Keywords
rehabilitation research, people with disabilities, demographics, caregivers, Chile
This article is included in the Health Services gateway.
Rehabilitation services are necessary for many people with disabilities to improve their functioning and be included in society. This study aimed to determine the factors associated with the use of rehabilitation services among people with disabilities in Chile in 2015.
This cross-sectional analysis of secondary data from Chile’s 2015 Second National Disability Study (ENDISC II) included people with disabilities aged ≥18 years. The dependent variable was the use of rehabilitation services in the previous year, and the exposure variables were sociodemographic and confounders. Poisson regression was used to determine associated factors, and prevalence ratios (PR) with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated. All results were weighted according to the ENDISC II complex sampling.
A total of 2610 people with disabilities were included, and 19.1% used some rehabilitation services in the previous year. Educational level (PR 0.43; 95% CI 0.25–0.75), having a mental illness (PR 1.77; 95% CI 1.44–2.18), and caregiver assistance (PR 1.57; 95% CI 1.25–1.97) were factors associated with the use of rehabilitation services.
In 2015, one-fifth of people with disabilities in Chile used some rehabilitation services in the previous year. People with disabilities with lower educational levels were less likely to access these services. By contrast, people with mental illness and caregiver assistance were more likely to use rehabilitation services.
rehabilitation research, people with disabilities, demographics, caregivers, Chile
The reviewers' comments have been addressed in this revised version. Specifically, the global prevalence of disability has been updated, and the current WHO definition of rehabilitation has been incorporated. A brief explanation has been included to clarify that not all individuals with disabilities require rehabilitation. Additional information has been provided on community-based rehabilitation (CBR), with a focus on the “Rehabilitation 2030” initiative. Furthermore, a paragraph discussing the implications of the findings for public health in Chile has been added, and the bibliographic references have been updated.
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Dorcas Gandhi
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Kaloyan Kamenov
Approximately 2.41 billion people worldwide could benefit from rehabilitation services, which mean that one in three people will need this service at some point in their lives because of an illness or injury.1,2 The number of individuals experiencing reduced functionality has risen due to the aging population and the growing prevalence of chronic diseases.3 A marked increase in the demand for physical rehabilitation services has been observed globally, with the greatest impact in resource-limited regions.4
Rehabilitation services were estimated to become more necessary as the population ages because of the increase in people with chronic diseases2 and the emergence of increasingly efficient medical treatments.5
The World Health Organization (WHO) defines rehabilitation as “a set of interventions designed to optimize functioning and reduce disability in individuals with health conditions in interaction with their environment”.6 Recent definitions broaden its application beyond the clinical field, relating it to social, occupational, and educational interventions, independent of its location, i.e., it can be applied in hospitalized or ambulatory patients.7 Furthermore, rehabilitation aims to achieve independence, minimize pain and distress, and improve the ability to adapt and respond to circumstantial changes.8 Rehabilitation services are available to individuals at any stage of life and are vital for achieving universal health coverage.2 People with disabilities require comprehensive healthcare that encompasses prevention and health promotion and may also need rehabilitation services to optimize functionality and mitigate disability.9
The Global Report on Health Equity for Persons with Disabilities estimates that 1.3 billion people, or 16% of the global population, experience a significant disability.10 An analysis of eight population censuses conducted in Latin America and the Caribbean between 2010 and 2012, which employed the Washington Group questions to assess disability, reported the highest prevalence in Brazil at 24.9%, followed by Uruguay at 17.0%.11
Access to rehabilitation services for people with disabilities depends on various factors, such as personal and environmental factors.9 Likewise, disability is associated with several inequity factors that push the person to a situation of social, individual, and family exclusion. To reduce these inequities, the WHO created a strategy called “community-based rehabilitation” (CBR), which provides rehabilitation services in the community with equal opportunities and social inclusion and training to people with disabilities, their families, and community members.12 Similarly, in 2017, the Rehabilitation 2030 initiative was launched to ensure that rehabilitation is recognized as an essential service for achieving universal health coverage and is accessible to the entire population at all stages of life.2 During its third meeting in May 2023, rehabilitation was officially acknowledged as a global public health priority, and priority actions for implementation by member countries were defined.13 In Chile, it was implemented between 2004 and 2015, with the objective that 10% of the people served in community rehabilitation centers achieve social inclusion. However, a study using data from all community rehabilitation centers up to December 2016 indicated that the strategy had not been appropriately adopted. This study found that although all centers had physical and occupational therapists, less than half had professionals from other rehabilitation areas such as speech therapists, nurses, psychologists, or nursing technicians, which impedes the correct implementation of CBR due to a lack of trained human resources.14 In 2021, the Chilean Ministry of Health developed and implemented the first National Rehabilitation Plan for 2021–2030. This plan aligns with international recommendations while addressing Chile's specific context to ensure timely and continuous access to high-quality rehabilitation services. The plan is informed by epidemiological data and incorporates ongoing assessments of rehabilitation needs.15,16
Therefore, it is essential to understand the situation in Chile, a country with the highest prevalence of people with disabilities in Latin America.17 Few studies in this region have examined the determinants influencing access to rehabilitation services. The findings from this analysis will help address disparities in individuals with disabilities' access to rehabilitation. Accordingly, this study aimed to determine the factors associated with using rehabilitation services among people with disabilities in Chile in 2015.
