Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

Disability, residential environment and social participation: factors influencing daily mobility of persons living in residential care facilities in two regions of France

Authors: Noémie Rapegno, Jean-François Ravaud

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Despite the context of individualization of public policies and promotion of independent living, residential care facilities (RCFs) (called “établissements medico-sociaux” in France) still represent the main system used by disabled people. Through a study of their daily mobility, this article proposes a geographical approach to the examination of factors influencing the social participation of disabled persons with motor impairments who live in residential care facilities.

Methods

The data were collected in three stages from several sources. We first carried out 24 semi-directive interviews among supervisory staff in all the institutions in two regions of France (Greater Paris and Upper Normandy) to better understand the nature of services offered by medico-social facilities. We next did field work in greater detail in 10 of these institutions. We selected residents by random sampling. These first stages then allowed us to study the mobility of residents and record their perceptions. We conducted participant observation and interviews with 81 disabled residents within the 10 RCF.
Data analysis enabled consideration not only of the role of the residential environment in people’s daily mobility, but the role of the institutions as well.

Results

We identified three typical profiles of mobility practices depending on the facilities: “the islanders”, living in isolated facilities far from public transportation, or in so-called “difficult” neighborhoods; people who alternate individual and group mobility in a more or less large area; and “the navigators” who have high mobility over a very large area, often living in facilities located in urban areas. The study also enabled an analysis of the obstacles and facilitators inside and outside the residential facilities. These place restrictions on social participation by disabled adults. However, possibilities for individual negotiation may enable bypassing some obstacles.

Conclusions

The three ideal-type profiles of mobility analyzed constitute adaptations to the environment by residents and the institution. The research techniques used and the presentation of data (in the form of diagrams) enabled a better understanding of the mobility of severely disabled adults living in an institution, a population that is rarely studied.
Footnotes
1
Shops (supermarkets and small shops), services and facilities (common services such as banks, hairdressers or post offices), leisure (sport, culture ...), associative or religious activities, outings (cafe, restaurant ...).
 
