Docstoc

hollingsworth

Document Sample
hollingsworth Powered By Docstoc
					Development of the Community Health Environment Checklist
Holly Hollingsworth Susan Stark Kerri Morgan David Gray

Partial Support for this report was provided by the Office on Disability and Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (R04/CCR714134) for a grant titled “Mobility, Disabilities, Participation and the Environment.”

Problem Statement
► Problem

Statement

 Community environments are not designed to meet the needs of people with disabilities.  Participation is impacted by how people are able to use their environments.
► Purpose

 By identifying barriers and supports in the community environment, domains influencing social participation will be identified.

Research Question/Approach
► Research

Question

 What are the characteristics or features of an environment that make it more or less receptive to people with mobility impairments?
► Approach

 We surrender our claim of objective expertise and respect the subjects expertise in their own situations (Gilgun 1998)  Cognitive mapping was used to identify a person’s perception of their environment.

Design and Procedure
► Design

 Qualitative  In home interviews  Cognitive mapping exercise  Member check (focus groups)
► Analysis

 Constant comparative method

Participants
► Inclusion

Criteria

► Demographics

 Presence of a mobility limitation  Resided in St. Louis metropolitan area  Left home 2-3x/ week

 25 people with mobility limitations  Mean age= 46.9 yrs.  14 female/ 11 male  13 Caucasian/ 10 African American  stroke, SCI, CP, & post polio

Findings: 15 Key Destinations
Government Buildings ► Major Tourist Destinations ► Performance Venues ► Large Stores ► Small Stores ► Self Care Service Providers ► Dining Establishments
►

Transportation ► Health Care Providers ► Health Vendors ► Professional Service Providers ► Indoor Leisure ► Outdoor Leisure ► Religious Facilities ► Schools and Libraries
►

Findings: 22 Key Features
Distances to Enter Building Accessible Parking ► Level Surfaces ► Curb Cuts ► Doors at Entrances ► Signage for Accessible Paths to Entrances ► Doors Inside the Building ► Loaner Scooters or Wheelchairs ► Signage for Accessible Elements ► Single Level ► Maneuverable Spaces
►

Crowding ► Floor Surfaces ► Counters and Merchandise ► Accessible Places to Sit ► Adequate Lighting ► Accessible Restroom ► Drinking Fountain ► Accessible Phone ► Drive-through Window ► Usability ► Rescue Assistance
►

The CHEC
►

►

Major sections:  Entering building  Using the building  Using restrooms  Amenities Features

►

Items

 22 Features  Captured the essence of the participant’s comments  Individual questions that capture the presence of the feature  Scored dichotomously (yes & N/A = 1 No = 0)

Flexibility of the CHEC
► Receptivity

can be characterized at the Community Level
 Total CHEC Scores on a sample of destinations  Receptivity of “ accessible restrooms” of entire community (features by destination)

► Receptivity

can be characterized at the Destination Level
 Total CHEC score of the destination or Area of a building (this building)  Receptivity of features (seating)

Review by consultants
► Consultants

suggestions:

 Scaling (to weight items)  Make the form “user friendly” and not technical  Make a “rule book” instead of a complicated scoring sheet

Rule Book and Glossary
to provide assistance in determining score ► Resources on which rules are based:
 Based on the important descriptions of the experts (people with mobility limitations)  Consultants (experts in architecture, universal design, occupational therapy)  Literature and standards
► Available

The RULE BOOK
►

“can

►

you get in, do what you need to do and get out without much difficulty” Determine if “one” accessible feature is present and evaluate that feature (e.g. the accessible bathroom) (versus all features)
Column 1 and 2 are the same as the CHEC The third column contains the rules for the corresponding item.

►

►

The GLOSSARY
►

Items that are more difficult or involve measurements have a visual picture for clarification. Glossary items are numbered and arranged in alphabetical order.

►

►

Links to the glossary can be found on the corresponding item in the CHEC

In the field
are completed during “busy time” ► Time
 5 minutes small building  90 minutes large building
► Evaluations

raters ► Using paper/pencil, PDA, or Tablet PC

► 1-2

Scaling and Scoring
Scored dichotomously (yes & N/A = 1 No = 0) ► 22 Features weighted based on ranking of “importance” of items (based on ranking study) ► Weights were transformed monotonically to yield the range of a destination score to be from 0 to 100
► ►

Ranking Study
 17 of the original subjects (78 different rankings by destination category)  Ranked each feature based on directions “imagine the most accessible place for you… “

Features & Weights
Entrance 9.62 Spaces not Crowded Accessible places to sit Accessible path/entrance marked Accessibility Signage Accessible Counters Lighting Accessible Phone Accessible Drinking Fountains Area of Rescue Loaner Wheelchair/Scooter Drive Through Window 3.85 3.85 2.88 2.88 2.88 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92 0.96 0.96

Curb Cuts
Automatic Doors

8.65
8.65

Accessible Bathroom
Elevator/Single Level Distance to Entrance Accessibility features in order Wide Spaces Floor Surfaces Lightweight Doors Parking

8.65
6.73 5.77 5.77 5.77 4.81 4.81 4.81

EXAMPLE: CHEC Page 2
Site:
OT Building

SECTION

Section I ENTER BUILDING

Yes

Notes

Score

FEATURE

Accessible parking

Are there accessible parking spaces with adequate widths and aisles for a person with a mobility device to get in and out of their car?

