Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine

Search

Search

Close

Original Article
J Korean Acad Rehabil Med. 2008;32(4):443-448.
Severity of Disability and Quality of Life in Handicapped Persons in Welfare Facility and Home in Goyang City.
Kim, Seong Woo , Lee, Won Seok , Shin, Jung Bin , You, Sung , Lee, Sun Kyoung , Yun, Doo Sik , Choi, Young Sook
1Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Public Health Service, National Health Insurance Corporation Ilsan Hospital, Korea. drapex@naver.com
2Department of Rehabilitation, Public Health Service, National Health Insurance Corporation Ilsan Hospital, Korea.
Abstract
Objective: To compare severity of disability and quality of life between the handicapped residing in a welfare facility and the handicapped living at home. Method: This research conducted a survey for the handicapped persons in Goyang city. The survey consisted of the following items: disability diagnosis, modified Barthel index (MBI), Korean-activities of daily living (K-ADL), 8-item short form health survey instrument (SF-8) and life domain satisfaction measure (LDSM). A total number of 144 handicapped persons participated, and 66 among them lived at home. Results: In regard to the range of activities of daily living MBI, K-ADL and quality of life; SF-8, those who resided in a welfare facility showed higher scores. In terms of satisfaction of life, the two groups did not show significant difference in housing, education and family relationship. However, as for leisure and health, those who resided in a welfare facility showed higher satisfaction. Conclusion: The handicapped persons residing in a welfare facility could function more independently in carrying out daily activities, and they showed higher quality and more satisfaction of life compared to those who lived at home. These results support that more attention would be needed for disabled persons at home to make welfare and rehabilitation policies. (J Korean Acad Rehab Med 2008; 32: 443-448)

Keywords :Handicapped persons, Severity of disability, Quality of life, Welfare facility

Go to Top