This analytical cross-sectional study analyzed secondary data from Chile’s 2015 Second National Disability Study (ENDISC II).18 The study population consisted of residents of urban and rural areas of the 135 communes of the 15 regions of Chile. ENDISC II was conducted between June 30 and September 5, 2015.19
ENDISC II is a population-based survey that aims to “determine the prevalence and characterize disability at the national level, identifying the main gaps in access to persons with disabilities”.18 It was conducted jointly by the Ministry of Social Development (MDS) and the National Statistics Institute (INE) and supervised by the National Disability Service (SENADIS) of Chile.19
ENDISC II used a probabilistic sampling in two phases. The first phase used a list of households from a previous survey (Case 2013), and the second phase systematically selected households within the strata (communes and rural–urban areas). The final selection unit was the dwelling. ENDISC II’s design allows its results to be nationally and regionally representative because it covers 80% of the total number of households in Chile. Data collection was conducted through personal interviews with paper questionnaires. The surveys were applied to 12,015 dwellings, which included 12,265 people aged ≥18 years. Details of the sample design can be reviewed in their methodology book.18
For this study, we included persons with disabilities aged >18 years of both sexes and excluded records with missing or inconsistent data on the variables of interest.
To measure the prevalence of disability, ENDISC II applied a methodology based on the Model Disability Survey (MDS) used by the WHO in the II World Report on Disability, which measures three aspects, namely, functioning, capacity and environmental factors.18 The MDS was developed after the review of 179 health and disability surveys from around the world, following the implementation of the ICF in 2001.20 The application of this methodology in the Americas is novel because it is different from surveys that use few questions to identify persons with disabilities, such as those of the Washington group.21 This methodology is based on the item response theory and uses a metric scale that places different questions associated with greater or lesser disability. Thus, it is possible to identify the degrees of difficulty and adequately estimate the total prevalence of disability.18
The outcome variable was rehabilitation services in the previous year for persons with disabilities. This variable is of a nominal qualitative type and was measured with the question, “In the last 12 months, did you receive any rehabilitation services?” The response categories were yes and no.
The exposure variables were sex (male and female), age group (18–29, 30–44, 55–59, and 60+), educational level (no education, elementary, middle, and high school), marital status (married/cohabiting, widowed/separated/divorced, and single), origin (urban and rural), indigenous identification (no and yes), current job (no and yes), health insurance system (FONASA, FFAA, and Order, ISAPRE, none or private, and other/does not know), chronic diseases (which included diabetes, hypertension, arthritis/arthrosis, heart diseases, respiratory diseases, migraine, and AIDS/HIV diagnosed by a doctor; “Has a doctor ever told you that you have [name of disease/health condition]?” no and yes; mental illness (which included persons with physician-diagnosed anxiety and depression; “Have you ever been told by a doctor that you have [name of disease/health condition]?” no and yes), recreational activities (“During the past 6 months, did you engage in or attend the following activities or places?” no and yes), physical activity (“In the past month, did you play sports or engage in physical activity outside of your work schedule, for 30 min or more?” no and yes), caregiver assistance (“Because of your health, do you have someone to help you at home or outside your home, including family and friends, to perform the following activities?” no and yes), and perceived discrimination “In the past 12 months, have you felt discriminated against (i.e., been prevented from doing something, bothered, or made to feel inferior?” no and yes).
