Advertisement

Reframing Disability and Quality of Life: Contextual Nuances

  • Narelle WarrenEmail author
  • Lenore Manderson
Chapter
Part of the Social Indicators Research Series book series (SINS, volume 52)

Abstract

Research conducted with people living with a long-term condition or disability has relied primarily on quantitative instrumentation to determine quality of life. While quantitative instruments allow summary assessments of how health conditions impact upon people’s well-being, physical functioning, mental and emotional health, and social participation, they cannot provide insights into how and why assess their conditions under different personal circumstances and community conditions. Prior to introducing the chapters in this book, we expand on the importance of ethnographic and other qualitative research for a richer understanding of disability and quality of life.

Keywords

Social Participation Care Recipient Impaired Blood Flow Walter Reed Army Medical Walking Stick 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Albrecht, G. L., & Devlieger, P. J. (1999). The disability paradox: High quality of life against all odds. Social Science & Medicine, 48(8), 977–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allotey, P., Reidpath, D., Kouamé, A., & Cummins, R. (2003). The DALY, context and the determinants of the severity of disease: An exploratory comparison of paraplegia in Australia and Cameroon. Social Science & Medicine, 57(5), 949–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2007). 6523.0: Household income and income distribution, Australia, 2005–06. Canberra: ABS.Google Scholar
  4. Beadle, G. F., Yates, P. M., Najman, J. M., Clavarino, A., Thomson, D., Williams, G., Kenny, L., et al. (2004). Illusions in advanced cancer: The effect of belief systems and attitudes on quality of life. Psycho-Oncology, 13(1), 26–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhui, K., & Dinos, S. (2008). Health beliefs and culture: Essential considerations for outcome measurement. Disease Management and Health Outcomes, 16(6), 411–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blaxter, M. (1976). The meaning of disability: A sociological study of impairment. New York: Neale Watson Academic Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Bortfeld, H. (2003). Comprehending idioms cross-linguistically. Experimental Psychology, 50(3), 217–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, D. A. (2006). The capability approach: Its development, critique and recent advances. In D. A. Clark (Ed.), The Elgar companion to development studies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  9. Clarke, P., & Black, S. E. (2005). Quality of life following stroke: Negotiating disability, identity, and resources. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 24(4), 319–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clavarino, A. M. (1999). Using quality of life endpoints in palliative care: The cultural implications. Anthropology and Medicine, 6(3), 437–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cummins, R. A. (1997). Assessing quality of life. In R. I. Brown (Ed.), Quality of life for people with disabilities: Models, research and practice (pp. 116–150). Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes (Publishers) Ltd.Google Scholar
  12. Cummins, R. A. (2005). Measuring health and subjective wellbeing: Vale, quality-adjusted life years. In L. Manderson (Ed.), Rethinking wellbeing (pp. 69–90). Perth: API Network.Google Scholar
  13. Faircloth, C. A., Boylstein, C., Rittman, M., Young, M. E., & Gubrium, J. (2004). Sudden illness and biographical flow in narratives of stroke recovery. Sociology of Health and Illness, 26(2), 242–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frank, A. W. (1995). The wounded storyteller: Body, illness, and ethics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  16. Gill, T. M., & Kurland, B. (2003). The burden and patterns of disability in activities of daily living among community-living older persons. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 58(1), M70–M75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guillemin, F., Bombardier, C., & Beaton, D. (1993). Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46(12), 1417–1432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hendry, F., & McVittie, C. (2004). Is quality of life a healthy concept? Measuring and understanding life experiences of older people. Qualitative Health Research, 14(7), 961–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Herdman, M., Fox-Rushby, J., & Badia, X. (1997). ‘Equivalence’ and the translation and adaptation of health-related quality of life questionnaires. Quality of Life Research, 6(3), 237–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (2008). Vision metaphors for the intellect: Are they really cross-linguistic? Atlantis, 30(1), 15–33.Google Scholar
  21. International Wellbeing Group. (2006). Personal wellbeing index. Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin University.Google Scholar
