BACKGROUND: Mobility limitations are the most common disability type among the 61 million Americans with disability. Studies of patients with mobility limitations suggest that inaccessible medical diagnostic equipment poses significant barriers to care. METHODS: The study team surveyed randomly selected US physicians nationwide representing seven specialties about their reported use of accessible weight scales and exam tables/chairs when caring for patients with mobility limitations. A descriptive analysis of responses was performed, and multivariable logistic regression was used to examine associations between accessible equipment and participants' characteristics. RESULTS: The 714 participants (survey response rate = 61.0%) were primarily male, White, and urban, and had practiced for 20 or more years. Among those reporting routinely recording patients' weights (n = 399), only 22.6% (standard error [SE] = 2.2) reported always or usually using accessible weight scales for patients with significant mobility limitations. To determine weights of patients with mobility limitations, 8.1% always, 24.3% usually, and 40.0% sometimes asked patients. Physicians practicing ≥ 20 years were much less likely than other physicians to use accessible weight scales: odds ratio (OR) = 0.51 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.26-0.99). Among participants seeing patients with significant mobility limitations (n = 584), only 40.3% (SE = 2.2) always or usually used accessible exam tables or chairs. Specialists were much more likely than primary care physicians to use accessible exam tables/chairs: OR = 1.96 (95% CI = 1.29-2.99). CONCLUSION: More than 30 years after enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act, most physicians surveyed do not use accessible equipment for routine care of patients with chronic significant mobility limitations.
BACKGROUND: Mobility limitations are the most common disability type among the 61 million Americans with disability. Studies of patients with mobility limitations suggest that inaccessible medical diagnostic equipment poses significant barriers to care. METHODS: The study team surveyed randomly selected US physicians nationwide representing seven specialties about their reported use of accessible weight scales and exam tables/chairs when caring for patients with mobility limitations. A descriptive analysis of responses was performed, and multivariable logistic regression was used to examine associations between accessible equipment and participants' characteristics. RESULTS: The 714 participants (survey response rate = 61.0%) were primarily male, White, and urban, and had practiced for 20 or more years. Among those reporting routinely recording patients' weights (n = 399), only 22.6% (standard error [SE] = 2.2) reported always or usually using accessible weight scales for patients with significant mobility limitations. To determine weights of patients with mobility limitations, 8.1% always, 24.3% usually, and 40.0% sometimes asked patients. Physicians practicing ≥ 20 years were much less likely than other physicians to use accessible weight scales: odds ratio (OR) = 0.51 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.26-0.99). Among participants seeing patients with significant mobility limitations (n = 584), only 40.3% (SE = 2.2) always or usually used accessible exam tables or chairs. Specialists were much more likely than primary care physicians to use accessible exam tables/chairs: OR = 1.96 (95% CI = 1.29-2.99). CONCLUSION: More than 30 years after enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act, most physicians surveyed do not use accessible equipment for routine care of patients with chronic significant mobility limitations.
Authors: Monika Mitra; Lauren D Smith; Suzanne C Smeltzer; Linda M Long-Bellil; Nechama Sammet Moring; Lisa I Iezzoni Journal: Disabil Health J Date: 2017-01-03 Impact factor: 2.554
Authors: Heather F de Vries McClintock; Frances K Barg; Sam P Katz; Margaret G Stineman; Alice Krueger; Patrice M Colletti; Tom Boellstorff; Hillary R Bogner Journal: Disabil Health J Date: 2015-09-05 Impact factor: 2.554
Authors: Kate M Flentje; Colin L Knight; Ingrid Stromfeldt; Anindita Chakrabarti; N Deborah Friedman Journal: Intern Med J Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 2.048
Authors: Lisa I Iezzoni; Long H Ngo; Donglin Li; Richard G Roetzheim; Reed E Drews; Ellen P McCarthy Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Lisa I Iezzoni; Sowmya R Rao; Julie Ressalam; Dragana Bolcic-Jankovic; Nicole D Agaronnik; Tara Lagu; Elizabeth Pendo; Eric G Campbell Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2022-01 Impact factor: 6.301