Self-reporting bias may increase the prevalence of disability.22 However, surveys and population censuses have widely used self-reported questions to measure this condition. For example, the Washington Group questions measure disability quickly, effectively, and economically and have been used in more than 69 national censuses worldwide.23 ENDISC II also uses self-report questions through an interview conducted by trained enumerators and has already been applied in 10 countries, Chile being the first in Latin America.20
The data were downloaded from the SENADIS web page and analyzed with STATA version 16 (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA). To select the subgroup of people with disabilities aged >18 years, the variable disc_adult was used through the sub pop command. Frequency distribution tables and weighted percentages with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were prepared. In the bivariate analysis, to evaluate differences in the characteristics of people with disabilities who use or do not use rehabilitation services, the chi-square test was corrected with the F statistic for survey design. In the multivariate analysis, Poisson regression was used to estimate prevalence ratios (PR) with their 95% CI. A crude model was developed, and variables having a p-value <0.25 were included in the adjusted model. All results were weighted according to the complex sample design of the ENDISC II. A p-value of p <0.05 was assumed to be statistically significant. The possible multicollinearity among the variables of the adjusted model was also checked through the manual calculation of the variance inflation factor (VIF).24 A VIF ≥10 was an indication of collinearity. We did not perform any stratification according to sex, as previous studies have not shown that this variable is associated with the use of rehabilitation services in people with disabilities.25
The ENDISC II database is publicly accessible and available on the SENADIS website. Data are coded and do not allow the identification of participants. The Human Medicine career approved the present secondary analysis of the Universidad Científica del Sur. It was exempted from review by the institutional ethics committee according to resolution N° 407-DACMH-DAFCS-U. CIENTIFICA-2022, issued on August 1, 2022.
The database had information on 2,618 persons with disabilities. We excluded eight due to a lack of data on the variables of interest (2 in educational level, 2 in indigenous identification, and 4 in the health insurance system). Finally, we included 2610 persons with disabilities, of whom 64.3% were women, and 47.3% were 60 or older. A total of 39.3% had elementary education, and 54% reported being married or cohabiting. Most were from urban areas and did not identify with indigenous populations (86.5% and 92.6%, respectively). Most of the participants (66.6%) did not have a job at the time of the survey, and 84 (8%) had the National Health Fund (NASA) as their healthcare provider. Likewise, 74.2% and 68.2% reported having a chronic illness and mental illness, respectively. In addition, 75% were engaged in recreational activities, and 17% were physically active. Moreover, 41.2% had a caregiver, and 23.7% had perceived discrimination. Finally, 19.1% admitted that they had used some rehabilitation service in the last 12 months ( Table 1).
Variables | n | %a | 95% CI |
---|---|---|---|
Sex | |||
Male | 801 | 35.7 | 33.0–38.4 |
Female | 1,809 | 64.3 | 61.6–67.0 |
Age group | |||
18–29 | 173 | 8.3 | 6.8–10.1 |
30–44 | 356 | 12.8 | 11.1–14.7 |
55–59 | 758 | 31.6 | 29.2–34.2 |
60+ | 1,323 | 47.3 | 44.5–50.1 |
Educational level | |||
No education | 191 | 7.5 | 6.2–9.0 |
Elementary | 1,077 | 39.3 | 36.6–42.2 |
Middle | 986 | 38.2 | 35.7–40.7 |
High school | 356 | 15.0 | 13.0–17.3 |
Marital status | |||
Married/cohabiting | 1,181 | 54.0 | 51.4–56.5 |
Widowed/separated/divorced | 841 | 24.8 | 22.6–27.2 |
Single | 588 | 21.2 | 19.1–23.5 |
Origin | |||
Urban | 2,176 | 86.5 | 84.2–88.6 |
Rural | 434 | 13.5 | 11.4–15.8 |
Indigenous identification | |||
No | 2,388 | 92.6 | 91.2–93.9 |
Yes | 222 | 7.4 | 6.2–8.9 |
Current job | |||
No | 1,778 | 66.6 | 63.9–69.2 |
Yes | 832 | 33.4 | 30.7–36.1 |
