Skip to main content
HHS Author Manuscripts logoLink to HHS Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: Matern Child Health J. 2015 Jun;19(6):1189–1201. doi: 10.1007/s10995-014-1627-4

Tools for Improving Clinical Preventive Services Receipt Among Women with Disabilities of Childbearing Ages and Beyond

Lisa B Sinclair 1,, Kate E Taft 2, Michelle L Sloan 3, Alissa C Stevens 4, Gloria L Krahn 5
PMCID: PMC4473762  NIHMSID: NIHMS699337  PMID: 25359095

Abstract

Efforts to improve clinical preventive services (CPS) receipt among women with disabilities are poorly understood and not widely disseminated. The reported results represent a 2-year, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs partnership to develop a central resource for existing tools that are of potential use to maternal and child health practitioners who work with women with disabilities. Steps included contacting experts in the fields of disability and women’s health, searching the Internet to locate examples of existing tools that may facilitate CPS receipt, convening key stakeholders from state and community-based programs to determine their potential use of the tools, and developing an online Toolbox. Nine examples of existing tools were located. The tools focused on facilitating use of the CPS guidelines, monitoring CPS receipt among women with disabilities, improving the accessibility of communities and local transportation, and training clinicians and women with disabilities. Stakeholders affirmed the relevance of these tools to their work and encouraged developing a Toolbox. The Toolbox, launched in May 2013, provides information and links to existing tools and accepts feedback and proposals for additional tools. This Toolbox offers central access to existing tools. Maternal and child health stakeholders and other service providers can better locate, adopt and implement existing tools to facilitate CPS receipt among adolescent girls with disabilities who are transitioning into adult care as well as women with disabilities of child-bearing ages and beyond.

Keywords: Clinical preventive services, Healthcare tools, Women’s health, Women with disabilities

Introduction

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, through various offices, works to address health disparities through a network of partners including maternal and child health programs [1]. At the same time, the maternal and child health field is expanding its focus on health disparities to include women with disabilities of childbearing ages [24]. According to the U.S. Census, women with disabilities represent 23.2 % (28.8 million) of women aged 15 years or older and 11.2 % (6.5 million) of women who are of childbearing years, aged 15–44 [5]. Women with disabilities represent an underserved vulnerable population [6] who experience significant health disparities such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, partner violence, mental distress, and certain types of cancer [7, 8]. An important pathway to reducing health disparities is improving the receipt of clinical preventive services (CPS). CPS are defined as health care services delivered in clinical settings to prevent the onset or progression of a health condition or illness [9]. Recommendations for CPS are derived from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) [10] as well as other authoritative organizations and professional committees [1115].

National data highlight disparities in CPS receipt (see “Appendix” section). Compared to women without disabilities, a lower percentage of women with disabilities receive routine physical examinations, teeth cleanings, hepatitis B vaccinations, cervical and breast cancer screenings, and family planning services [1618]. Unfortunately, some CPS measurements are unavailable due to the lack of indicators within national data sources [19] as well as the lack of analysis of existing indicators (see “Appendix” section). Findings of health service disparities among women with disabilities have prompted research on the complexity of programmatic, physical and person-level factors and barriers that influence CPS receipt as well as suggested strategies for improvements.

Programmatic barriers, also called access-to-care barriers, relate to health care costs and delivery systems. The proportion of women with disabilities who have health insurance and a primary care physician as their usual source of care is similar to women without disabilities [1618, 20]. However, having health insurance, a primary care physician as a usual source of care, or recently seeing a physician or specialist does not ensure the receipt of recommended CPS [21] especially among women with disabilities [22, 23]. Not surprisingly, scheduling CPS appointments is a key determinant of services receipt [24]. To help ensure the receipt of recommended CPS, researchers suggest implementing (1) educational workshops to enable women with disabilities to manage CPS appointments [25], (2) integrated or mobile checklists, and prompts and reminder systems for clinicians [2628], (3) consensus practice guidelines within health plans and their provider base to ensure coverage [29], and (4) surveillance to monitor CPS receipt, evaluate health system performance and health impact, and ensure accountability at various levels [30].

Commonly cited physical barriers in and around health care facilities include the need for accessible parking spaces and bathrooms, lighter doors with lever handles, handrails on both sides of ramps, signage directing people to accessible entrances, as well as audible and visible elevator indicators [31]. Depending on the type of disability, transportation barriers can include the lack of a wheelchair lift as well as tactile, audible or large and high-contrast transit information. Strategies for “getting there and getting in” utilize community engagement, an evolutionary process of creating partnerships and infrastructure to facilitate positive community changes [3234].

Person-level barriers refer to ineffective knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors among patients and their clinicians. Women with disabilities may delay or forgo CPS if they do not understand service purposes or procedures, have competing demands associated with a disability, or have negative attitudes stemming from previous poor interactions with clinicians [3537]. Clinicians may not communicate appropriately, feel comfortable with providing services, carefully examine patients, or offer a full range of CPS if they are unfamiliar with the needs of women with disabilities [23, 38, 39]. While clinicians affirm their need for more disability training and education [4042], women with disabilities seek clinicians who have disability training [43]. To improve interactions between women with disabilities and their clinicians, researchers suggest assuring disability-competencies among practitioners [23, 44, 45] and empowering women with disabilities to participate in their primary care [46].

