Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T15:44:21.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Disability

from Psychology, health and illness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2014

By
Timothy R. Elliott  and
Laura Dreer
Edited by
Susan Ayers ,
Andrew Baum ,
Chris McManus ,
Stanton Newman ,
Kenneth Wallston ,
John Weinman  and
Robert West
Timothy R. Elliott
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University
Laura Dreer
Affiliation:
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Susan Ayers
Affiliation:
University of Sussex
Andrew Baum
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Chris McManus
Affiliation:
St Mary's Hospital Medical School
Stanton Newman
Affiliation:
University College and Middlesex School of Medicine
Kenneth Wallston
Affiliation:
Vanderbilt University School of Nursing
John Weinman
Affiliation:
United Medical and Dental Schools of Guy's and St Thomas's
Robert West
Affiliation:
St George's Hospital Medical School, University of London
Get access

Summary

Disability has traditionally been defined by prevailing medical and legal systems across cultures. Less apparent have been social and technological contributions that substantially determine the experience of disability. The many and multidisciplinary definitions of disability in clinical, legal and academic life inadvertently compromise efforts to develop, sponsor and enact effective policy and service for persons who live with disabling conditions (Walkup, 2000).

Theoretical models of disability

The most pervasive definitions of disability have been provided by disciplines associated with healthcare delivery. Contemporary perspectives have evolved in response to the increase of chronic health conditions across societies generally, and from criticisms of the medical model that recognize the broader policy, psychological and socio-economic issues associated with the management of disabling conditions over time and throughout communities.

Medical model of disability

The medical model of disability is the traditional and predominant model. Essentially, healthcare services which flow from this model assume a ‘find it and fix it’ perspective: health problems are diagnosed and specialized services are prescribed to cure the problem (Kaplan, 2002). This perspective is most effective in the detection and treatment of acute health problems; so effective, in fact, that this model has guided the development and status of medical training, facilities and specialties. The medical model is also responsible for the rapid and effective response to the acute needs of persons with physical disabilities and other chronic health conditions, and the first initiatives to address issues of improved care, survival and quality of life can be attributed to professions who embraced the medical model.