Health insurance system | |||
FONASA | 2,225 | 84.8 | 82.8–86.7 |
FFAA, and order | 60 | 1.8 | 1.3–2.5 |
ISAPRE | 168 | 8.2 | 6.7–10.0 |
None or private | 95 | 3.0 | 2.3–4.0 |
Other/does not know | 62 | 2.2 | 1.5–3.0 |
Chronic diseases b | |||
No | 633 | 25.8 | 23.4–28.3 |
Yes | 1,977 | 74.2 | 71.7–76.6 |
Mental illness c | |||
No | 1,784 | 68.2 | 65.4–70.8 |
Yes | 826 | 31.8 | 29.2–34.6 |
Recreational activities | |||
No | 639 | 25.3 | 22.9–27.8 |
Yes | 1,971 | 74.7 | 72.2–77.1 |
Physical activity | |||
No | 2,165 | 82.9 | 80.8–84.9 |
Yes | 445 | 17.1 | 15.1–19.2 |
Caregiver assistance | |||
No | 1,560 | 58.8 | 55.9–61.6 |
Yes | 1,050 | 41.2 | 38.4–44.0 |
Perceived discrimination | |||
No | 1,965 | 76.3 | 74.0–78.6 |
Yes | 645 | 23.7 | 21.3–26.2 |
Rehabilitation | |||
No | 2,107 | 80.9 | 78.7–82.9 |
Yes | 503 | 19.1 | 17.1–21.3 |
In the bivariate analysis, a higher prevalence of the use of rehabilitation services was found in persons with disabilities who had a provisional health system, mainly in those who received care in Social Security Health Institutions (ISAPRE), with 28.9% (p < 0.028). Similarly, in persons with disabilities and mental illness, the prevalence of rehabilitation services was 27.6% compared with persons with disabilities who did not have a mental illness, with 15.1% (p < 0.001). A higher prevalence of the use of rehabilitation services was also found in persons with disabilities who had a caregiver (23.3%) compared with those without a caregiver (16.2%) (p = 0.001) ( Table 2).
Variable | Use of rehabilitation services | P-valuea | |
---|---|---|---|
No, n (%) | Yes, n (%) | ||
Sex | 0,776 | ||
Male | 660 (81.4) | 141 (18.6) | |
Female | 1,447 (80.7) | 362 (19.3) | |
Age group | 0.326 | ||
18–29 | 139 (80.9) | 34 (19.1) | |
30–44 | 305 (85.2) | 51 (14.8) | |
55–59 | 596 (78.4) | 162 (21.6) | |
60+ | 1,067 (81.4) | 256 (18.6) | |
Educational level | 0.063 | ||
No education | 167 (87.5) | 24 (12.5) | |
Elementary | 879 (82.1) | 198 (17.9) | |
Middle | 791 (80.6) | 195 (19.4) | |
High school | 270 (75.3) | 86 (24.7) | |
Marital status | 0.204 | ||
Married/cohabiting | 969 (82.6) | 212 (17.4) | |
Widowed/separated/divorced | 663 (78.5) | 178 (21.5) | |
Single | 475 (79.5) | 113 (20.5) | |
Origin | 0.987 | ||
Urban | 1,744 (80.9) | 432 (19.1) | |
Rural | 363 (80.9) | 71 (19.1) | |
Indigenous identification | 0.087 | ||
No | 1,920 (80.5) | 468 (19.5) | |
Yes | 187 (86.2) | 35 (13.8) | |
Current job | 0.732 | ||
No | 1,420 (80.6) | 358 (19.4) | |
Yes | 687 (81.5) | 145 (18.5) | |
Health insurance system | 0.028 | ||
FONASA | 1,806 (81.5) | 419 (18.5) | |
FFAA, and Order | 47 (82.0) | 13 (18.0) | |
ISAPRE | 118 (71.1) | 50 (28.9) | |
None or private | 82 (86.6) | 13 (13.4) | |
Other/does not know | 54 (87.4) | 8 (12.6) | |
Chronic diseases b | 0.509 | ||
No | 534 (82.2) | 99 (17.8) | |
Yes | 1,573 (80.4) | 404 (19.6) | |
Mental illness c | < 0.001 | ||
No | 1,515 (84.9) | 269 (15.1) | |
Yes | 592 (72.4) | 234 (27.6) | |
Recreational activities | 0.747 | ||
No | 514 (81.5) | 125 (18.5) | |
Yes | 1,593 (80.7) | 378 (19.3) | |
Physical activity | 0.670 | ||
No | 1,746 (81.1) | 419 (18.9) | |
Yes | 361 (79.9) | 84 (20.1) | |
Caregiver assistance | 0.001 | ||
No | 1,308 (83.8) | 252 (16.2) | |
Yes | 799 (76.7) | 251 (23.3) | |
Perceived discrimination | 0.102 | ||
No | 1,601 (81.9) | 364 (18.1) | |
Yes | 506 (77.9) | 139 (22.1) |
In the crude model, the variables that were significantly associated with the use of rehabilitation services were primary education (PR 0.72; 95% CI 0.53–0.99, p < 0.043), no education (PR 0.5; 95% CI 0.32–0.80, p < 0.004), marital status (PR 1.24; 95% CI 0.97–1.58, p = 0.078), indigenous identification (PR 0.71; 95% CI 0.47–1.08, p = 0.109), health insurance system in the ISAPRE category (PR 1.56, 95% CI 1.10–2.23, p = 0.015), mental illness (PR 1.83; 95% CI 1.48–2.25, p < 0.001), caregiver assistance (PR 1.44; 95% CI 1.16–1.79, p = 0.001), and perception of discrimination (PR 1.22; 95% CI 0.96–1.55, p = 0.104). Other variables such as sex, age groups, origin, current job, chronic disease, recreational activities, and physical activity were not significantly associated with rehabilitation services ( Table 3).