While researchers suggest practical strategies to address barriers to CPS receipt, there is little recognition of existing tools to facilitate those strategies. This manuscript reports the results of a 2-year partnership between Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs (AMCHP) to develop a central resource for existing tools that are of potential use to maternal and child health practitioners who work with women with disabilities. To our knowledge, this project is the first of its kind.

Description

This project involved three steps: (1) locating examples of existing tools that may be used by maternal and child health programs to facilitate CPS receipt among women with disabilities, (2) hosting a 1-day meeting to present selected tools and solicit input from key stakeholders, and (3) building an online Toolbox. A tool was defined as an instrument that is used to carry out a particular function. Information-only resources such as, brochures, fact sheets, bibliographies and organizational listings were not considered tools.

To locate examples of existing tools, experts in the field (see Acknowledgments) were contacted. In addition, Google, Google Scholar, and PubMed were searched using the following phrases: “clinical preventive service tools,” “preventive health care and disabilities,” “disability data,” “community action and disability,” “barrier removal checklist,” “medical care disability training,” and “women’s health curriculum and disability.” To be included in the Toolbox, tools had to meet the following criteria: readily available upon request, designed to facilitate the receipt or provision of CPS, interactive or hands-on, user-friendly or require minimal training, and useful to clinicians, communities and public health service programs, and educators who interact with practitioners and women with disabilities.

Nine examples of existing tools that met the inclusion criteria were located—the Electronic Preventive Services Selector [47], Purchaser’s Guide to Clinical Preventive Services [48], Making Preventive Health Care Work for You workbook [49], Disability and Health Data System (DHDS) [16], Community Action Guide (CAG) [50], Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Checklist for Readily Achievable Barrier Removal [51], Project ACTION hotline 1-800-659-6428 [52], Access to Medical Care video [53], and Women Be Healthy curriculum [54]. The identified tools covered a broad range of CPS. The tools also targeted a wide-range of intended-users or audiences including providers, employers, health insurers, community-based organizations, medical directors, builders, architects, health educators and women with disabilities. Two tools specifically targeted women with physical or intellectual disabilities. Six of the tools had an evidence-base derived from parallel or similar experiences, theory or program logic, or observation as reflected in the non-hierarchical classification of evidence proposed by Swinburn et al. [55]. However, two of the tools had a published evidence-base—ADA Checklist for Readily Achievable Barrier Removal [56], and Women Be Healthy [57]. One study showed that the Purchaser’s Guide to Clinical Preventive Services needed further evaluation to determine if the guide has influenced negotiations for health benefits contracts [58]. (see Table 1 for additional information on these tools).

Table 1.

Promising public health tools to facilitate clinical preventive services

Tool name Intended user/audience Description/format Type of evidence-base Implementation information
Increase knowledge, use and coverage of recommended clinical preventive services
1. Electronic preventive services selector (ePSS) Clinicians (physicians and nursing staff) This tool is a PDA mobile-device application and a web-based tool designed to help identify preventive services that are appropriate for patients. The ePSS helps clinicians search the current USPSTF recommendations by patient characteristics including age, sex, and selected behavioral risk factors Parallel evidence—similar public health approaches Available from the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality at http://epss.ahrq.gov/PDA/index.jsp
2. A purchaser’s guide to clinical preventive services: moving science into coverage Health insurers This tool is a portable, electronic, searchable compilation of recommended clinical preventive services that insurers, their network of providers, and beneficiaries can refer to when selecting or implementing coverages for services that are highly effective Theory evidence—rational and diffusion of innovation models which propose increasing knowledge to prompt better informed decision-making behaviors Available from the National Business Group on Health at http://www.businessgrouphealth.org/benefitstopics/topics/purchasers/fullguide.pdf
3. Making preventive health care work for you—a resource guide for people with physical disabilities People with disabilities and their providers This tool is a portable electronic, searchable interactive document that contains checklists for assessing chronic disease risk factors and recommended clinical preventive services as well as a section for planning and recording services received Theory evidence—health belief and activated health education models which propose engaging individuals to assess their health and plan positive actions. (User-feedback is solicited with this tool) Available from the Center for Disability Issues and the Health Professions at http://www.cdihp.org/pdf/PreventiveHealthCare.pdf
Identify service gaps and monitoring progress
4. Disability and health data system (DHDS) State or community health professionals, clinicians and the general public This tool is a portable, electronic, searchable interactive database that allows the user to select variables of interest from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). The DHDS provides recent state-level estimates for the receipt of eight clinical preventive services among women with disabilities Parallel evidence—similar public health approaches, i.e., using data to inform public health actions Available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at http://dhds.cdc.gov
Create accessible communities
5. Community action guide (CAG) Community-based organizations This tool is a portable, electronic, searchable interactive document that outlines interactive steps organizations can take to assemble community members, collect data, identify barriers, map local resources, and develop a plan of action and solutions at the individual, environmental and organizational levels Theory evidence—ecological models of community engagement to create partnerships with advocates and community representatives to promote positive community change Available from the Oregon Institute on Development and Disability at http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/research/centers-institutes/institute-on-development-and-disability/public-health-programs/upload/Community-Action-Guide.pdf
6. ADA checklist for readily achievable barrier removal Administrators and building planners, community-based organizations This tool is a portable, electronic, searchable, interactive document that helps identify barriers and low-cost actions needed to remove them Observational evidence—This checklist has been implemented in the field [56] Available from the Institute for Human Centered Design and ADA National Network at http://www.adachecklist.org/doc/fullchecklist/ada-checklist.pdf
7. Project ACTION national hotline 1-800-659-6428 Transportation providers. People with disabilities may also call This tool is a live interactive telephone resource that provides technical assistance, training information, publications, and related sources to help community organizations with developing local accessible transportation. In addition, the hotline offers people with disabilities a printed ride-finding resource entitled, How to Find a Ride, available in Braille and audio Observational evidence -This hotline has been operational for many years and provides support across the United States Available from Easter Seals toll free at 1-800-659-6428
Empower clinicians and women with disabilities to interact effectively
8. Access to medical care Community health organizations and health care centers that offer continuing education and training to student and professional clinicians, advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) and other public health practitioners The Access to Medical Care, 2-part videos series with accompanying materials, teaches student and professional clinicians key concepts that are important to understand before interacting with people with physical and developmental disabilities related to barriers to care, accommodations, and effective communication and examination techniques Parallel evidence—similar public health strategies to improve knowledge and behavior Available from the World Institute on Disability at http://wid.org/news/new-training-video-and-curriculum-for-medical-providers-access-to-medical-care-adults-with-physical-disabilities/?searchterm=DVD
9. Women be healthy Health educators during workshops or trainings with women with disabilities This tool is an 8-week, 5-module training curriculum workbook. The curriculum enables women with intellectual disabilities to proactively become familiar with medical settings and participate in their own clinical preventive services, particularly breast and cervical cancer screenings Observational evidence—Curriculum participants gained significant improvements in health knowledge, behaviors, beliefs and coping strategies [57] Available from the North Carolina Office on Disability and Health at http://projects.fpg.unc.edu/~ncodh/WomensHealth/week2.cfm

