Client participation in medical rehabilitation for adults with severe disabilities

Men, n = 321Women, n = 383All, n = 704Age20–29 years12131230–54 years48494955–64 years403839Marital statusUnmarried383235Married484848Divorced or widowed142017Life situationIn work91311On pension918789Basic educationElementary school or exempt from compulsory education422734Comprehensive school414241Matriculation examination173125Disability benefitDisability allowance (highest or middle rate)91110Care allowance for pensioners, middle rate636564Care allowance for pensioners, highest rate282426Main diagnoses given in rehabilitation plansMultiple sclerosis132319Cerebral palsy687Other diseases of the nervous system151415Diseases of the circulatory system21914Musculoskeletal disorders (e.g. rheumatoid arthritis)82115Congenital malformations or deformations465Injury and poisoning1226Intellectual disability624Other diagnostic categories151515

Table 2.

Different actors who initiated the preparation procedure for the rehabilitation plan (%).

MenWomenDisability allowanceCare allowance for pensionersAllClient3745^*5340^*41Physician in public health care2626252626Service provider2024152322Family member177^**41211Other employee in health care65465Employee of the SII65756Physician in private sector14^*73^*3Other81191010

* p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

Table 3.

Participation of different actors in preparing the rehabilitation plan^{^a} by gender and disability benefit (%).

MenWomenDisability allowanceCare allowance for pensionersAllPhysician6466726565Therapist3642324039Family member (e.g., spouse, parents)2213^***718^**17Rehabilitation counsellor1113141212Social worker691078Employee of the SII57666Employee of rehab centre56465

** p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

a Total number of respondents (n = 715) used as a base-number in counting percentages.

Table 4.

Client participation and becoming heard during the rehabilitation process, by gender and disability benefit (%).

GenderDisability benefitMenWomenDisability allowanceCare allowance for pensionersAllThe client participated in preparing the rehabilitation plan (n = 704)Actively4662^**695355Client's opinions were taken into account in preparing the rehabilitation plan (n = 645)Very well3947484343Fairly well4440424242Uncertain12981010Fairly or very weakly44344The latest rehabilitation plan supported the client's personal goals (n = 656)Very well3440423637Fairly well5250475251Uncertain117999Fairly or very weakly34344Client's wishes were paid attention by the service producer (n = 698)Very well5254635053Fairly well4038304139Uncertain46555Fairly or very weakly32133The rehabilitation received during the last 2 years corresponded the client's wishes and needs (n = 689)Very well3438443537Fairly well5148425149Uncertain101012910Very or fairly weakly54354The client's wishes (e.g., concerning the service provider) were taken into account by the SII (n = 669)Strongly agree3132323232Somewhat agree4140473840Neither agree or disagree1414141414Strongly or somewhat disagree141481614

** p < 0.01.

Table 5.

Logistic regression analysis: socio-demographic and social variables as predictors of client participation.

Candidate predictorsModel 1: independent associationsModel 2: simultaneous associations (n = 534)%OR95% confidence intervalOR95% confidence intervalGenderFemale4210.433–0.90510.448–0.994Male580.626^*0.667^*Age20–44341145–54270.633^*0.402–0.9990.7370.437–1.24255–64390.559^**0.367–0.8520.7580.445–1.291Life situationActive1911Not active810.522^*0.315–0.8660.8880.501–1.575Age of disablementCongenital disability21110–39 years500.629^*0.407–0.9720.7230.448–1.168Over 39 years290.377^***0.223–0.6390.536^*0.279–1.031Perceived competenceNo or uncertain4711Yes531.800^**1.250–2.5922.572^*1.051–2.370Self-rated incomePoor or moderate8711Good131.768^*1.080–2.8941.628^*0.940–2.818Participation in political or community lifeNo or minor participation6711Active participation331.726^**1.178–2.5301.572^*1.046–2.364

* p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

Model A (independent associations): statistically significant independent associations.

Model B: simultaneous associations.

Table 6.

Logistic regression analysis: health and functional ability variables as predictors of client participation.

Candidate predictorsModel 1: independent associationsModel 2: simultaneous associations (n = 573)%OR95% confidence intervalOR95% confidence intervalSubjective healthLow (0–3)2211Moderate (4–6)501.2740.768–2.1141.1070.651–1.882High (7–10)282.241^**1.319–3.8061.5960.900–2.832Communication and cognitive functioningHave problems3811Good61.82.102^***1.427–3.0961.605^*1.037–2.485Work and housework activitiesHave problems9011Good102.244^*1.178–4.2731.4540.720–2.936Diagnoses in rehabilitation planIntellectual disability50.380^*0.155–0.9290.331^*0.115–0.952Cerebral palsy122.002^**1.187–3.3781.988^*1.082–3.652MS201.707^*1.120–2.6011.917^*1.189–3.091Cerebrovascular disease150.375^**0.201–0.7000.5570.286–1.088

* p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

Note: Model A (independent associations): variables with statistically significant associations.

Model B (simultaneous associations), adjusted for age and gender.

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15017419.2013.859176 | Journal eISSN: 1745-3011

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 240 - 257

Submitted on: Jan 10, 2013

Accepted on: Oct 21, 2013

Published on: Nov 3, 2015

Published by: Stockholm University Press

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Keywords:

participation,

medical rehabilitation,

adults,

severe disabilities

© 2015 Aila Järvikoski, Jouni Puumalainen, Kristiina Härkäpää, published by Stockholm University Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 17 (2015): Issue 3

Client participation in medical rehabilitation for adults with severe disabilities

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Arenas of participation during the medical rehabilitation process.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the study group by gender (%).

Table 2.

Different actors who initiated the preparation procedure for the rehabilitation plan (%).

Table 3.

Participation of different actors in preparing the rehabilitation plan^{^a} by gender and disability benefit (%).

Table 4.

Client participation and becoming heard during the rehabilitation process, by gender and disability benefit (%).

Table 5.

Logistic regression analysis: socio-demographic and social variables as predictors of client participation.

Table 6.

Logistic regression analysis: health and functional ability variables as predictors of client participation.

Paradigm

My account

Client participation in medical rehabilitation for adults with severe disabilities

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Arenas of participation during the medical rehabilitation process.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the study group by gender (%).

Table 2.

Different actors who initiated the preparation procedure for the rehabilitation plan (%).

Table 3.

Participation of different actors in preparing the rehabilitation plana by gender and disability benefit (%).

Table 4.

Client participation and becoming heard during the rehabilitation process, by gender and disability benefit (%).

Table 5.

Logistic regression analysis: socio-demographic and social variables as predictors of client participation.

Table 6.

Logistic regression analysis: health and functional ability variables as predictors of client participation.

Participation of different actors in preparing the rehabilitation plan^{^a} by gender and disability benefit (%).