
  • English
Date
  • 2018-04-01
Publisher
  • Elsevier
Publication Version
Copyright Statement
  • © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Final Published Version (URL)
Title of Journal or Parent Work
ISSN
  • 1936-6574
Volume
  • 11
Issue
  • 2
Start Page
  • 192
End Page
  • 203
Grant/Funding Information
  • This research was supported by the NIH Intramural Research Program.
Supplemental Material (URL)
Abstract
  • Background:There is a concerted effort underway to evaluate and reform our nation's approach to the health of people with ongoing or elevated needs for care, particularly persons with chronic conditions and/or disabilities. Objective: This literature review characterizes the current state of knowledge on the measurement of chronic disease and disability in population-based health services research on working age adults (age 18–64). Methods: Scoping review methods were used to scan the health services research literature published since the year 2000, including medline, psycINFO and manual searches. The guiding question was: “How are chronic conditions and disability defined and measured in studies of healthcare access, quality, utilization or cost?” Results: Fifty-five studies met the stated inclusion criteria. Chronic conditions were variously defined by brief lists of conditions, broader criteria-based lists, two or more (multiple) chronic conditions, or other constructs. Disability was generally assessed through ADLs/IADLs, functional limitations, activity limitations or program eligibility. A smaller subset of studies used information from both domains to identify a study population or to stratify it by subgroup. Conclusions: There remains a divide in this literature between studies that rely upon diagnostically-oriented measures and studies that instead rely on functional, activity or other constructs of disability to identify the population of interest. This leads to wide ranging differences in population prevalence and outcome estimates. However, there is also a growing effort to develop methods that account for the overlap between chronic disease and disability and to “segment” this heterogeneous population into policy or practice relevant subgroups.
Author Notes
  • Stephen P. Gulley, Ph.D., MSW, c/o National Institutes of Health, Mark O. Hatfield Clinical Research Center,Rehabilitation Medicine Department, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 856, MSC 5493, Bethesda, MD 20892-5493, gulley@brandeis.edu.
Keywords
Research Categories
  • Health Sciences, Health Care Management
  • Health Sciences, Rehabilitation and Therapy
  • Health Sciences, Public Health

Tools

Relations

In Collection:

Items