Burn Patient Perspectives on Disability Weights and the Philosophy of Disability: A Gap in the Literature

IF 1.2 Q4 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE European burn journal Pub Date : 2023-11-09 DOI:10.3390/ebj4040037
Paul Won, Karel-Bart Celie, Cindy Rutter, T. Justin Gillenwater, Haig A. Yenikomshian
{"title":"Burn Patient Perspectives on Disability Weights and the Philosophy of Disability: A Gap in the Literature","authors":"Paul Won, Karel-Bart Celie, Cindy Rutter, T. Justin Gillenwater, Haig A. Yenikomshian","doi":"10.3390/ebj4040037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Disability-adjusted life years (DALY) have a ubiquitous presence in academic global health, including attempts to understand the global burden of burn injuries. Objective: The present scoping review aimed to examine whether disability weights (DWs) were informed by burn patient perspectives and secondarily to determine whether literature indicates which of the three most common philosophical models of disability best aligns with burn patient experiences. Methods: A review of six databases was conducted and The Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) checklist was utilized. Results: Out of a total of 764 articles, zero studies solicited patient perspectives of DWs. Four articles contained data that could be extrapolated to patient perspectives on disability. All articles utilized semi-structured interviews of burn survivors and reported thematic elements including return to work, self-image, and social integration. Patients reported similar themes that burn injuries were disabling injuries and instrumentally detrimental, with modulation based on the patient’s social circumstances. Conclusions: This scoping review highlights a significant gap in literature. First, no studies were found directly investigating burn patient perspectives on burn DWs. Current DWs have been derived from expert opinions with limited input from patients. Second, the limited primary patient data gleaned from this review suggest patients consider their injuries as instrumentally detrimental, which aligns most closely with the welfarist view of disability. More explicit investigations into the philosophical model of disability best aligning with burn patient experiences are needed to ground the health economics of burns in sound theory.","PeriodicalId":72961,"journal":{"name":"European burn journal","volume":" 23","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European burn journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/ebj4040037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Disability-adjusted life years (DALY) have a ubiquitous presence in academic global health, including attempts to understand the global burden of burn injuries. Objective: The present scoping review aimed to examine whether disability weights (DWs) were informed by burn patient perspectives and secondarily to determine whether literature indicates which of the three most common philosophical models of disability best aligns with burn patient experiences. Methods: A review of six databases was conducted and The Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) checklist was utilized. Results: Out of a total of 764 articles, zero studies solicited patient perspectives of DWs. Four articles contained data that could be extrapolated to patient perspectives on disability. All articles utilized semi-structured interviews of burn survivors and reported thematic elements including return to work, self-image, and social integration. Patients reported similar themes that burn injuries were disabling injuries and instrumentally detrimental, with modulation based on the patient’s social circumstances. Conclusions: This scoping review highlights a significant gap in literature. First, no studies were found directly investigating burn patient perspectives on burn DWs. Current DWs have been derived from expert opinions with limited input from patients. Second, the limited primary patient data gleaned from this review suggest patients consider their injuries as instrumentally detrimental, which aligns most closely with the welfarist view of disability. More explicit investigations into the philosophical model of disability best aligning with burn patient experiences are needed to ground the health economics of burns in sound theory.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
烧伤患者对残疾重量的看法和残疾哲学:文献中的空白
背景:残疾调整生命年(DALY)在学术全球健康中无处不在,包括试图了解烧伤的全球负担。目的:本综述旨在检查残疾权重(DWs)是否被烧伤患者的观点所告知,其次确定文献是否表明三种最常见的残疾哲学模型中哪一种最符合烧伤患者的经历。方法:对6个数据库进行回顾,并使用关键评估技能计划(CASP)检查表。结果:在总共764篇文章中,没有研究征求患者对DWs的看法。四篇文章包含的数据可以推断出患者对残疾的看法。所有文章都采用半结构化采访烧伤幸存者,并报道了包括重返工作岗位、自我形象和社会融合在内的主题元素。患者报告了类似的主题,即烧伤是致残损伤和工具有害,并根据患者的社会环境进行调节。结论:本综述突出了文献中的一个重要空白。首先,没有研究直接调查烧伤患者对烧伤DWs的看法。目前的DWs来自专家意见,患者的投入有限。其次,从本综述中收集到的有限的原始患者数据表明,患者认为他们的伤害是有害的,这与福利主义者对残疾的看法最接近。需要更明确地研究与烧伤患者经验最一致的残疾哲学模型,以便将烧伤的健康经济学建立在健全的理论基础上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Diagnostic Value of Indocyanine Green in the Assessment of Depth of Burn Injuries: A Systematic Review. Prognostic Scoring Systems for Burns: A Comparative Analysis of Their Predictive Accuracies for Mortality in Burn Patients. From Injury to Independence: Investigating the Impact of Hand Burn Severity on Functional Outcomes in Children and Adolescents Followed for 24 Months After Injury-A Prospective Cohort Study. Surgical Management of Tracheostomy in Patients with Severe Burns and Cervical Involvement: Impact on Cervical Wound-Healing Disturbance. Objective Longitudinal Monitoring of Burn Wound Area Using 3D Surface Scanning: A Pilot Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1