In spring 2012, CDC and AMCHP hosted a one-day meeting for maternal and child health stakeholders to view some of the identified tools and to gather input on developing an online Toolbox. Thirty-two participants were invited including the developers of existing tools, experts in disability and women’s health, and potential end users of the toolbox such as state and local staff representing maternal and child health agencies whose work has the potential to include promoting the health of women with disabilities. Five of the tools were presented and discussed: Disability and Health Data System (DHDS), Community Action Guide (CAG), Project ACTION hotline, Access to Medical Care DVD, and Women Be Healthy curriculum.

Many of the stakeholders, who may have had few interactions with women with disabilities of childbearing ages, saw these tools for the first time. Stakeholders expressed interest in the presented tools as well as incorporating them into maternal and child health state and local public health programs. Stakeholders specifically suggested including in the Toolbox (1) tools for an audience of state and local program planners for maternal and child health and chronic disease programs, researchers, health educators, clinicians, social workers, and women with disabilities, (2) evidence-base information, (3) contact information for each tool, (4) a way to accept proposals for additional tools that meet the inclusion criteria, (5) a way to collect user feedback and website statistics, and (6) routine updates. They also suggested partnering with other women’s health and service-oriented organizations to reach a wide audience using various communication channels. These suggestions were operationalized.

Assessment

CDC and AMCHP drafted and presented a poster on the Toolbox at the 2013 annual AMCHP conference and co-developed the Toolbox within the main AMCHP website using Microsoft® Sharepoint®. After Beta-testing it among voluntary participants from the stakeholder meeting, AMCHP launched the Toolbox in May 2013 during National Women’s Health Week. CDC and AMCHP promoted the launch through newsletters, social media and partner agency websites.

The Toolbox, http://www.amchp.org/programsandtopics/womens-health/Focus%20Areas/WomensHealthDisability/Pages/default.aspx, features four introductory pages—Introduction, Background, Tool Submission and Inclusion Criteria. In addition, as derived from the literature, there are four pages representing strategies for increasing CPS receipt among women with disabilities. Those pages are entitled (1) Increase knowledge and use of recommended services, (2) Identify service gaps and monitor progress, (3) Create or map accessible facilities and transportation in communities, and (4) Empower clinicians and women with disabilities to interact effectively. At least one tool is provided for each strategy. From May 2013–May 2014, there were 629 page views from all visits.

Conclusion

The Toolbox offers central access to existing public health tools to facilitate CPS receipt among women with disabilities for use by maternal and child health programs, clinicians (nurses, physicians, physician assistants, and therapists), public health practitioners and academics who work with women with disabilities. This approach is consistent with other Toolboxes that serve as a medium for translating knowledge into public health practice [59]. Guided by the barriers and strategies identified in the literature, the Toolbox framework is consistent with established public health frameworks [6062] and critical components of primary care [63]. The Toolbox website may enhance access to, use and evaluation of existing tools, which in turn may help strengthen their evidence of functionality.

The tools identified are stand-alone products that might be useful in multi-component interventions. The identified tools do not represent an exhaustive search and do not address all factors that may influence CPS receipt. The Toolbox provides a link to each tool’s main Website. However, it does not provide additional references or instructions such as how to use or tailor tools to different audiences, how women with disabilities might apply the guidelines in their health care pursuits, or where to find alternate or condensed tool formats.