Variables | Crude model | P-value | Adjusted model | P-value |
---|---|---|---|---|
PR (95% CI) | PR (95% CI) | |||
Sex | ||||
Male | Reference | |||
Female | 1.04 (0.80–1.34) | 0.777 | ||
Age group | ||||
18–29 | Reference | |||
30–44 | 0.78 (0.44–1.39) | 0.396 | ||
55–59 | 1.13 (0.70–1.82) | 0.610 | ||
60+ | 0.97 (0.61–1.57) | 0.916 | ||
Educational level | ||||
No education | 0.50 (0.32–0.80) | 0.004 | 0.43 (0.25–0.75) | 0.003 |
Elementary | 0.72 (0.53–0.99) | 0.043 | 0.74 (0.52–1.06) | 0.101 |
Middle | 0.78 (0.57–1.07) | 0.117 | 0.85 (0.62–1.18) | 0.334 |
High school | Reference | Reference | ||
Marital status | ||||
Married/cohabiting | Reference | Reference | ||
Widowed/separated/divorced | 1.24 (0.98-1.57) | 0.078 | 1.22 (0.95–1.56) | 0.126 |
Single | 1.18 (0.88-1.57) | 0.270 | 1.18 (0.88-1.58) | 0.274 |
Origin | ||||
Urban | Reference | |||
Rural | 0.99 (0.76–1.31) | 0.988 | ||
Indigenous identification | ||||
No | Reference | Reference | ||
Yes | 0.71 (0.47–1.08) | 0.109 | 0.81 (0.53-1.24) | 0.338 |
Current job | ||||
No | Reference | |||
Yes | 0.96 (0.75–1.23) | 0.733 | ||
Health insurance system | ||||
FONASA | Reference | Reference | ||
FFAA, and Order | 0.97 (0.53–1.77) | 0.927 | 1.07 (0.59–1.94) | 0.815 |
ISAPRE | 1.56 (1.10–2.23) | 0.015 | 1.41 (0.97–2.07) | 0.074 |
None or private | 0.72 (0.38–1.38) | 0.323 | 0.73 (0.39–1.35) | 0.311 |
Other/does not know | 0.68 (0.29–1.57) | 0.363 | 0.76 (0.34–1.68) | 0.499 |
Chronic diseases a | ||||
No | Reference | |||
Yes | 1.10 (0.83–1.47) | 0.512 | ||
Mental illness b | ||||
No | Reference | Reference | ||
Yes | 1.83 (1.48–2.25) | < 0.001 | 1.77 (1.44–2.18) | <0.001 |
Recreational activities | ||||
No | Reference | |||
Yes | 1.04 (0.81–1.33) | 0.748 | ||
Physical activity | ||||
No | Reference | |||
Yes | 1.06 (0.80–1.41) | 0.664 | ||
Caregiver assistance | ||||
No | Reference | Reference | ||
Yes | 1.44 (1.16–1.79) | 0.001 | 1.57 (1.25–1.97) | <0.001 |
Perceived discrimination | ||||
No | Reference | Reference | ||
Yes | 1.22 (0.96–1.55) | 0.104 | 1.17 (0.92–1.48) | 0.208 |
The adjusted model’s associated variables were educational level, mental illness, and caregiver assistance. Persons with disability without education were 57% less likely to use rehabilitation services (PR 0.43; 95% CI 0.25–0.75, p = 0.003) than persons with disability with higher education. Likewise, persons with disability who had a mental illness were 77% more likely to use rehabilitation services than persons with disability who did not have a mental illness (PR 1.77; 95% CI 1.44–2.18, p < 0.001). Persons with disabilities who had caregiver assistance were 57% more likely to use rehabilitation services than persons with disabilities who have no caregiver assistance (PR 1.57; 95% CI 1.25–1.97, p < 0.001), all adjusted for educational level, marital status, ethnic identification, health insurance system, mental illness, assistance of a caregiver, and perception of discrimination ( Table 3).
