Bonnie ODay

INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE, HEALTH STATUS, AND HEALTH CARE ACCESS AMONG WOMEN WITH DISABILITIES

BACKGROUNDnEvidence suggests that intimate partner violence (IPV) against women with disabilities is more pervasive than against women without disabilities. However, little is known about the relationship between IPV, health status, and access to care among women with disabilities.nnnOBJECTIVESnThis study 1) describes the prevalence of IPV among women with disabilities and compares IPV prevalence among women with and without disabilities, 2) examines if health status and health care access differ between women with disabilities experiencing IPV and those not experiencing IPV, and 3) examines the association between IPV, health status, and health care access among women with disabilities.nnnMETHODSnWe conducted secondary analyses of data from 23,154 female respondents to the 2006 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 7 states administering the IPV module in 2006. Of these respondents, 6,309 had a disability. We performed chi(2) and logistic regression analyses to address the study objectives.nnnRESULTSnWomen with disabilities are significantly more likely to have experienced IPV as compared with those without disabilities (33.2% and 21.2%, respectively). Women with disabilities who have experienced IPV are 35% less likely to report their health as good to excellent and are 58% more likely to report an unmet health care need owing to cost than their disabled counterparts not experiencing IPV, when holding selected sociodemographic factors constant.nnnIMPLICATIONSnPractitioners should be aware of the increased risk of IPV among women with disabilities and its association with health status and access to health care. Practitioners, policy makers, and disability advocates should work together to remove barriers to accessing the health care system for women with disabilities, particularly those experiencing IPV.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Investments in Data Infrastructure

AIMnThis article describes American Reinvestment and Recovery Act comparative effectiveness research data infrastructure (DI) investments and identifies facilitators and barriers to implementation.nnnMATERIALS & METHODSnWe reviewed original project proposals, conducted an investigator survey and interviewed project officers and principal investigators.nnnRESULTSnDI projects assembled or enhanced existing clinical datasets, established linkages between public and private data sources and built infrastructure. Facilitators included building on existing relationships across organizations and making collection as seamless as possible for clinicians.nnnCONCLUSIONnTo sustain DI, investigators should reduce the burden of comparative effectiveness research data collection on practices, adequately address data privacy and security issues, resolve or lessen the impact of data-linking issues and build research capacity for other investigators and clinicians.