Much of the value in building this Toolbox derives from the shared perspectives of disability and maternal and child health stakeholders and their roles in improving CPS receipt among women with disabilities. Both disability and maternal and child health programs value health care services across the lifespan that are inclusive of race, ethnicity, economic and disability status. As such, opportunities to use this Toolbox may arise when working with adolescent girls with disabilities who are transitioning into adult care, women who are seeking reproductive and family planning services, as well as those seeking maternal support services. Immediate plans are to encourage use of and feedback on the Toolbox. Future plans are to foster the working relationships established at the stakeholder meeting and reach out to new partners to collaborate on promoting the development and knowledge of and access to tools designed to enhance CPS for women with disabilities of childbearing ages and beyond. CDC and AMCHP will continue to monitor use and growth of the Toolbox.

Acknowledgments

This project was funded by the Disability and Health Branch as part of the CDC, Office for State, Tribal, Local and Territorial Support (OSTLTS) Cooperative Agreement HM08-805. We thank all of the meeting participants for their expertise in reviewing examples of the tools for the Toolbox and appreciate the opening presenters Michael Fraser, Coleen Boyle, Rosaly Correa-De-Arraujo, Nancy Lee, and Marilyn Hartzell, as well as the tool presenters Michelle Sloan (co-author), Michelle Camicia, Donna Smith, Daniel Bailey, Marsha Saxton, Susan Parish, and Adriane Griffin. We thank Jacqui Butler and Lauren Ramos who oversaw the CDC/AMCHP agreement, Alma Reyes who arranged the stakeholder meeting, Sheri Jordan who assisted with the meeting agenda layout, Vincent Campbell who researched the Census estimates, Arlene Vincent-Mark who provided comments on the appendix layout, Michelle Reyes who oversaw the meeting planning and reviewed the manuscript along with Lacy Farhenbach, Dianna Carroll, and Michael Fox.

Appendix

See Table 2.

Table 2.

Clinical preventive services receipt among women, by disability status

Topic areas Recommended clinical preventive services Data sources Service indicators Prevalence of service receipt (%, standard error)
Women with disabilities Women without disabilities
Well visits
Physical examination The Institute of Medicine recommends at least one well-women preventive care visit annually for adult women to obtain the recommended preventive services [11] Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), 2006–2010 Women aged 18 years or older who received a routine checkup during the past year 71.6 %, (0.4) [16] 72.4 %, (0.2) [16]
Vision examination The American Optometric Association (AOA) recommends regular vision examinations for adults aged 18–60 years with no risk factors every 2 years; and adults at aged 60 years or older annually [12] None identified None identified
Hearing examination The American Speech–Language–Hearing Association (ASHA) recommends hearing screening for adults as needed, requested, or when they have conditions that place them at risk for hearing disability (e.g., family history, concern of family member); and for adults at least every decade through age 50 years and at 3-year intervals thereafter [13] National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) Questionnaire, Sample Person (SP)—Audiometry, 2011–2012 Women who had their hearing tested within the following time frames: <1 year, 1–4 years, 5–9 years, or 10+ years Data exist but are not analyzed and published for women with disabilities
Preventive services
Teeth cleaning The American Dental Association (ADA) recommends visiting your dentist regularly for professional cleanings and oral examinations [14] BRFSS, 2010 Women aged 18 years or older who received a teeth cleaning during the past year 59.4 %, (1.0) [18] 73.5 %, (0.2) [18]
Influenza vaccination The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends annual influenza vaccination for persons aged six months or older [15]. Note: In 1945, the Influenza trivalent vaccine became commercially available in the United States. In 2010, it included H1N1 BRFSS, 2006–2010 Women aged 18 years or older who received a seasonal flu shot during the past 12 months or the seasonal flu vaccine sprayed in the nose (FluMist). 39.1 %, (0.6) [16] 35.1 %, (0.3) [16]
Hepatitis A vaccination The ACIP recommends a 2-dose HepA series for persons aged 12 months or older and those previously unvaccinated for whom immunity is desired [15]. Note: In 1995, the HepA vaccine became commercially available in the United States NHIS, Sample Adult—Adult Access to Healthcare and Utilization, 2011 Women who have ever received a HepA vaccine series—completed after the second shot is received Data exist but are not analyzed and published for women with disabilities
Hepatitis B vaccination The ACIP recommends a 3-dose HepB series for persons aged 6 months or older and those previously unvaccinated for whom immunity is desired [15]. Note: In 1982, the HepB vaccine became commercially available in the United States BRFSS, 2007 Women aged 18 years or older who have ever received a HepB vaccine series - completed after the third shot is received. 36.7 %, (1.1) [18] 39.4 %, (0.5) [18]
Tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis vaccination The ACIP recommends a single Tdap dose for adults aged 19–64 years [15]. Note: In 2005, the Tdap booster vaccine for adults became commercially available in the United States NHIS, Sample Adult—Adult Access to Healthcare and Utilization, 2011 Women who have ever received a pertussis or whooping cough vaccine (TdaP, ADACEL or BOOSTRIX) Data exist but are not analyzed and published for women with disabilities
Human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination The ACIP recommends routine vaccination of Women aged 11 or 12 years with 3 doses of either HPV2 or HPV4. The vaccination series can be started beginning at age 9 years. Vaccination is recommended for Women aged 13–26 years who have not been vaccinated previously or who have not completed the 3-dose series. If a female reaches age 26 years before the vaccination series is complete, remaining doses can be administered after age 26 years [15]. Note: In 2006, the HPV vaccine became commercially available in the United States
  • #1

    NHIS, Sample Adult—Adult Access to Healthcare and Utilization, 2013

  • #2

    NHANES, Questionnaire, Sample Person (SP)—Immunization, 2011–2012

  • #1

    Have you ever received an HPV shot or vaccine (CERVARIX or GARDASIL )?

