Lois M. Verbrugge

The disablement process

Building on prior conceptual schemes, this article presents a sociomedical model of disability, called The Disablement Process, that is especially useful for epidemiological and clinical research. The Disablement Process: (1) describes how chronic and acute conditions affect functioning in specific body systems, generic physical and mental actions, and activities of daily life, and (2) describes the personal and environmental factors that speed or slow disablement, namely, risk factors, interventions, and exacerbators. A main pathway that links Pathology, Impairments, Functional Limitations, and Disability is explicated. Disability is defined as difficulty doing activities in any domain of life (from hygiene to hobbies, errands to sleep) due to a health or physical problem. Feedback effects are included in the model to cover dysfunction spirals (pernicious loops of dysfunction) and secondary conditions (new pathology launched by a given disablement process). We distinguish intrinsic disability (without personal or equipment assistance) and actual disability (with such assistance), noting the scientific and political importance of measuring both. Disability is not a personal characteristic, but is instead a gap between personal capability and environmental demand. Survey researchers and clinicians tend to focus on personal capability, overlooking the efforts people commonly make to reduce demand by activity accommodations, environmental modifications, psychological coping, and external supports. We compare the disablement experiences of people who acquire chronic conditions early in life (lifelong disability) and those who acquire them in mid or late life (late-life disability). The Disablement Process can help inform research (the epidemiology of disability) and public health (prevention of disability) activities.

Marital Status and Health.

In the United States, mortality rates are higher for nonmarried people than married people, and are especially high for the formerly married. To determine if morbidity and disability reveal the same differentials, age-adjusted data from the Health Interview Survey, Health Examination Survey, 1960 and 1970 Censuses of Population, and other federal health surveys are examined. The noninstitutional population is considered first: divorced and separated people have the worst health status, with highest rates of acute conditions, of chronic conditions which limit social activity, and of disabilityfor health problems. Widowed people rank second for health status, followed by single people. Married people appear healthiest, having low rates of chronic limitation and disability. Their rates of restricted activity and medical care are intermediate, but hospital stays tend to be short. Considering the institutional population, rates of residence in health institutions are highest for single people and lowest for married ones. These results are explained by marital roles and life styles which influence health, by selectivity into a marital status because of health, and by propensities to take health actions when feeling ill.

Comorbidity and Its Impact on Disability

Older people often suffer from comorbidity, or several chronic conditions simultaneously. Disability rises rapidly as the number of chronic conditions grows, although very ill people who acquire another condition experience attenuated increases. High prevalence conditions such as arthritis tend to have a low or occasionally moderate impact for community residents, while low prevalence ones such as osteoporosis have a high impact; paired conditions sometimes give extra propulsion to disability, as when cerebrovascular disease and hip fracture co-occur. Further research is needed to pin-point combinations of conditions posing great risks and to identify demographic segments in which comorbidity has elevated effects.

Multiple roles and physical health of women and men.

A survey of Detroit adults shows that employment, marriage, and parenthood are associated with good physical health for both women and men. Employed married parents tend to have the best health profile, while people with none of these roles tend to have the worst profile. Of the three roles, employment has the strongest effect, and parenthood the weakest. Multiple roles (the combination of job plus family responsibilities) have no special effects on health, either negative or positive. Thus, people with both job and family roles enjoy the health benefits of each role (main effects) and incur no special health disadvantage or benefit (interaction effect) for being so busy. This is true for both women and men. Three explanations are considered: First, health risks may actually be lower for socially active people than for nonactive ones. Second, involved people may have health attitudes which reduce their sensitivity to symptoms and their willingness to take curative health actions. Third, social selection may operate so that healthy people are able to acquire and keep roles more easily than unhealthy people. In sum, there is no evidence in the Detroit data that combining employment, marriage, and parenthood is harmful to womens health. Implications of the results for womens future health are suggested.

Exploring the iceberg: Common symptoms and how people care for them

Despite the importance of daily symptoms for peoples quality of living, they are seldom studied (thus, the “iceberg of morbidity”). We begin by reviewing United States and British studies that have information on daily symptoms experienced by adults. The most common ones are respiratory (largely from colds) and musculoskeletal (largely from arthritis, injury, overexertion). Using health diaries kept for 6 weeks by a population-based sample of adults, we report the frequency of respiratory and musculoskeletal symptoms, their specific types and causes, and what factors urge people to take therapeutic actions for them. The most popular action for both is prescription or nonprescription drugs, followed by lay consultation, then restricted activity, and lastly seeking medical care. On Respiratory Days, how miserable a person feels is the main stimulus to action; other morbidity aspects of the day also rank high. Sociodemographic groups scarcely differ in their responses to respiratory symptoms. The situation is similar for Musculoskeletal Nondisease Days (injury/overexertion). But for Musculoskeletal Disease Days (arthritis), sociodemographic characteristics figure more strongly in care, and the days degree of morbidity less. These results signal basic differences in how people approach chronic and acute health problems: For chronic ones, they devise strategies of care (determined partly by their roles, attitudes, and resources) over months and years, and apply them during flare-ups. For acute problems, decisions about care are made in the short run and hinge mostly on symptoms. Our analysis also considers how actions complement or substitute for each other: Self-care actions (nonprescription drug use and restricted activity) tend to co-occur, and so do actions based on medical care (prescription drug use and medical contact). The two domains substitute in one way (nonprescription drug use greatly reduces chances of prescription drug use) and join in another (restricted activity increases chances of medical contact).