0

Are the accessible spaces located closest (or most central) to the accessible entrance or accessible route with minimal traffic to cross in order to enter the building?
Does the facility have an enforcement procedure to ensure that accessible parking is used by only those who need it?

1

1

Subtotal

2

3.2

2 of 3 Yes’s & Weight 4.81

3.2 = 2*4.81/3

Scoring
are computed for each Feature within each Section. ► A Section score is the sum of the Feature scores. ► The total Destination score is the sum of the Section scores. ► The scoring has been scaled such that the highest Destination score is 100.
► Scores

Sampling Strategy
►

Identify the boundaries of a community
 Political  Geographic  Identified by population of individuals with disabilities

► ► ►

Identify all possible destinations within the community within each destination category Sample 10% of the destinations within each destination category If a “community” does not contain a destination within a category (e.g. hospital), use the closest destination of that type to the center of the community and rate that destination

University City, MO

City Hall

CHEC Sites
Reported destinations visited by people with ml Overlap

Jeff Cuthbert, OTR cuthbertj@msnotes.wustl.edu

Validation
► University

Missouri

City

► Menomenee,

Wisconsin

 Urban environment
► 63

 Rural environment
► 45

destinations rated

destinations rated

► CHEC score 21.2 (low)score 4.2 100.0 (excellent) (poor)-97.2 receptivity (excellent) receptivity ► KR20 = .92 ► KR-20 = .95 ► CHEC

 1,500 sq ft – 20,000 sq ft (10-90 minutes)

 2000 sq ft – 20,000 sq ft (3 - 27 minutes)

Reliability
► Section

I

Entering the Building 0.72
Level Surface 0.80


► Section

II Using the Building ► Section III Restrooms ► Section IV Amenities

0.95 0.87 0.86

Compliance

100

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0

CHEC: Environmental Feature Scores

Features for All Sites

Sp ac Lo El e s an ev no er ato t C ro r W he /Sin wd el g ed ch le L ai r/S eve co l C ote ur r b C Fl Li uts g A Li oo cc gh r S hti es tw ur ng si A eig fac bl u e h e Dr tom t D s in o ki atic ors ng D A A cc cc Fo oor s es es un si sib tai A cc D ble le ns es is ta pla Pho si n bl c ne ity ce es to t fe En o s at A ur t it cc es ran es ce in si bl or e E de pa W ntr r th a id /e A nta e S nce cc n es ce pac A cc sib ma es es ilty rk e si bl Sig d e n A Ba age A cc re th es a o roo f si m bl Re e s Co cu un e te Pa rs rk in g

Rural v. Urban
Group Statistics City Section I Entering the University City, MO Destination Menomonie, WS Section II Using the University City, MO Destination Menomonie, WS Section III Restrooms University City, MO Menomonie, WS Section IV Amenities University City, MO Menomonie, WS Destination University City, MO Menomonie, WS N 58 43 50 40 62 45 55 45 59 45 Std. Error Mean Std. Deviation Mean 30.4929 7.04734 .92536 32.8116 6.18793 .94365 29.9647 6.08400 .86041 33.5537 4.5797 5.7179 8.7850 10.6410 72.8493 81.7977 5.42382 4.00905 3.46479 3.54315 2.94517 15.62835 15.34053 .85758 .50915 .51650 .47776 .43904 2.03464 2.28683

P=.08 P<.01 P=.12 P<.01 P<.01

Next steps
Refine measure based on initial testing (CHEC 2.0) ► Validate instrument against gold standard (in process) ► Validate instrument against lived experience of individuals with mobility impairments ► Develop formal training program ► Develop web based data management and report generating software (identification of solutions as well as barriers)
►

Limitations in flexibility
► Difficult ► Only

to translate to different cultures

 Transportation differences

developed for persons with mobility limitations – small sample size ► Value not in the final items but in the approach and method
 Groups interested in vision/hearing may want a version  International partners may wish to develop a version

Why use this measure?
the receptivity of the physical environment from the perspective of persons with mobility impairments ► Is brief, intuitive, and easy to administer ► Excellent internal consistency ► Internal validity ► Email: hollingsworthh@wustl.edu
► Assesses


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:3
posted:12/16/2009
language:English
pages:27