IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/camsys/v4y2008i1p1-36.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Personal Assistance for Adults (19‐64) with Physical Impairments

Author

Listed:
  • Evan Mayo‐Wilson
  • Paul Montgomery
  • Jane Dennis

Abstract

This systematic review investigated the effectiveness of personal assistance versus any other form of care for adults with physical impairments. A literature search identified one study that met the inclusion criteria, which included 817 participants. It suggests that personal assistance may be preferred over other services; however, some people prefer other models of care. This review indicates that personal assistance may have some benefits for some recipients and their informal caregivers. Paid assistance might substitute for informal care and cost government more than alternative arrangements; however, the relative total costs to recipients and society are unknown. Abstract Background There is a high incidence of impairments among working age adults. Many countries offer personal assistance in the form of individualised support for people living in the community by a paid assistant other than a healthcare professional for at least 20 hours per week. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of personal assistance for adults with physical impairments, and the impacts of personal assistance on others, compared to other interventions. Search methods Electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, Dissertation Abstracts International and a variety of specialist Swedish databases were searched from 1980 to June 2005; reference lists were checked; 345 experts, organisations, government bodies and charities were contacted in an attempt to locate relevant research. Selection criteria Adults (19‐64) with physical impairments living in the community who require assistance to perform tasks of daily living (e.g., bathing and eating) and participate in normal activities due to permanent impairments. Controlled studies of personal assistance in which participants were prospectively assigned to study groups and in which control group outcomes were measured concurrently with intervention group outcomes were included. Data collection and analysis Titles and abstracts were examined by two reviewers. Outcome data were extracted. Studies were assessed for the possibility of bias. Results and potential sources of bias are presented for included studies. Results One randomised controlled trial involving 817 participants compared personal assistance versus usual care was identified. Whilst personal assistance was generally preferred over other services, some people prefer other models of care. This review indicates that personal assistance may have some benefits for some recipients and may benefit caregivers. Whilst paid assistance probably substitutes for informal care and may cost government more than alternatives, the total costs to recipients and society are currently unknown. Authors’ conclusions Research in this field is limited. When implementing new programmes, recipients could be randomly assigned to different forms of assistance. While advocates may support personal assistance for myriad reasons, this review demonstrates that further studies are required to determine which models of personal assistance are most effective and efficient for particular people.

Suggested Citation

  • Evan Mayo‐Wilson & Paul Montgomery & Jane Dennis, 2008. "Personal Assistance for Adults (19‐64) with Physical Impairments," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(1), pages 1-36.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:camsys:v:4:y:2008:i:1:p:1-36
    DOI: 10.4073/csr.2008.3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2008.3
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.4073/csr.2008.3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sherwood, S. & Morris, J.N., 1983. "The Pennsylvania Domiciliary Care experiment: I. Impact on quality of life," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 73(6), pages 646-653.
    2. repec:mpr:mprres:5236 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Ruchlin, H.S. & Morris, J.N., 1983. "Pennsylvania's Domiciliary Care experiment: II. Cost-benefit implications," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 73(6), pages 654-660.
    4. Verbrugge, L.M. & Rennert, C. & Madans, J.H., 1997. "The great efficacy of personal and equipment assistance in reducing disability," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 87(3), pages 384-392.
    5. repec:mpr:mprres:5233 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. repec:mpr:mprres:5238 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. repec:mpr:mprres:5240 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. repec:mpr:mprres:5235 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ulrika Järkestig Berggren & Ann-Sofie Bergman, 2022. "Whether Disabled Parents Receive Personal Assistance for Parenting and the Consequences for Children—An Interview Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-10, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paul Montgomery & Evan Mayo‐Wilson & Jane Dennis, 2008. "Personal Assistance for Older Adults (65+) Without Dementia," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(1), pages 1-52.
    2. Vincent Mor & John N Morris, 2022. "A Tribute to Sylvia Sherwood, PhD 1925–2022 [Psychiatric history as a barrier to residential care]," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 77(12), pages 2348-2349.
    3. Davin, Bérengère & Paraponaris, Alain & Verger, Pierre, 2009. "Socioeconomic determinants of the need for personal assistance reported by community-dwelling elderly: Empirical evidence from a French national health survey," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 138-146, January.
    4. Emmanuelle Cambois & Caroline Laborde & Isabelle Romieu & Jean-Marie Robine, 2011. "Occupational inequalities in health expectancies in France in the early 2000s: Unequal chances of reaching and living retirement in good health," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 25(12), pages 407-436.
    5. Emmanuelle Cambois & Géraldine Duthé & Abdramane Bassiahi Soura & Yacouba Compaoré, 2019. "The Patterns of Disability in the Peripheral Neighborhoods of Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, and the Male–Female Health‐Survival Paradox," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 45(4), pages 835-863, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:camsys:v:4:y:2008:i:1:p:1-36. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1891-1803 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.