  22. Kaplan, R., Ganiats, T., Sieber, W., & Anderson, J. (1998). The quality of well-being scale: Critical similarities and differences with SF-36. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 10(6), 509–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kirmayer, L. J. (2001). Cultural variations in the clinical presentation of depression and anxiety: Implications for diagnosis and treatment. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 62(Suppl 13), 22–28.Google Scholar
  24. Kovecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kyobutungi, C., Egondi, T., & Ezeh, A. (2010). The health and well-being of older people in Nairobi’s slums. Global Health Action, 3(Suppl 2), 45–53.Google Scholar
  26. Mallinson, S. (1998). The Short-Form 36 and older people: Some problems encountered when using postal administration. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 52(5), 324–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mallinson, S. (2002). Listening to respondents: A qualitative assessment of the short-form 36 health status questionnaire. Social Science & Medicine, 54(1), 11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Manderson, L. (2011). Surface tensions: Surgery, bodily boundaries and the social self. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  29. Manderson, L., & Smith-Morris, C. (Eds.). (2010). Chronic conditions, fluid states: Chronicity and the anthropology of illness. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Manderson, L., & Warren, N. (2010). The art of (re)learning to walk: Trust on the rehabilitation ward. Qualitative Health Research, 20(10), 1418–1432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Manderson, L., & Warren, N. (2012). At the boundaries of the clinic: Discourses of trust in amputee care. In C. Candlin & J. Crichton (Eds.), Discourses of trust. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  32. Nord, E. (1991). EuroQOL: Health-related quality of life measurement. Valuations of health states by the general public in Norway. Health Policy, 18(1), 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nussbaum, M. C. (2002). Capabilities and disabilities: Justice for mentally disabled citizens. Global Inequalities, Special Issue of Philosophical Topics, 30(2), 133–165.Google Scholar
  34. Nussbaum, M. C. (2005). Well-being, contracts and capabilities. In L. Manderson (Ed.), Rethinking wellbeing (pp. 27–44). Perth: API Network.Google Scholar
  35. Nussbaum, M. C. (2006). Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership (The tanner lectures on human values). Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Phillips, M. J. (1990). Damaged goods: Oral narratives of the experience of disability in American culture. Social Science & Medicine, 30(8), 849–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reidpath, D. D., Allotey, P. A., Kouame, A., & Cummins, R. A. (2003). Measuring health in a vacuum: Examining the disability weight of the DALY. Health Policy and Planning, 18(4), 351–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sen, A. K. (1987). The standard of living: The tanner lectures. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sprangers, M. A. G., & Schwartz, C. E. (1999). Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: A theoretical model. Social Science & Medicine, 48(11), 1507–1515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stewart, A. L., & Nápoles-Springer, A. (2000). Health-related quality-of-life assessments in diverse population groups in the United States. Medical Care, 38(9, Suppl II), II102–II124.Google Scholar
  41. Ware, J. E., Jr., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30(6), 473–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Warren, N. (2009). Markers of midlife: Interrogating health, illness and ageing in rural Australia. Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  43. Warren, N., & Manderson, L. (2008). Constructing hope: Discontinuity and the narrative construction of recovery in the rehabilitation unit. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 37(2), 180–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Warren, N., Manderson, L., & Misajon, R. (2009). More than SF-36? Using narratives to elaborate health and well-being data in recent lower-limb amputees. In V. Moller & D. Huschka (Eds.), Quality of life and the millennium challenge: Advances in quality-of-life studies, theory and research (pp. 59–80). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. World Health Organization. (1996). WHOQOL-BREF: Introduction, administration, scoring and generic version of the assessment. Field trial version. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  46. World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  47. Yorkston, K. M., McMullan, K. A., Molton, I., & Jensen, M. P. (2010). Pathways of change experienced by people aging with disability: A focus group study. Disability and Rehabilitation, 32(20), 1697–1704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Psychology and PsychiatryMonash UniversityCaulfield EastAustralia

Personalised recommendations