Risk factors for disability among U.S. adults with arthritis

This article studies risk factors for physical and social disability among U.S. adults ages 55+ who have arthritis, compared to non-arthritis persons of those ages. The dependent variables refer to difficulties in walking, physical functioning (motions and strength), personal care, and household care. The data set is the Supplement on Aging (SOA) (n = 16,148) that accompanied the 1984 National Health Interview Survey. The SOA data are cross-sectional; relationships of risk factors to disability suggest causation but do not directly demonstrate it. Logistic regressions show that risk factors are similar for arthritis and non-arthritis people, with one important exception. (1) The similarities are: For both groups, odds of disability rise with age, diminish with education, and are higher for non-whites and non-married persons. Disability rises with number of chronic diseases and impairments, and it is elevated for underweight persons (Body Mass Index (BMI) less than 20; further analysis indicates this reflects incomplete control of their severe illness status). Long duration of arthritis and recent medical care for it are associated with disability. (2) The exception is: Severe overweight (BMI greater than or equal to 30) is a disability risk factor for arthritis people, but not for non-arthritis people. Previous research has shown that obesity/overweight is a risk factor for etiology of osteoarthritis; our analysis now shows its continued importance for disability when the disease is present.

Short-Term Dynamics of Disability and Well-Being*

For persons with serious chronic morbidity, disability is a very dynamic process as morbidity advances or retreats, and as interventions succeed or fail. This article studies trajectories of function (cognitive, emotional, social, physical, and global well-being) over a year for 165 persons whose chronic morbidity prompted a hospital stay. Changes in functioning from hospital admission to one year post-discharge are analyzed; functional statuses were measured nine times in that period. Both intra-individual and inter-individual changes are studied by means of a combination of visual and statistical techniques. (1) Individuals: After the hospital stay, functions typically improve in the first month, stabilize for several months, then begin to fluctuate and worsen. Individual trajectories are very changeful over a year, yet there is short-run continuity (from one measurement point to the next). (2) Groups: Persons with fracture of hip show the most striking and protracted improvements over the year, compared to persons with other conditions. Chances of functional recovery are highest for persons with just one chronic condition; those chances decline as comorbidity increases. Having many social contacts is associated with initial high function that is maintained over the year; having few contacts is associated with stable low function. The analyses point to the scientific value of short remeasurement intervals for persons with severe or multiple morbidity.

Physician treatment of men and women patients: sex bias or appropriate care?

This paper considers medical care given by physicians to men and women in the United States. It asks how often significant sex differences in care occur, and if these differences are attributable to medically relevant factors or not. Sex differences in diagnostic services, therapeutic services, and dispositions for follow-up are studied for All Visits, 15 major groups of complaints, and 5 specific complaints (fatigue, headache, vertigo/dizziness, chest pain, and back pain). Data are from the 1975 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS). The analysis reveals that medical care is often similar for men and women, but a sizable number of significant sex differences occur (about 30 to 40 per cent of the services and dispositions studied), and they tend to show more medical care for women. Most of the differences persist even after controlling for medically relevant factors (patient age, seriousness of problem, diagnosis, prior visit status, and reasons for visit). Notably, women still receive more total and extensive services, and more laboratory tests, blood pressure checks, drug prescriptions, and return appointments for many complaint groups. They receive more services for back pain and headaches and more follow-up plans for vertigo/dizziness and back pain. Remaining sex differences may be due to missing medical factors, patient requests for care, patient distress and needs for nurturance, and physician sex bias. In contrast to a recent San Diego study,1 national data show few significant sex differences in the extent and content of diagnostic services given for five common complaints.

Sex differentials in morbidity and mortality in the United States

Abstract Life expectation of females in the United States exceeds that of males, but females’ health while living appears worse. Based on self‐reports of illness, females have higher incidence rates for acute conditions, and a higher percentage of them have a chronic condition. The paper examines sex differentials in mortality and morbidity for 1958–72, using national vital statistics and Health Interview Survey data. The reversal of mortality and morbidity sex differentials in the aggregate is due in part to a distribution effect, diseases with a male excess being weighted heavily in mortality, but those with a female excess dominating morbidity. For specific conditions, sex morbidity and sex mortality differentials are usually in the same direction, the sicker sex being more likely to die. For several conditions, however, females have higher morbidity but lower mortality than males. By incorporating diagnostic data, these reversals are attributed to females’ interviewing and illness behavior, rather tha...

From sneezes to adieux: Stages of health for American men and women☆

This article traces health from daily symptoms to death for American (U.S.) men and women in three age groups 17-44, 45-64, 65+. How do leading problems change as our perspective shifts from daily symptoms to annual incidence and prevalence rates of diseases and injuries; then to problems that induce long term limitations; to conditions brought to physicians for care; to diagnoses for hospital stays; and finally to causes of death? We study the top 15 conditions in each of these stages of health. Young adults are bothered most by acute and chronic respiratory diseases, but deaths among them are due to diseases and violent injuries that seldom figure in daily life. Fatal chronic diseases becomes more prevalent in middle ages and spur professional care, but they rarely cause daily symptoms. For older people, life threatening chronic conditions stretch through all stages of health. Arthritis also becomes a dominant facet of symptoms, social limitations and ambulatory care. Mens and womens leading daily symptoms are very similar; so are their leading acute and chronic conditions, limiting conditions, diagnoses for health care and causes of death. What distinguishes the sexes is the rate, not the ranks, of health problems they suffer. We elaborate the iceberg of morbidity metaphor, as a device to highlight stage, age and sex differences in health.