  • #2

    Have you ever received one or more doses of the HPV vaccine (CERVARIX or GARDASIL )?

Data exist but are not analyzed and published for women with disabilities
Zoster vaccination ACIP recommends that zoster vaccination begin at age 60 years. The Zoster vaccine is Food and Drug Administration approved for administration as early as age 50 years [15]. Note: In 2006, Zoster vaccine became commercially available in the United States NHIS, Sample Adult—Adult Access to Healthcare and Utilization, 2011 Women who have ever received a Zoster or Shingles vaccine (Zostavax®) Data exist but are not analyzed and published for women with disabilities.
Pneumococcal vaccination The ACIP recommends pneumococcal vaccination of all persons aged 65 years and older; and 1–2 doses of pneumococcal vaccination before age 65 years if some other risk factor is present (e.g., on the basis of medical occupational, lifestyle, or other indications) [15]. Note: In 2000, the 7-valent Pneumococcal vaccine became commercially available in the United States. In 2010, the FDA licensed the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine BRFSS, 2006–2010 Women aged 65 years or older who have ever received a pneumonia vaccine 74.1 %, (0.4) [16] 63.8 %, (0.4) [16]
Aspirin therapy The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends the use of aspirin for women aged 55–79 years when the potential benefit of a reduction in ischemic stroke outweighs the potential harm of an increase in gastrointestinal hemorrhage [10]
  • #1

    BRFSS Cardiovascular Health (even years only)

  • #2

    NHIS Sample Adult—Adult Conditions, 2011

  • #3

    National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES) Questionnaire, Sample Person (SP)—Dietary supplements and prescription medication, 2011–2012

  • #1

    Women who take aspirin daily or every other day

  • #2

    Women who are now taking a low-dose aspirin each day to prevent or control heart disease

  • #3

    Women who take aspirin every day or regularly

Data exist but are not analyzed and published for women with disabilities
Screeening services
Cervical cancer screening The USPSTF recommends Papanicolaou (Pap) screening every 3 years for women aged 21–65 years, every 5 years for women aged 30–65 years when screened with a combination of Pap and HPV testing [10] BRFSS, 2010 Women aged 18 years or older who received a Pap test during the past 3 years 78.3 %, (0.8) [16] 82.3 %, (0.4) [16]
Lipid screening The USPSTF recommends routine lipid disorder screening for women, aged 20–45 years if they have risk factors for coronary heart disease, and all women aged 45 years or older. The National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) recommends routine lipid screening for all adults aged 20 and older every 5 years [10] BRFSS, 2009 Women aged 20 years or older who received a blood test for cholesterol within the past 5 years 82.1 %, (0.9) [18] 79.3 %, (0.4) [18]
Blood pressure screening The USPSTF recommends routine blood pressure screening in all adults and treatment with anti-hypertensive medication to prevent incidence of cardiovascular disease [10]
  • #1

    NHIS, Sample Adult—Adult Access to Healthcare and Utilization, 2011

  • #2

    Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS)—HC, Preventive Care (AP) Section, 2011

  • #1

    Women who, during the past 12 months, received a blood pressure test by a doctor, nurse, or other health professional

  • #2

    Women who, during the past 12 months, received a blood pressure test by a doctor, nurse or other health professional

