| 陈盼盼,蒋语,糜炫,张晋铖,莫浩洋,白珍,李宗元,刘夕东.西南地区残疾人辅具需求与满意度调查[J].中国康复,2026,41(9):571-576 |
| 西南地区残疾人辅具需求与满意度调查 |
| Survey on assistive technology needs and satisfaction among persons with disabilities in Southwest China |
| |
| DOI：10.3870/zgkf.2026.09.010 |
| 中文关键词: 残疾人 辅助器具 需求 满意度 |
| 英文关键词: disabilities assistive technology needs satisfaction |
| 基金项目:中国残联课题残疾人辅助器具专项（2024CDPFAT-35） |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 194 |
| 全文下载次数: 67 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的：了解西南地区残疾人辅具使用现状与满意度情况。方法：利用配额抽样法，对西南五省市1121例接受过辅具服务的残疾人开展问卷调查，使用独立样本t检验和单因素ANOVA检验残疾人辅具使用满意度情况，利用多元logistic回归分析识别影响满意度的关键因素。结果：贵州（81.52%）和西藏（62.62%）残疾人未满足需要最高，其次为重庆（48.25%）和四川（44.98%），云南（13.04%）；公共部门（残联/公立医院）是辅具来源的主导渠道，其中云南（92.27%）与贵州（88.04%）依赖度最高，私营自费购买四川（23.36%）和重庆（36.19%）占比最高，西南地区残疾人辅具总体满意度处于“中上”水平，影响辅具满意度的核心驱动因子为辅具使用效果（OR=3.38，P=0.001）、评估训练服务满意度（OR=5.12，P＜0.001）和维修保养满意度（OR=2.52，P=0.005）。结论：辅具适配服务须因城乡、残疾类别与年龄差异而精准分层；满意度提升需同时抓“前端评估”与“后端维护”，同时重视回访以减少因使用不当导致的“假性低满意”；西南地区辅具服务模式分化，未来政策干预需“因地制宜”。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective: To examine the current utilization and satisfaction levels of assistive technology (AT) among persons with disabilities in Southwest China. Methods: Using quota sampling, a questionnaire survey was conducted among 1,121 people with disabilities in five provinces and municipalities of Southwest China who had received assistive device services. Independent-samples t-tests and one-way ANOVA were employed to compare AT satisfaction across subgroups, and multinomial logistic regression was applied to identify key determinants of satisfaction. Results: Unmet needs were highest in Guizhou (81.52%) and Tibet (62.62%), followed by Chongqing (48.25%) and Sichuan (44.98%), with Yunnan showing the lowest rate (13.04%). Public sectors (disabled persons’ federations or public hospitals) dominated AT provision; dependence was greatest in Yunnan (92.27%) and Guizhou (88.04%), whereas self-paid private purchases were most common in Sichuan (23.36%) and Chongqing (36.19%). Overall AT satisfaction in Southwest China was upper-moderate. Core drivers of satisfaction were perceived effectiveness of the device (OR=3.38, P=0.001), satisfaction with assessment and training services (OR=5.12, P<0.001), and satisfaction with repair and maintenance (OR=2.52, P=0.005). Conclusion: AT service delivery must be precisely stratified by residence (urban vs. rural), type of disability, and age. Improving satisfaction requires simultaneous strengthening of “front-end” assessment and “back-end” maintenance, as well as systematic follow-up to reduce “pseudo-dissatisfaction” caused by improper use. AT service models vary markedly across Southwest China; future policy interventions should be “locality-specific”. |
|
查看全文
下载PDF阅读器 HTML全文 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|