In the adjusted model, no evidence of multicollinearity was found among the variables (VIF < 10).
The results of this study show that in 2015, one-fifth of the people with disabilities in Chile used some rehabilitation services in the previous year. In addition, low educational level, mental illness, and caregiver assistance were significantly associated with the use of rehabilitation services.
Approximately 19.1% of people with disabilities in Chile used some rehabilitation services in the previous year. Similar studies have reported varying findings. For instance, a population-based analysis of 13,659 individuals with disabilities in southern Brazil found that only 9.2% of people used rehabilitation services.26 A study in a Ugandan community of 318 randomly selected persons with physical disabilities reported a prevalence of 26.4% of rehabilitation service utilization.25 Another study in Uganda of 284 persons with physical disabilities receiving CBR services found a prevalence of access to rehabilitation services of 41.1%, although only 6.8% had access to physical therapy.20
This variability in the prevalence of rehabilitation services could be explained by the diversity of methodological designs, different instruments used to measure disability, or differences in access to rehabilitation services. As long as methodologies for measuring disability are not standardized, these differences will remain unexplained. Thus, caution should be exercised when comparing similar studies.
People with disabilities with lower educational levels were less likely to use rehabilitation services than those with higher education levels. These results are consistent with studies conducted in Uganda,25 Brazil,28–30 Poland,31 and Peru,32 which indicates that low educational level decreases the use of rehabilitation services. A study in Spain also found that older adults with low educational level were more likely to have a functional disability.33 In this regard, several population-based studies have shown that educational disparities are associated with a higher incidence of disability34,35; this may be attributed to environmental barriers, including the lack of accessible educational materials, inadequate school infrastructure, and negative attitudes among teachers. Moreover, limited economic resources would increase these inequalities.36 The higher prevalence of disability among individuals with lower educational levels or limited access to information about the availability of rehabilitation services may explain the greater need for such services observed in our study.
People with disabilities and mental illnesses such as depression or anxiety were more likely to use rehabilitation services. Depression and disability have a reciprocal association. Several factors, such as social stereotyping, abuse, poverty, environmental barriers, or lack of access to health services, predispose people with disabilities to suffer up to depressive symptoms three times more than their non-disabled peers; moreover, depression can lead to disability.37 This association is clearly described in several studies.38,39 However, there is limited information on depression and its association with the use of rehabilitation services in people with disabilities. Some studies have shown results similar to ours. In 3,568 adults with disabilities in Korea, those who received rehabilitation services had a higher risk of depressive symptoms than those who did not (OR 1.23; 95% CI 1.01–1.50).40 A population-based study of 195,033 Americans found a higher prevalence of depressive symptoms in adults with disabilities who used assistive technologies (30.4%) than those who did not (7.4%).41 Another study in Germany involving 4,020 patients with cancer reported a higher prevalence of depression in those patients coming from cancer rehabilitation centers (28%) compared with inpatients (24%) or outpatients (21%), increasing this probability up to six times.42
According to our findings and the reviewed evidence, individuals with disabilities who utilized rehabilitation services were more likely to have a physician-diagnosed anxiety or depression. These conditions may be more closely associated with the disability itself rather than the need for rehabilitation services. However, factors intrinsic to the rehabilitation process—such as pain, feelings of embarrassment, or frustration arising from prolonged rehabilitation or the permanence of the disability—could also contribute to this association. Information on this topic is limited, but some studies have described this explanation.40
Finally, people with disabilities who have caregiver assistance were more likely to use rehabilitation services. People with disabilities may need a caregiver to perform basic activities of daily living.43 A population-based study in Peru found that 40.5% of people with disabilities were dependent on a caregiver; this function was mainly assumed by female family members.32 The role of the caregiver mainly falls on a family member, either the children or the partner.44 A study in China conducted on informal caregivers of people with intellectual disabilities found that 85% of the caregivers were the parents of the patients.45 Therefore, family members would have an essential role in the decision to access rehabilitation services, especially in those with severe limitations and almost absolute dependence on the caregiver. This explanation has been postulated by Medeiros et al. to justify the high prevalence of rehabilitation services in minors with disabilities.26 Although individuals with disabilities are generally autonomous and capable of making their own decisions, they may, in certain cases, require a caregiver. Caregivers play a fundamental role in the success of rehabilitation by serving as a vital communication link between the physician and the patient. Additionally, healthcare professionals rely on caregivers to facilitate and extend the rehabilitation process in the home setting.46
The results of this study have significant public health implications for Chile. Efforts must focus on improving equity in access to rehabilitation services, ensuring that individuals with disabilities and lower educational attainment are not excluded from these essential services. Strengthening the early detection and intervention of mental illnesses in individuals with disabilities is also crucial, given their increased need for rehabilitation. Lastly, it is imperative to integrate caregivers into rehabilitation plans, acknowledging their pivotal role in facilitating access and promoting adherence to treatment.
This study has some limitations. First, social desirability bias or recall bias may have influenced survey responses, potentially leading to an overestimation or underestimation of the reported prevalence of rehabilitation service use among individuals with disabilities. Second, certain factors associated with the use of rehabilitation services, such as transportation challenges, architectural barriers, or the quality of medical care, were not captured in the ENDISC II survey. Similarly, for some variables, such as caregiver assistance, the specific type of care provided to individuals with disabilities remains unknown. Third, stratification according to age groups was not performed; in older adults, the associated factors may vary concerning other age groups. Fourth, the use of rehabilitation services only included the last 12 months. Their use before that time is unknown, especially in patients with chronic disabilities. Fifth, some categories of the exposure variables may not have an adequate sample size to show an association with the use of rehabilitation services. Sixth, causality between the main variables cannot be affirmed because of the study’s cross-sectional design. As a strength, ENDISC II is a population-based survey; thus, the results of this study would be representative of people with disabilities in Chile.
In Chile, in 2015, one-fifth of people with disabilities used some rehabilitation service in the previous year. People with lower educational levels were less likely to access this service. Having a mental illness, such as depression, and receiving caregiver assistance significantly increased the likelihood of accessing rehabilitation services. These results should guide health professionals in identifying depressive or anxious conditions that may impair compliance and correct performance of therapies. Likewise, it is necessary to encourage the caregiver to participate in the rehabilitation therapies of a person with disability. Finally, future studies should include a more significant number of possible factors that may explain the use of rehabilitation services in persons with disabilities.
ENDISC II data is available on the website of the National Disability Service (SENADIS) of Chile: https://www.senadis.gob.cl/pag/356/1625/base_de_datos .
The data is available in SPSS or Stata form and a codebook is available (Spanish).
figshare: [Extended data] Factors associated with the use of rehabilitation services among people with disabilities in Chile: A population-based study. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21749291.47
This project contains the following extended data:
• Supplementary material (Table of operationalization of variables – this provides English translations of the relevant column labels/questions in the data file, as well as a data key)
• Stata do-file (Contains the commands used for data analysis)
• The ENDISC II questionnaire (Spanish)
Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).
Views | Downloads | |
---|---|---|
F1000Research | - | - |
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
|
- | - |
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Partly
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Disability
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Partly
References
1. Stucki G, Bickenbach J: Functioning: the third health indicator in the health system and the key indicator for rehabilitation.Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2017; 53 (1): 134-138 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full TextCompeting Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Rehabilitation; Physical and rehabilitation medicine; EBM/P;
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Partly
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Stroke rehab, low cost stroke rehab models, technology in stroke rehab, clinical practice guidelines and protocols, tele-rehabilitation, capacity building models
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Partly
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Disability, rehabilitation
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Invited Reviewers | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Version 2 (revision) 17 Jan 25 |
read | read | ||
Version 1 18 Jan 23 |
read | read |
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Already registered? Sign in
The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.
You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.
If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.
If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.
Comments on this article Comments (0)