Search

Abstract: Bjornson KF, Belza B, Kartin D, Logsdon RG, McLaughlin J. Self-reported health status and quality of life in youth with cerebral palsy and typically developing youth. Objective: To describe self-reported health status and quality of life (QOL) of ambulatory youths with cerebral palsy (CP) compared with sex- and age-matched typically developing youth (TDY). Design: Prospective cross-sectional cohort comparison. Setting: Community-based. Participants: A convenience sample of 81 youth with CP (age range, 10−13y) with Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) levels I through III and 30 TDY participated. They were recruited from 2 regional children’s hospitals and 1 regional military medical center. Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: Participants completed the Child Health Questionnaire−Child Form (CHQ-CF87) for health status and the Youth Quality of Life for QOL. Results: Youth with CP reported significantly lower health status than age- and sex-matched TDY in the following CHQ-CF87 subscales: role/social behavioral physical, bodily pain, physical function, and general health (CP mean rank, 46.8−55.2; TDY mean rank, 62.2−80.9). There were significant differences across GMFCS levels. There were no significant differences in self-reported QOL. Conclusions: Self-reported health status, but not QOL, appears sensitive to the functional health issues experienced by ambulatory youth with CP. Pain management and psychosocial support may be indicated for them. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objective To identify insurance-based disparities in access to outpatient pediatric neurorehabilitation services. Design Audit study with paired calls, where callers posed as a mother seeking services for a simulated child with history of severe traumatic brain injury and public or private insurance. Setting Outpatient rehabilitation clinics. Participants Sample of rehabilitation clinics (N=287): 195 physical therapy (PT) clinics, 109 occupational therapy (OT) clinics, 102 speech therapy (ST) clinics, and 11 rehabilitation medicine clinics. Interventions Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures Acceptance of public insurance and the number of business days until the next available appointment. Results Therapy clinics were more likely to accept private insurance than public insurance (relative risk [RR] for PT clinics, 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.22–1.44; RR for OT clinics, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.24–1.57; and RR for ST clinics, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.25–1.62), with no significant difference for rehabilitation medicine clinics (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.90–1.34). The difference in median wait time between clinics that accepted public insurance and those accepting only private insurance was 4 business days for PT clinics and 15 days for ST clinics ( P ≤.001), but the median wait time was not significantly different for OT clinics or rehabilitation medicine clinics. When adjusting for urban and multidisciplinary clinic statuses, the wait time at clinics accepting public insurance was 59% longer for PT (95% CI, 39%–81%), 18% longer for OT (95% CI, 7%–30%), and 107% longer for ST (95% CI, 87%–130%) than that at clinics accepting only private insurance. Distance to clinics varied by discipline and area within the state. Conclusions Therapy clinics were less likely to accept public insurance than private insurance. Therapy clinics accepting public insurance had longer wait times than did clinics that accepted only private insurance. Rehabilitation professionals should attempt to implement policy and practice changes to promote equitable access to care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]