Research on Social Economic Development and Service Needs of Families with More than One Disabled in Henan, China
10.3969/j.issn.1006-9771.2017.08.005
- VernacularTitle:"河南省""一户多残""家庭社会经济发展状况与服务需求研究"
- Author:
Fengbo LIU
;
Xin LI
;
Zhuoying QIU
;
Jingjing GE
;
Xinling LU
;
Ning LIU
- Keywords:
Henan;
a family with more than one disabled;
social economic development;
service needs
- From:
Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Theory and Practice
2017;23(8):887-894
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To research the social economic development and service needs of families with more than one disabled in Henan, China. Methods The data of 2016 Basic Service Status and Needs of People with Disabilities in Henan was analyzed. Results A to-tal of 74,732 (4.0%) people with disabilities from all 19 cities in Henan had been surveyed, 54.9%were males and 83.2%were from rural ar-eas. In terms of social and economic development, 41.8%of people with disabilities in urban areas were below least living baseline, 14.7%met standards of low income;23.9%of people with disabilities in rural areas were recorded as national poverty household, 35.7%were not recorded as national poverty household, 39.9%were not in poverty. In terms of housing, 75.3%of people with disabilities in urban areas had their own houses, 7.1%had housing security welfare, 12.9%had no house; 70.5%of people with disabilities in rural areas had their own houses in good condition, 3.5%had their own houses which were identified as houses in risk, 15.9%had their own houses which were sus-pected to be houses in risk, 1.7%had no house, and 2.2%had their own houses reconstruction. There were significant differences in the eco-nomic and housing conditions among different types of disabilities (χ2>51.267, P<0.001), and in people under standards of low income and others among different levels of disabilities (χ2>8.400, P<0.05). For people with disabilities in rural areas, there were significant differences in the economic and housing conditions among different types of disabilities (χ2>70.149, P<0.001), and no significant difference was found among different levels of disabilities (χ2<6.446, P>0.05). In terms of employment needs, vocational skills training 5.0%, introducing a job 3.9%, practical training in rural areas 6.6%, capital credit support 7.6%, and others 10.7%. There were significant differences in the employ-ment needs among different types of disabilities (χ2>73.180, P<0.001), and in the needs of vocational skills training, introducing a job, practi-cal training in rural areas and capital credit support among different levels of disabilities (χ2>11.440, P<0.01). In terms of caring service needs, home caring 54.1%, day care 11.1%, and institutional residential care 2.9%. There were significant differences in caring service needs both among different types and levels of disabilities (χ2>38.960, P<0.001). In terms of rehabilitation needs, surgery 2.1%, medicine 22.5%, functioning training 16.1%, assistive devices 29.8%, and nursing 14.8%. There were significant differences in rehabilitation needs among different types of disabilities (χ2>99.220, P<0.001), and in needs of nursing among different levels of disabilities (χ2=12.465, P<0.01). In terms of barrier-free reconstruction, sloping and handrail 17.7%, door 14.2%, bathroom 30.3%, kitchen 20.5%, visual doorbell with flash 3.4%, gas leak alarm device 2.3%, and internet access and screen software 0.6%. There were significant differences in barrier-free recon-struction among different types of disabilities (χ2>68.000, P<0.001) except visual doorbell with flash, gas leak alarm device and internet ac-cess and screen software. There was significant difference in needs of flash and visual doorbell, gas leak alarm device and internet access screen software among different levels of disabilities (χ2>46.960, P<0.001). Conclusion The social economic development of families with more than one disabled were faced risk. Recommendation to policy development included to improve the support efforts, and ensure their ba-sic housing, pay attention to their individual differences in employment poverty alleviation needs and provide more opportunities to get jobs, and provide financial support, increase support for home care, increase inputs of funding and assistive devices for rehabilitation services, and attach importance to their needs of barrier-free reconstruction.