Type
Chapter
Information
Cambridge Handbook of Psychology, Health and Medicine , pp. 80 - 84
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Diabetes Association (2003). Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. in 2002. Diabetes Care, 26, 917–32.
Brandt, E. N. & Pope, A. M. (Eds.). (1997). Enabling America: assessing the role of rehabilitation science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Chan, F. & Leahy, M. (Eds.). (1999). Health care and disability case management. Lake Zurich, IL: Vocational Consultants Press.
Craig Hospital Research Department (2001). Craig hospital inventory of environmental factors (CHIEF) Manual. Englewood: Co. Craig Hospital, Colorado USA.
Elliott, T. & Jackson, W. T. (2005). Cognitive–behavioral therapy in rehabilitation psychology. In Freeman, A. (Ed.). Encyclopedia of cognitive behaviour therapy (pp. 324–7). New York: Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.
Elliott, T., Kurylo, M. & Rivera, P. (2002). Positive growth following an acquired physical disability. In Snyder, C. R. & Lopez, S. (Eds.). Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 687–99). New York: Oxford University Press.
Elliott, T. & Leung, P. (2005). Vocational rehabilitation: history and practice. In Walsh, W. B. & Savickas, M. (Eds.). Handbook of Vocational Psychology (3rd edn.) (pp. 319–43). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Press.
Frank, R. G. & Elliott, T. (2000). Handbook of rehabilitation psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.
Hamilton, B. B., Granger, C. V., Sherwin, F. S., Zielezny, M. & Tashman, J. S. (1987). A uniform national data system for medical rehabilitation. In Fuhrer, M. J. (Ed.). Rehabilitation outcomes: analysis and measurementVol. 10 (pp. 137–47). Baltimore: Brookes.
Hansen, M. S., Fink, P., Frydenberg, M. & Oxhoj, M. L. (2002). Use of health services, mental illness, and self-rated disability and health in medical inpatients. Psychosomatic Medicine, 64, 668–75.Google Scholar
Heinemann, A. (2005). Putting outcome measurement in context: a rehabilitation psychology perspective. Rehabilitation Psychology, 50, 6–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Institute of Medicine. (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Johnstone, M. (1997). Representations of disability. In J.A. Weinman & K.J. Petrie, (Eds.). Perceptions of health and illness: current research and applications (pp. 189–212). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Harwood Academic Publishers.
Kaplan, R. M. (2002). Quality of life: an outcomes perspective. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83, Suppl. 2, S44–S50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keil, J. E., Gazes, P. C., Sutherland, S. E., Rust, P. F., Branch, L. G. & Tyroler, H. A. (1989). Predictors of physical disability in elderly blacks and whites of the Charleston Heart Study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 42, 521–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kessler, R. C., Greenberg, P. E., Mickelson, K. D., Meneades, L. M. & Wang, P. S. (2001). The effects of chronic medical conditions on work loss and work cutback. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 43, 218–25.Google Scholar
Landrine, H. & Klonoff, E. A. (1992). Culture and health-related schema: a review and proposal for interdisciplinary integration. Health Psychology, 11, 267–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Max, W., Rice, D. P. & Trupin, L. (1995). Medical expenditures for people with disabilities. Disability Statistics Abstract, Number 12. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDDR).
Mermis, B. J. (2005). Developing a taxonomy for rehabilitation outcome measurement. Rehabilitation Psychology, 50, 15–23.Google Scholar
Murdick, N., Shore, P., Chittooran, M. M. & Gartin, B. (2004). Cross-cultural comparison of the concept of “otherness” and its impact on persons with disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39, 310–16.Google Scholar
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (1999). NIDRR long-range plan. Federal Register, 68578, Washington DC, USA.
National Task Force on the Prevention and Treatment of Obesity (2000). Overweight, obesity, and health risk. Archives of Internal Medicine, 160, 898–904.
Olkin, R. (1999). What psychotherapists should know about disability. New York: Guilford Press.
Olkin, R. & Pledger, C. (2003). Can disability studies and psychology join hands?American Psychologist, 58, 296–304.Google Scholar
Pledger, C. (2003). Discourse on disability and rehabilitation issues: opportunities for psychology. American Psychologist, 58, 279–84.Google Scholar
Pope, A. M. & Tarlov, A. R. (Eds.). (1991). Disability in America: toward a national agenda for prevention. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Rimmer, J. H. & Braddock, D. (2002). Health promotion for people with physical, cognitive, and sensory disabilities: an emerging national priority. American Journal of Health Promotion, 16, 220–4.Google Scholar
Rudberg, M. A., Furner, S. E., Dunn, J. E. & Cassel, C. K. (1993). The relationship of visual and hearing impairments to disability: an analysis using the longitudinal study of aging. Journal of Gerontology, 48, M261–M265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, , M. (Ed.). (2002). Assistive technology: matching device and consumer for successful rehabilitation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Tugwell, P. (2000). Pharmacoeconomics of drug therapy for rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology, 39(Suppl.), 43–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
US Census Bureau. (2003). Disability status: 2000. US Department of Commerce: Economics and Statistics Administration, Washington DC, USA.
US Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). Healthy people 2010. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services.
Walkup, J. (2000). Disability, health care, and public policy. Rehabilitation Psychology, 45, 409–22.Google Scholar
Whiteneck, G., Brooks, C., Charlifue, S.et al. (1992). Guide for use of CHART: Craig hospital assessment and reporting technique. Englewood, CO: Craig Hospital.
World Health Organization (1980). International classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps: a manual of classification relating to the consequences of disease. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.
World Health Organization (2001). International classification of functioning, disability, and health. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.
World Health Organization (2002). Innovative care for chronic conditions: building blocks for action. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×