Objectives: Factors common to socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods, such as low availability of transportation, may limit access to restorative care services for critical illness survivors. Our primary objective was to evaluate whether neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage was associated with an increased disability burden after critical illness. Our secondary objective was to determine if the effect differed for those discharged to the community compared with those discharged to a facility.
Patients: One hundred ninety-nine older adults, contributing to 239 ICU admissions, who underwent monthly assessments of disability for 12 months following hospital discharge in 13 different functional tasks from 1998 to 2017.
Measurements and main results: Neighborhood disadvantage was assessed using the area deprivation index, a 1-100 ranking evaluating poverty, housing, and employment metrics. Those living in disadvantaged neighborhoods (top quartile of scores) were less likely to self-identify as non-Hispanic White compared with those in more advantaged neighborhoods. In adjusted models, older adults living in disadvantaged neighborhoods had a 9% higher disability burden over the 12 months following ICU discharge compared with those in more advantaged areas (rate ratio, 1.09; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 1.02-1.16). In the secondary analysis adjusting for discharge destination, neighborhood disadvantage was associated with a 14% increase in disability burden over 12 months of follow-up (rate ratio, 1.14; 95% credible interval, 1.07-1.21). Disability burden was 10% higher for those living in disadvantaged neighborhoods and discharged home as compared with those discharged to a facility, but this difference was not statistically significant (interaction rate ratio, 1.10; 95% credible interval, 0.98-1.25).
Conclusions: Neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage is associated with a higher disability burden in the 12 months after a critical illness. Future studies should evaluate barriers to functional recovery for ICU survivors living in disadvantaged neighborhoods.
The objectives were to determine whether women always fare more poorly in terms of physical function and disability across countries that vary widely in terms of their level of development, epidemiologic context and level of gender equality. Sex differences in self-reported and objective measures of disability and physical function were compared among older adults aged 55-85 in the United States of America, Taiwan, Korea, Mexico, China, Indonesia and among the Tsimane of Bolivia using population-based studies collected between 2001 and 2011. Data were analysed using logistic and ordinary least-squares regression. Confidence intervals were examined to see whether the effect of being female differed significantly between countries. In all countries, women had consistently worse physical functioning (both self-reported and objectively measured). Women also tended to report more difficulty with activities of daily living (ADL), although differences were not always significant. In general, sex differences across measures were less pronounced in China. In Korea, women had significantly lower grip strength, but sex differences in ADL difficulty were non-significant or even reversed. Education and marital status helped explain sex differences. Overall, there was striking similarity in the magnitude and direction of sex differences across countries despite considerable differences in context, although modest variations in the effect of sex were observed.
Second, even when the experience of impairment is negative, the reasons for the negative experience are often quite different from what the non-disabled presume. Again, many autobiographical accounts of living with impairments and fighting the disadvantages of disability explicitly point out that the main and sometimes the only disadvantage of the impairment is not physiological, but social; the ugly and unwelcoming attitudes of others, the strict insistence on the standard modes and levels of functioning, and the physical impediments to access all make people suffer. In this respect, the social model is very powerful at pointing to the ways that social norms can be disabling.
You are also covered by the Equality Act if you had a disability in the past. For example, if you had a mental health condition in the past which lasted for over 12 months, but you have now recovered, you are still protected from discrimination because of that disability.
This protects you from being treated badly because of something connected to your disability, such as having an assistance dog or needing time off for medical appointments. This does not apply unless the person who discriminated against you knew you had a disability or ought to have known. For example:
Discrimination arising from disability is unlawful unless the organisation or employer is able to show that there is a good reason for the treatment and it is proportionate. This is known as objective justification. For example:
The Equality Act says that employers cannot ask job applicants about their health or disability until they have been offered a job, except in specific circumstances where the information is necessary for the application process or a requirement of the job. For example:
I. Socially disadvantaged individuals are those who have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias within American society because of their identities as members of groups and without regard to their individual qualities. Social disadvantage must stem from circumstances beyond their control. Evidence of individual social disadvantage must include the following elements:
(A) At least one objective distinguishing feature that has contributed to social disadvantage, such as race, ethnic origin, gender, disability, long-term residence in an environment isolated from the mainstream of American society, or other similar causes not common to individuals who are not socially disadvantaged;
(C) Negative impact on entry into or advancement in the business world because of the disadvantage. Recipients will consider any relevant evidence in assessing this element. In every case, however, recipients will consider education, employment and business history, where applicable, to see if the totality of circumstances shows disadvantage in entering into or advancing in the business world.
II. With respect to paragraph I.(A) of this appendix, the Department notes that people with disabilities have disproportionately low incomes and high rates of unemployment. Many physical and attitudinal barriers remain to their full participation in education, employment, and business opportunities available to the general public. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed in recognition of the discrimination faced by people with disabilities. It is plausible that many individuals with disabilities--especially persons with severe disabilities (e.g., significant mobility, vision, or hearing impairments)--may be socially and economically disadvantaged.
III. Under the laws concerning social and economic disadvantage, people with disabilities are not a group presumed to be disadvantaged. Nevertheless, recipients should look carefully at individual showings of disadvantage by individuals with disabilities, making a case-by-case judgment about whether such an individual meets the criteria of this appendix. As public entities subject to Title II of the ADA, recipients must also ensure their DBE programs are accessible to individuals with disabilities. For example, physical barriers or the lack of application and information materials in accessible formats cannot be permitted to thwart the access of potential applicants to the certification process or other services made available to DBEs and applicants.
(A) General. Economically disadvantaged individuals are socially disadvantaged individuals whose ability to compete in the free enterprise system has been impaired due to diminished capital and credit opportunities as compared to others in the same or similar line of business who are not socially disadvantaged.
(C) Factors to be considered. In considering diminished capital and credit opportunities, recipients will examine factors relating to the personal financial condition of any individual claiming disadvantaged status, including personal income for the past two years (including bonuses and the value of company stock given in lieu of cash), personal net worth, and the fair market value of all assets, whether encumbered or not. Recipients will also consider the financial condition of the applicant compared to the financial profiles of small businesses in the same primary industry classification, or, if not available, in similar lines of business, which are not owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals in evaluating the individual's access to credit and capital. The financial profiles that recipients will compare include total assets, net sales, pre-tax profit, sales/ working capital ratio, and net worth.
(1) Except as set forth in paragraph (D)(2) of this appendix, recipients will attribute to an individual claiming disadvantaged status any assets which that individual has transferred to an immediate family member, or to a trust, a beneficiary of which is an immediate family member, for less than fair market value, within two years prior to a concern's application for participation in the DBE program, unless the individual claiming disadvantaged status can demonstrate that the transfer is to or on behalf of an immediate family member for that individual's education, medical expenses, or some other form of essential support.
(2) Recipients will not attribute to an individual claiming disadvantaged status any assets transferred by that individual to an immediate family member that are consistent with the customary recognition of special occasions, such as birthdays, graduations, anniversaries, and retirements. 59ce067264