↓ Skip to main content

What is the gap in activity and participation between people with disability and the general population in Taiwan?

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
What is the gap in activity and participation between people with disability and the general population in Taiwan?
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12939-017-0628-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tzu-Ying Chiu, Chia-Feng Yen, Reuben Escorpizo, Wen-Chou Chi, Tsan-Hon Liou, Hua-Fang Liao, Cheng-Hsiu Chou, Wen-Hui Fang

Abstract

In 2010, the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) was developed, based on the concept of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). The ICF provides a common language and framework for health and health-related status and attempts to integrate the biopsychosocial model as a multidimensional perspective in understanding functioning. Activities and participation (AP) is one salient component of the ICF refers to the execution of a task by an individual, and how such tasks are involved in their daily life. It is essential to examine the gap between the general adult population and adults with disabilities. This gap may be attributed to health status, personal factors, and natural and social environments, which include social and health services and policies. The purposes: (1) To develop a normative activity and participation (AP) value for the adult population and people with disabilities; and (2) to compare the gap in AP normative values between the two groups in Taiwan. We use the WHODAS 2.0 to survey and develop a normative AP value for the general adult population, and used secondary data from National Disability Eligibility Determination System (NDEDS) of Taiwan to describe the AP functioning distribution of adult with disability. There were 1100 participants, selected by stratified proportional sampling from two cities. There were also 144,850 participants who were adults with disability, selected from the secondary database in Taiwan. The AP curve for the disabled population increased rapidly at the beginning. The summary score was 13.21 in the performance at 90 percentile for the general population and 82.61 score for disabled adults that the similar gap in every domain, its means that there are significant functioning difference and health equality in general adults population and adults with disabilities. This presents a substantial challenge for both the government and the whole population of Taiwan, to begin considering how to reduce the gap in AP functioning and promote equality for people with disabilities, using social welfare policy. It is important to make sure disabled people have the same rights to be included in society as anybody else and better access to things in all areas of life that are according to Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 94 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 16%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 33 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 23 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 11%
Unspecified 7 7%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Sports and Recreations 4 4%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 35 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 August 2017.
All research outputs
#18,567,744
of 22,997,544 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1,739
of 1,920 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#243,081
of 317,444 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#62
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,997,544 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,920 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,444 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.