• Home
  • RTC Projects: SSR2 Design

SR-2. Updating a Systematic Scoping Review of the 
Literature on Health Care Utilization and Receipt of Clinical Preventive Services by People with Disabilities

Methods

The purpose of this project is to assess the research literature and identify gaps in it regarding how persons with disabilities use clinical preventive services to address subsequent interventions. This project will extend by two years a review conducted by the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Project (DRRP) on Health Disparities for the years 2000-2009.


Methods
The systematic scoping review is a basic scientific activity that allows us to view the “lay of the land” in a particular area. SR-2 will employ the same rigorous systematic scoping review procedures outlined in SR-1. These methods have been proven to provide a thorough review that can be used by both RTC/CL researchers and others in the field. 

We will employ the same Review Advisory Panel for SR-2 as for SR-1. As noted in SR-1, the Review Advisory Panel will include Dr. Charles Drum, the Principal Investigator of the DRRP whose systematic scoping review we are extending. Dr. Drum will ensure the continuity, rigor and relevance of the review. We will adopt the planning and systems devised by DRRP researchers to conduct the review extension. These include the use of the same key questions, key variables/search terms, and databases used to conduct the review. These items are listed in the tables below.


Initial Key Questions for a Systematic Scoping Review of the Literature:
  1. What peer-reviewed, English-language studies have been published from 2000 to 2009 that examine disparities in health care access among subgroups of people with disabilities aged 18-64? Within this, additional specific questions are:

    a. What disability subgroups are represented in the literature on healthcare access disparities for people with disabilities? 

    b. What individual-level and system-level factors are examined as predictors of disparities in healthcare access for people with disabilities? 

    c. What types of healthcare (e.g., primary care, cancer screening, mental health care, dentistry) are represented in the literature on healthcare access disparities for people with disabilities?

    d. Is the literature on healthcare access disparities for people with disabilities represented by intervention or non-intervention research studies? 
     
  2. What peer-reviewed, English-language studies have been published from 2000 to 2009 that examine disparities in health status among subgroups of people with disabilities aged 18-64? Additional specific questions are: 

    a. What disability subgroups are represented in the literature on health disparities for people with disabilities?

    b. What individual- and system-level factors are examined as predictors of health disparities for people with disabilities? 

    c. What health variables (e.g. overall health status, mental health status, oral health status, cancer morbidity) have been examined in the literature on health disparities for people with disabilities?

    d. Is the literature on health disparities for people with disabilities represented by intervention or non-intervention research studies?

 

Initial Key Search Terms/Variables:

System-level: healthcare system, insurance coverage, insurance plans, geographic (urban/rural)

Individual level: type of disability, severity of disability, race/ethnicity, gender, income and socioeconomic status

Initial Databases to be Searched:

Medline, PsychInfo, All EBM, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, Academic Search Premier, and ERIC

Project staff will adopt the DRRP’s multi-level search strategy that starts with a set of subject headings specific to each electronic database search. This search will combine subject headings at three levels: (a) disability identifiers, (b) health disparities and individual-level and system-level factors related to health disparities, and (c) healthcare access/health status. This strategy will ensure that both system-level and individual-level variables are fully explored for a robust end product.


“You get into this school, they give you a full ride, but you still can’t go, even though you’ve worked so hard, be… https://t.co/K8DPXO3leW


One of 34 U.S. public institutions in the prestigious Association of American Universities
44 nationally ranked graduate programs.
—U.S. News & World Report
Top 50 nationwide for size of library collection.
—ALA
5th nationwide for service to veterans —"Best for Vets: Colleges," Military Times
KU Today