Literature
1.
Tøssebro J. Scandinavian disability policy: from deinstitutionalisation to non-discrimination and beyond. ALTER - Eur J Disabil Res Revue Européenne de Recherche sur le Handicap. 2016;10:111–23.
2.
Hemingway L. Disabled people and housing: choices, opportunities and barriers. Bristol: The Policy Press; 2011.
3.
Rapegno N. Établissements d’hébergement pour adultes handicapés en France: enjeux territoriaux et impacts sur la participation sociale des usagers. Application aux régions Ile-de-France et Haute-Normandie [Internet]. Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales; 2014 [cited 2015 Jan 15]. Available from: https://​tel.​archives-ouvertes.​fr/​tel-01097620/​document.
4.
5.
6.
Whiteneck C, Gerhart K, Cusick C. Identifying environmental factors that influence the outcomes of people with traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2004;19:191–204.
7.
WHO. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). 2001.
8.
Fougeyrollas P, Cloutier R, Bergeron H, Côté J, Saint-Michel G. The Quebec classification: disability creation process. International Network on th Disability Creation process: Lac Saint Charles; 1998.
9.
Magasi S, Wong A, Gray DB, Hammel J, Baum C, Wang C-C, et al. Theoretical foundations for the measurement of environmental factors and their impact on participation among people with disabilities. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96:569–77.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Foley K-R, Girdler S, Bourke J, Jacoby P, Llewellyn G, Einfeld S, et al. Influence of the environment on participation in social roles for young adults with down syndrome. PLoS One. 2014;9:1–11.
11.
Taylor Z, Józefowicz I. Intra-urban daily mobility of disabled people for recreational and leisure purposes. J Transp Geogr. 2012;24:155–72.CrossRef
12.
Simplican SC, Leader G, Kosciulek J, Leahy M. Defining social inclusion of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities: an ecological model of social networks and community participation. Res Dev Disabil. 2015;38:18–29.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Bigby C, Wiesel I. Encounter as a dimension of social inclusion for people with intellectual disability: beyond and between community presence and participation. J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2011;36:263–7.CrossRef
14.
Golledge RG, Stimson RJ. Spatial behavior: a geographic perspective. New-York, London: The Gilford Press; 1997.
15.
Authier J-Y. Les citadins et leur quartier. L’Année sociologique. 2008;58:21–46.CrossRef
16.
Delbosc A, Currie G. Transport problems that matter – social and psychological links to transport disadvantage. J Transp Geogr. 2011;19:170–8.CrossRef
17.
Hine J, Mitchell F. Transport disadvantage and social exclusion: exclusionary mechanisms in transport in urban Scotland. Aldershot: Ashgate; 2003.
18.
19.
Stanley JK, Hensher DA, Stanley JR, Vella-Brodrick D. Mobility, social exclusion and well-being: exploring the links. Transp Res A Policy Pract. 2011;45:789–801.CrossRef
20.
Lucas K. Transport and social exclusion: where are we now? Transp Policy. 2012;20:105–13.CrossRef
21.
Uteng TP [b1] (analytic). Gender, ethnicity, and constrained mobility : insights into the resultant social exclusion (English). Environ Plann A (Print). 2009;41:1055–71.
22.
23.
24.
Godard F. Les mobilités du “vivre libres ensemble”. Inf Soc. 2006;n° 130:60–71.
25.
Le Breton E. Bouger pour s’en sortir Mobilité quotidienne et intégration sociale. Paris: Armand Colin; 2005.
26.
Giesel F, Rahn C. Everyday life in the suburbs of Berlin: consequences for the social participation of aged men and women. J Women Aging. 2015;27:330–51.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Lord S. Le choix de vieillir à domicile : l’inévitable adaptation des modes de vie. Retraite et Société. 2011;n° 60:197–213.
28.
Abbott S, McConkey R. The barriers to social inclusion as perceived by people with intellectual disabilities. J Intellect Disabil. 2006;10:275–87.CrossRefPubMed
29.
De Certeau M. The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1984.
30.
De Certeau M, Giard L. The practice of everyday life. Vol. 2, Living and Cooking. Minneappolis: University of Minnesota Press; 1998.
31.
Goffman E. Relations in Public : micro-studies of the public order. New-York, USA: Basic Books; 1971.
32.
Hand C, Law M, Hanna S, Elliott S, McColl MA. Neighbourhood influences on participation in activities among older adults with chronic health conditions. Health Place. 2012;18:869–76.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Buffel T, De Donder L, Phillipson C, Dury S, De Witte N, Verté D. Social participation among older adults living in medium-sized cities in Belgium: the role of neighbourhood perceptions. Health Promot Int. 2014;29:655–68.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Goll JC, Charlesworth G, Scior K, Stott J. Barriers to social participation among lonely older adults: the influence of social fears and identity. PLoS One. 2015;10:1–17.CrossRef
35.
Bromley F, RD MDL, Thomas CJ. City centre accessibility for wheelchair users: the consumer perspective and the planning implications. Cities. 2007;24:229–41.CrossRef
36.
Schmöcker J-D, Quddus MA, Noland RB, Bell MGH. Mode choice of older and disabled people: a case study of shopping trips in London. J Transp Geogr. 2008;16:257–67.CrossRef
37.
Meyers AR, Anderson JJ, Miller DR, Shipp K, Hoenig H. Barriers, facilitators, and access for wheelchair users: sbstantive and methodologic lessons from a pilot study of environmental effects. Soc Sci Med. 2002;55:1435–46.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Disability, residential environment and social participation: factors influencing daily mobility of persons living in residential care facilities in two regions of France
Authors
Noémie Rapegno
Jean-François Ravaud
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2602-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Health Services Research 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research article

A Qualitative study of language barriers between South African health care providers and cross-border migrants

Research article

Towards the development of a wellbeing model for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples living with chronic disease

Research article

A tale of two systems: practice patterns of a single group of emergency medical physicians in Taiwan and China

Study protocol

Impacts of a navigation program based on health information technology for patients receiving oral anticancer therapy: the CAPRI randomized controlled trial

Research article

Collaboration in teams with nurse practitioners and general practitioners during out-of-hours and implications for patient care; a qualitative study

Study protocol

Introduction of microsystems in a level 3 neonatal intensive care unit—an interprofessional approach