Data exist but are not analyzed and published for women with disabilities
Breast cancer screening The USPSTF recommends mammography screening, with or without clinical breast examination, for women aged 40 years or older every 1–2 years [10] BRFSS, 2010 Women aged 40 years or older who received a mammogram during the past 2 years. 70.7 %, (0.7) [16] 76.6 %, (0.4) [16]
Diabetes type 2 The USPSTF recommends type 2 diabetes screening in asymptomatic adults with sustained blood pressure (either treated or untreated) greater than 135/80 mm Hg. The American Diabetes Association recommends type 2 diabetes screening for adults aged 45 years or older, especially those with a BMI ≥25 kg/m2 every 3 years with a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) measurement. The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists recommends screening beginning at age 30 years for people at high risk for diabetes [10] NHANES Questionnaire, Sample Person (SP)—Diabetes, 2011–2012 Women who received a blood test for glucose or diabetes within the past 3 years Data exist but are not analyzed and published for women with disabilities
Colon cancer screening The USPSTF recommends colorectal cancer screening using fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy for adults beginning at age 50 years and continuing until age 75 years. The risks and benefits of these screening methods vary [10] BRFSS, 2010 Women aged 50 years or older who received sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy during the past 10 years or a fecal occult blood test (FOBT) during the past year, or both 68 %, (0.6) [18] 66.3 %, (0.5) [18]
Osteoporosis screening The USPSTF recommends routine Bone Mineral Density (BMD) screening beginning at age 60 years for women at increased risk for osteoporotic fractures; and routine screening for women aged 65 years or older [10]. The USPSTF does not mention screening periodicity None identified None identified
Mental health screening The USPSTF recommends screening adults for depression when supports are in place to assure accurate diagnosis, effective treatment and follow up [10] None identified None identified
Screening & Counseling Services
Pregnancy planning screening and counseling The IOM recommends educating and counseling all women with reproductive capacity about available FDA-approved methods of contraception and sterilization [11] National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), 2008 Women aged 15–19 years who received formal education on birth control methods 67 %, (CI not provided) [17] 70 %, (CI not provided) [17]
Tobacco screening and counseling The USPSTF recommends screening all adults for tobacco use and providing tobacco cessation interventions for those who use tobacco products [10] NHIS, Sample Adult—Adult Access to Healthcare and Utilization, 2011 Women who received a routine physical examination within the last 3 years and whose provider asked about tobacco use Data exist but are not analyzed and published for women with disabilities
Alcohol misuse screening and counseling The USPSTF recommends screening and behavioral counseling interventions to reduce alcohol misuse by adults, including pregnant women, in primary care settings [10] NHIS, Sample Adult—Adult Access to Healthcare and Utilization, 2011 Women who received a routine physical examination within the last 3 years and whose provider asked about alcohol use Data exist but are not analyzed and published for women with disabilities
Weight control screening and counseling The USPSTF recommends screening for obesity among all adults and offering intensive counseling and behavioral interventions to promote sustained weight loss for obese adults [10].
The USPSTF also recommends intensive behavioral dietary counseling for adult patients with hyperlipidemia and other known risk factors for cardiovascular and diet-related chronic disease. Intensive counseling can be delivered by primary care clinicians or by referral to other specialists such as nutritionists or dietitians [10]
MEPS—HC, Preventive Care (AP) section, 2011 Women who have ever received advice from their doctor or other health professional to eat fewer high fat or high cholesterol foods or exercise more Data exist but are not analyzed and published for women with disabilities
Human Immunodeficiency (HIV) Screening The USPSTF recommends HIV screening for all adolescents and adults at increased risk for HIV infection [10] BRFSS, 2006–2010 Women aged 18–64 years who have ever received a test for HIV, including tests of fluid from the mouth, not including tests received as part of a blood donation 51.1 %, (0.6) [16] 42.5 %, (0.2) [16]
Sexually transmitted infections (STI) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) counseling The IOM recommends annual counseling on STIs and HIV for all sexually active women [11] None identified None identified
Violence screening & counseling The IOM recommends screening and counseling women and youth for interpersonal and domestic violence [11] None identified None identified
Estrogen replacement therapy (ERT) counseling The USPSTF recommends ERT benefit and risk counseling by a healthcare provider among all women aged 40 or older. This is also recommended for all peri-and postmenopausal women, or all postmenopausal women by the American College of Obstetrics, American College of Physicians, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American Geriatric Society [10] NHIS, Sample Adult—Adult Access to Healthcare and Utilization, 2011 Women with symptoms of menopause who have talked with a provider about estrogen replacement to prevent bone loss Data exist but are not analyzed and published for women with disabilities

Contributor Information

Lisa B. Sinclair, Email: lsinclair@cdc.gov, Disability and Health Branch, Division of Human Development and Disability, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1600 Clifton Rd, E-88, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA

Kate E. Taft, Email: ktaft@amchp.org, Children and Youth with Special Health Care Needs, Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, 2030 M Street NW, Washington 20036, DC, USA

Michelle L. Sloan, Email: jtq4@cdc.gov, Disability and Health Branch, Division of Human Development and Disability, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1600 Clifton Rd, E-88, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA

Alissa C. Stevens, Email: fdx7@cdc.gov, Disability and Health Branch, Division of Human Development and Disability, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1600 Clifton Rd, E-88, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA

Gloria L. Krahn, Email: gloriakrahn@live.com, Disability and Health Branch, Division of Human Development and Disability, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1600 Clifton Rd, E-88, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA

References

  • 1.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Fiscal year 2014 justification of estimates for appropriation committees. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2013. [Accessed 18 Oct 2013]. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/fmo/topic/Budget%20Information/appropriations_budget_form_pdf/FY2014_CJ_CDC_FINAL.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kim M, et al. Health disparities among childrearing women with disabilities. Maternal and Child Health Journal. 2013;17(7):1260–1268. doi: 10.1007/s10995-012-1118-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Mitra M, Manning SE. Physical abuse around the time of pregnancy among women with disabilities. Maternal and Child Health Journal. 2012;16(4):802–806. doi: 10.1007/s10995-011-0784-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Allen D. Disability and maternal and child health. In: Lollar DJ, Andresen EM, editors. Public health perspectives on disability: Epidemiology to ethics and beyond. New York, NY: Springer Publisher; 2011. pp. 151–161. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.U.S. Census Bureau. [Accessed 18 Oct 2013];Americans with disabilities: 2010; Table D-1: Prevalence of disability by sex and age—all races: 2010. 2010 Available at: http://www.census.gov/people/disability/publications/reports_briefs.html.
  • 6.Weitz TA, Freund KM, Wright L. Identifying and caring for underserved populations: Experience of the national centers of excellence in women’s health. Journal of Women’s Health & Gender-Based Medicine. 2001;10(10):937–952. doi: 10.1089/152460901317193521. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Wisdom JP, et al. Health disparities between women with and without disabilities: A review of the research. Social Work in Public Health. 2010;25(3):368–386. doi: 10.1080/19371910903240969. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Piotrowski K, Snell L. Health needs of women with disabilities across the lifespan. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing. 2007;36(1):79–87. doi: 10.1111/j.1552-6909.2006.00120.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.National Prevention Council. [Accessed 15 March 2013];National prevention strategy. 2011 Available at: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/initiatives/prevention/strategy/report.pdf.
  • 10.U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. The guide to clinical preventive services, 2012. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2012. [Accessed 18 Oct 2013]. Available at: http://www.USPreventiveServicesTaskforce.org. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Institute of Medicine. Clinical preventive services for women: Closing the gaps. [Accessed 29 Oct 2013];Report Brief. 2011 Available at: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Clinical-Preventive-Services-for-Women-Closing-the-Gaps.aspx.
  • 12.American Optometric Association. [Accessed 29 Oct 2013];Recommended eye examination frequency for pediatric patients and adults. 2012 Available at: http://www.aoa.org/x5502.xml.
  • 13.American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. [Accessed 29 Oct 2013];Guidelines for audiologic screening: ASHA session on audiologic assessment. 1997 Available at: http://www.asha.org/docs/html/GL1997-00199.html.
  • 14.American Dental Association. For the dental patient: Healthy mouth, healthy body. Journal of the American Dental Association. 2006;137(4):563. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended immunization schedules for persons aged 0 through 18 years and adults aged 19 years and older—United States, 2013. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2013;62(Supplement):1–19. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [Accessed 29 Oct 2013];Disability and health data system DHDS) [online database] 2012 Available at: http://dhds.cdc.gov.
  • 17.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [Accessed 15 March 2013];DATA2010, Focus Area 9 [online database] 2010 Available at: http://wonder.cdc.gov/data2010/focus.htm.
  • 18.Stevens AC. Behavioral risk factor surveillance system (BRFSS) data analysis [unpublished] Atlanta (GA): CDC, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Division of human Development and Disability; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Partnership for Prevention. [Accessed 10 Oct 2013];Data needed to assess use of high-value preventive care: A brief report from the National Commission on Prevention Priorities. 2007 Available at: http://www.prevent.org/data/files/initiatives/briefdataneedsreport.pdf.
  • 20.Wei W, Findley PA, Sambamoorthi U. Disability and receipt of clinical preventive services among women. Women’s Health Issues. 2006;16(6):286–296. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2006.09.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.DeVoe JE, et al. Insurance + Access ≠ Health Care: Typology of barriers to health care access for low-income families. Annals of Family Medicine. 2002;5(6):511–518. doi: 10.1370/afm.748. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Parish SL, Ellison-Martin MJ. Health-care access of women Medicaid recipients. Journal of Disability Policy Studies. 2007;18(2):109–116. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Coyle CP, Santiago MC. Healthcare utilization by women with physical disabilities. Medscape Women’s Health. 2002;7(4):2. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Diab ME, Johnston MV. Relationships between level of disability and receipt of preventive health services. Archives of Physical Medical Rehabilitation. 2004;85(5):749–757. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2003.06.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kroll T, Jones GC, Kehn M. Barriers and strategies affecting the utilisation of primary preventive services for people with physical disabilities: A qualitative inquiry. Health and Social Care in the Community. 2006;14(40):284–293. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2524.2006.00613.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Braun R, et al. Community health workers and mobile technology: A systematic review of the literature. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e65772. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065772. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Dubey V, et al. Improving preventive service delivery at adult complete health check-ups: The preventive health evidence-based recommendation form (PERFORM) cluster randomized control trial. Bio Med Central Family Practice. 2006;7:44. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-7-44. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Balas EA, et al. Improving preventive care by prompting physicians. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2000;160(3):301–308. doi: 10.1001/archinte.160.3.301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ayres CG, Griffith HM. Consensus guidelines: Improving the delivery of clinical preventive services. Health Care Management Review. 2008;33(4):300–307. doi: 10.1097/01.HCM.0000318767.36901.0b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Coates RJ, et al. Rationale for periodic reporting on the use of selected adult clinical preventive services—United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2012;16(Suppl 61):3–10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Mudrick NR, et al. Physical accessibility in primary health care settings: Results from California on-site reviews. Disability and Health Journal. 2012;5(3):159–167. doi: 10.1016/j.dhjo.2012.02.