Observational studyMedicine2020
Focus group interview regarding the accessibility of health information for people with disabilities and means of improving this accessibility in the future.
Observational study in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk of COVID-19 and major adverse clinical outcomes among people with disabilities in South Korea.Disability and health journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study concerns the accessibility of health information for people with disabilities. More specifically, by interviewing policy elites who have backgrounds in this area, we seek to obtain their opinions regarding the type of information people with disabilities require, and people with disabilities overall awareness of such information. Based on the information obtained, we also aim to identify methods of improving this accessibility.A focus group interview was conducted involving policy elites who had previously participated in decision-making processes for health policy. These elites were sourced from the fields of academia, medicine, and government. Content analysis was performed using NVivo 10, which is a computer-assisted/aided qualitative data-analysis software.The focus-group participants felt that relevant information for people with disabilities is provided in a fragmentary manner through several channels that have relatively low reliability, which creates difficulties for a significant portion of the target recipients. Discussions regarding the type of health information required by people with disabilities yielded the following topic clusters: information regarding health-care providers who specialize in specific disability types and regarding health behaviors for certain lifecycles, and information that helps people with disabilities return to society. Further, the focus group recommended 2 means of providing essential health information to PWDs in the future. As short-term strategies, the participants proposed simplifying the existing, fragmented information channels and the creation of a comprehensive web-based information portal with an associated call center. As a long-term strategy, they proposed the development of smart-device-based information services that are tailored to the needs of individuals.Efforts to reduce the disparities in health information for people with disabilities are essential for addressing the existing inequality regarding the availability of health information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.