计算每个人:在联邦调查中对残疾进行包容性测量的证据。

Health affairs scholar Pub Date : 2024-08-21 eCollection Date: 2024-09-01 DOI:10.1093/haschl/qxae106
Jean P Hall, Kelsey S Goddard, Catherine Ipsen, Andrew Myers, Noelle K Kurth
{"title":"计算每个人:在联邦调查中对残疾进行包容性测量的证据。","authors":"Jean P Hall, Kelsey S Goddard, Catherine Ipsen, Andrew Myers, Noelle K Kurth","doi":"10.1093/haschl/qxae106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The US Census Bureau has used the American Community Survey six-question set (ACS-6) to identify disabled people since 2008. In late 2023, the Census Bureau proposed changes to these questions that would have reduced disability prevalence estimates by 42%. Because these estimates inform funding and programs that support the health and independence of people with disabilities, many disability researchers and advocates feared this change in data collection would lead to reductions in funding and services. While the Census has paused-but not ruled out-the proposed changes, it is critical that alternate, more inclusive disability questions be identified and tested. We used data from the 2023/2024 National Survey on Health and Disability to explore alternative questions to identify disabled people in national surveys. A single broad question about conditions identified 11.2% more people with disabilities, and missed significantly fewer people with psychiatric disabilities compared to the current ACS-6 questions. A combination of a broad question and the existing ACS-6 questions may be necessary to more accurately and inclusively identify people with disabilities.</p>","PeriodicalId":94025,"journal":{"name":"Health affairs scholar","volume":"2 9","pages":"qxae106"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11393306/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Counting everyone: evidence for inclusive measures of disability in federal surveys.\",\"authors\":\"Jean P Hall, Kelsey S Goddard, Catherine Ipsen, Andrew Myers, Noelle K Kurth\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/haschl/qxae106\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The US Census Bureau has used the American Community Survey six-question set (ACS-6) to identify disabled people since 2008. In late 2023, the Census Bureau proposed changes to these questions that would have reduced disability prevalence estimates by 42%. Because these estimates inform funding and programs that support the health and independence of people with disabilities, many disability researchers and advocates feared this change in data collection would lead to reductions in funding and services. While the Census has paused-but not ruled out-the proposed changes, it is critical that alternate, more inclusive disability questions be identified and tested. We used data from the 2023/2024 National Survey on Health and Disability to explore alternative questions to identify disabled people in national surveys. A single broad question about conditions identified 11.2% more people with disabilities, and missed significantly fewer people with psychiatric disabilities compared to the current ACS-6 questions. A combination of a broad question and the existing ACS-6 questions may be necessary to more accurately and inclusively identify people with disabilities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94025,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health affairs scholar\",\"volume\":\"2 9\",\"pages\":\"qxae106\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11393306/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health affairs scholar\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxae106\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/9/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health affairs scholar","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxae106","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自 2008 年以来,美国人口普查局一直使用美国社区调查六问(ACS-6)来识别残疾人。2023 年底,人口普查局建议对这些问题进行修改,这将使残疾流行率估计值降低 42%。由于这些估计值为支持残障人士健康和独立的资金和项目提供了依据,许多残障研究人员和倡导者担心数据收集的这一变化会导致资金和服务的减少。虽然人口普查已经暂停--但并未排除--拟议中的变化,关键是要确定和测试替代的、更具包容性的残疾问题。我们利用 2023/2024 年全国健康与残疾调查的数据,探索在全国调查中识别残疾人的替代问题。与目前的 ACS-6 问题相比,一个关于病症的宽泛问题识别出的残障人士增加了 11.2%,而遗漏的精神残障人士则明显减少。为了更准确、更全面地识别残疾人,可能有必要将一个宽泛的问题和现有的 ACS-6 问题结合起来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Counting everyone: evidence for inclusive measures of disability in federal surveys.

The US Census Bureau has used the American Community Survey six-question set (ACS-6) to identify disabled people since 2008. In late 2023, the Census Bureau proposed changes to these questions that would have reduced disability prevalence estimates by 42%. Because these estimates inform funding and programs that support the health and independence of people with disabilities, many disability researchers and advocates feared this change in data collection would lead to reductions in funding and services. While the Census has paused-but not ruled out-the proposed changes, it is critical that alternate, more inclusive disability questions be identified and tested. We used data from the 2023/2024 National Survey on Health and Disability to explore alternative questions to identify disabled people in national surveys. A single broad question about conditions identified 11.2% more people with disabilities, and missed significantly fewer people with psychiatric disabilities compared to the current ACS-6 questions. A combination of a broad question and the existing ACS-6 questions may be necessary to more accurately and inclusively identify people with disabilities.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Correction to: No Surprises Act independent dispute resolution outcomes for emergency services. All-cause nursing home mortality rates have remained above pre-pandemic levels after accounting for decline in occupancy. Charting new territory: the early lessons in integrating social determinant of health (SDOH) measures into practice. Measuring hospital inpatient Procedure Access Inequality in the United States. Examining the use of telehealth to initiate buprenorphine for opioid use disorder treatment.
×
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:481959085
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