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Drum CE, Krahn G, Horner-Johnson W. The Oregon community engagement initiative: A multi-case study of a disability coalition development process. Community Development. 2009;40(1):3–19. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Salem E. The promise of MAPP: A transformational tool for public health practice. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice. 2005;12(6):379–380. doi: 10.1097/00124784-200509000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Roussos ST, Fawcett SB. A review of collaborative partnerships as a strategy for improving community health. Annual Review of Public Health. 2000;21:369–402. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.21.1.369. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Wilkinson JE, et al. It’s easier said than done: Perspectives on mammography from women with intellectual disabilities. Annals of Family Medicine. 2011;9(2):142–147. doi: 10.1370/afm.1231. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Mele N, Archer J, Pusch BD. Access to breast cancer screening services for women with disabilities. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing. 2005;34(4):453–464. doi: 10.1177/0884217505276158. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Tamaskar P, et al. Preventive attitudes and beliefs of deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. Archives of Family Medicine. 2000;9(6):518–525. doi: 10.1001/archfami.9.6.518. discussion 526. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Scheer J, et al. Access barriers for persons with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies. 2003;13(4):221–230. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Becker H, Stuifbergen A, Tinkle M. Reproductive health care experiences of women with physical disabilities: A qualitative study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 1997;78(12 Suppl 5):S26–S33. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993(97)90218-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Peter NG, et al. Transition from pediatric to adult care: Internists’ perspectives. Pediatrics. 2009;123(2):417–423. doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-0740. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Morrison EH, George G, Mosqueda L. Primary care for adults with physical disabilities: Perceptions from consumer and provider focus groups. Family Medicine. 2008;40(9):645–651. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Tervo RC, Palmer G, Redinius P. Health professional student attitudes towards people with disability. Clinical Rehabilitation. 2004;18(8):908–915. doi: 10.1191/0269215504cr820oa. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.O’day B, et al. Health plan selection criteria by people with impaired mobility. Medical Care. 2002;40(9):732–742. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200209000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Shakespeare T, Iezzoni L, Groce NE. Disability and the training of health professionals. The Lancet. 2009;374:1815–1816. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(09)62050-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Pendo E. Disability, equipment barriers, and women’s health: Using the ADA to provide meaningful access. 2 Saint Louis University. Journal of Health Law & Policy. 2008;2:15. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Shogren KA, et al. Promoting self-determination in health and medical care: A critical component of addressing health disparities in people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities. 2006;3(2):105–113. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Agency for Health Care Research and Quality. [Accessed 10 Oct 2013];Electronic Preventive Services Selector [application] 2013 Available at: http://epss.ahrq.gov/PDA/index.jsp.
  • 48.National Business Group on Health. [Accessed 10 Oct 2013];A purchaser’s guide to clinical preventive services: Moving science into coverage [guide] 2006 Available at: http://www.businessgrouphealth.org/benefitstopics/topics/purchasers/fullguide.pdf.
  • 49.Center for Disability Issues and the Health Professions. [Accessed 10 Oct 2013];Making preventive health care work for you: For people with physical disabilities [workbook] 2006 Available at: http://www.cdihp.org/pdf/PreventiveHealthCare.pdf.
  • 50.Oregon Institute on Development and Disability. [Accessed 10 Oct 2013];Community action guide (CAG) 2007 Available at: http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/research/centers-institutes/institute-on-development-and-disability/public-health-programs/upload/Community-Action-Guide.pdf.
  • 51.Institute for Human Centered Design and ADA National Network. [Accessed 10 Oct 2013];ADA checklist for readily achievable barrier removal. 2011 Available at: http://www.adachecklist.org/doc/fullchecklist/ada-checklist.pdf.
  • 52.Easter Seals. [Accessed 10 Oct 2013];Project ACTION: Transportation and the ADA [hotline] 2013 Available at: http://www.projectaction.org/TransportationtheADA.aspx.
  • 53.World Institute on Disability. [10 Oct 2013];Access to Care [video] 2005 Available at: http://wid.org/news/new-training-video-and-curriculum-for-medical-providers-access-to-medical-care-adults-with-physical-disabilities/?searchterm=DVD.
  • 54.North Carolina Office on Disability and Health. [Accessed 18 Oct 2013];Women be healthy [curriculum] Available at: http://projects.fpg.unc.edu/~ncodh/WomensHealth/week2.cfm.
  • 55.Swinburn B, Gill T, Kumanyika S. Obesity prevention: a proposed framework for translating evidence into action. Obesity Reviews. 2005;6(1):23–33. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2005.00184.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Kaplan DL, et al. Assessing and improving accessibility of public accommodations in an urban Latino community. Journal of Disability Policy Studies. 2001;12(1):55–62. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Lunsky Y, Straiko A, Armstrong S. Women be healthy: Evaluation of a women’s health curriculum for women with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities. 2003;16(4):247–253. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Matson-Koffman DM, Andrew L, Campbell KP. A purchaser’s guide to clinical preventive services: A tool to improve health care coverage for prevention. Preventing Chronic Disease Public Health Research, Practice, and Policy. 2008;5(2):1–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Fawcett SB, et al. The community tool box: A web-based resource for building healthier communities. Public Health Reports. 2000;115(2–3):274–278. doi: 10.1093/phr/115.2.274. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Harrell JA, Baker EL the Essential Services Workgroup. The essential services of public health. Leadership in Public Health. 1994;3(3):27–30. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Grason HA, Guyer B. [Accessed 15 March 2013];Public MCH program functions framework: Essential public health services to promote maternal and child health in America. 1995 Available at: http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/womens-and-childrens-health-policy-center/publications/pubmchfx.pdf.
  • 62.Frieden TR. A framework for public health action: The health impact pyramid. American Journal of Public Health. 2010;100(4):590–595. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.185652. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Bindman AB, et al. Primary care and receipt of preventive services. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 1996;11(5):269–276. doi: 10.1007/BF02598266. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES