No abstract

No abstract

Objectives To estimate the prevalence and causes of functional paralysis in the United States. Methods We used the 2013 US Paralysis Prevalence & Health Disparities Survey to estimate the prevalence of paralysis, its causes, associated sociodemographic characteristics, and health effects among this population. Results Nearly 5.4 million persons live with paralysis. Most persons with paralysis were younger than 65 years (72.1%), female (51.7%), White (71.4%), high school graduates (64.8%), married or living with a partner (47.4%), and unable to work (41.8%). Stroke is the leading cause of paralysis, affecting 33.7% of the population with paralysis, followed by spinal cord injury (27.3%), multiple sclerosis (18.6%), and cerebral palsy (8.3%). Conclusions According to the functional definition, persons living with paralysis represent a large segment of the US population, and two thirds of them are between ages 18 and 64 years. Targeted health promotion that uses inclusion strategies to account for functional limitations related to paralysis can be undertaken in partnership with state and local health departments.

IntroductionMany studies on cancer screening among adults with disabilities examined disability status only, which masks subgroup differences. We examined prevalence of receipt of cancer screening tests by disability status and type.MethodsWe used 2013 National Health Interview Survey data to assess prevalence of 1) guideline-concordant mammography, Papanicolaou (Pap) tests, and endoscopy and stool tests; 2) physicians’ recommendations for these tests; and 3) barriers to health-care access among adults with and without disabilities (defined as difficulty with cognition, hearing, vision, or mobility).ResultsReported Pap test use ranged from 66.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 60.3%–71.4%) to 80.2% (95% CI, 72.4%–86.2%) among women with different types of disabilities compared with 81.4% (95% CI, 80.0%–82.7%) among women without disabilities. Prevalence of mammography among women with disabilities was also lower (range, 61.2% [95% CI, 50.5%–71.0%] to 67.5% [95% CI, 62.8%–71.9%]) compared with women without disabilities (72.8% [95% CI, 70.7%–74.9%]). Screening for colorectal cancer was 57.0% among persons without disabilities, and ranged from 48.6% (95% CI, 40.3%–57.0%) among those with vision limitations to 64.6% (95% CI, 58.5%–70.2%) among those with hearing limitations. Receiving recommendations for Pap tests and mammography increased all respondents’ likelihood of receiving these tests. The most frequently reported barrier to accessing health care reported by adults with disabilities was difficulty scheduling an appointment.ConclusionWe observed disparities in receipt of cancer screening among adults with disabilities; however, disparities varied by disability type. Our findings may be used to refine interventions to close gaps in cancer screening among persons with disabilities.