Top

BMC Public Health

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Research

Individual quality of life and the environment – towards a concept of livable areas for persons with disabilities in Poland

Authors: Izabela Grabowska, Radosław Antczak, Jan Zwierzchowski, Tomasz Panek

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Background

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [1] highlights the need to create proper socioeconomic and political conditions for persons with disabilities, with a special focus on their immediate living conditions. According to the Convention, these conditions should be built to ensure that persons with disabilities have the potential to enjoy a high quality of life (QoL), and this principle is reflected in the notion of livable areas. The crucial aspect of this framework is the relationship between the individual QoL and the environment, broadly understood as the socioeconomic as well as the technical conditions in which persons with disabilities function.

Methods

The basic research problem was to assess the relationship between individual QoL for the population with disabilities as a dependent variable and livability indicators as independent variables, controlling for individual characteristics. The study used a dataset from the EU-SILC (European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions) survey carried out in 2015 in Poland. The research concept involved several steps. First, we created a variable measuring the QoL for the entire population with disabilities. To measure the multidimensional QoL, we used Sen’s capability approach as a general concept, which was operationalized by the MIMIC (multiple indicators multiple causes) model. In the second step, we identified the livability indicators available in the official statistics, and merged them with survey data. Finally, in the last step, we ran the regression analysis. We also checked the data for the nested structure.

Results

We confirmed that the general environmental conditions, focused on creating livable areas, played a significant role in shaping the QoL of persons with disabilities; i.e., we found that the higher the level of the local Human Development Index, the higher the quality of life of the individuals living in this area. This relationship held even after controlling for the demographic characteristics of the respondents. Moreover, we found that in addition to the general environmental conditions, the conditions created especially for persons with disabilities (i.e., services for this group and support for their living conditions) affected the QoL of these individuals.

Conclusions

The results illustrate the need to strengthen policies aimed at promoting the QoL of persons with disabilities by creating access to community assets and services that can contribute to improving the life chances of this population.

Available only for authorised users

Tampubolon G. Delineating the third age: joint models of older people's quality of life and attrition in Britain 2002–2010. Aging Ment Health. 2015;19(7):576–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2014.1003279.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Brown RI, Schalock RL, Brown I. Quality of life: its application to persons with intellectual disability and their families: introduction and overview. J Policy Pract Intellect Disabil. 2009;6(1):2–6 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-1130.2008.00202.x.CrossRef

Buntinx WHE, Schalock RL. Models of disability, quality of life, and individualized supports: implications for professional practice in intellectual disability. J Policy Pract Intellect Disabil. 2010;7(4):283–94 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-1130.2010.00278.x.CrossRef

Schalock RL, Keith KD, Verdugo MA, Gomez LE. Quality of life model development and use in the field of intellectual disability. In: Kober R, editor. Quality of life: theory and implementation. New York: Sage Publications; 2010. p. 17–32.

Verdugo MA, Gómez LE, Schalock RL, Arias B. The integral quality of life scale: development, validation and use. In: Kober R, editor. Enhancing the quality of life of people with intellectual disabilities: from theory to practice. Dordrecht, Germany: Springer; 2010. p. 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9650-0_4.CrossRef

United Nations. The Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 2006. https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html. Accessed 7.03.2020.

Howley P, Scott M, Redmond D. Sustainability versus liveability: an investigation of neighborhood satisfaction. J Environ Plan Manag. 2009;52(6):847–67 https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560903083798.CrossRef

Keyes LM, Benavides AD. Creating livable communities. In: Mpofu E, editor. Sustainable community health. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59687-3_3.CrossRef

Zanella A, Camanho AS, Dias TG. The assessment of cities’ livability integrating human wellbeing and environmental impact. Ann Oper Res. 2015;226(1):695–726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-014-1666-7.CrossRef

10.

Eurostat. Income and Living Conditions Data. 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/income-and-living-conditions/data. Accessed 18.11.2020.

11.

United Nations Development Programme. Krajowy raport o rozwoju społecznym: Polska 2012. Rozwój regionalny i lokalny [National report on social development: Poland 2012. Regional and local development]. Warsaw: UNDP Office in Poland; 2012.

12.

Sirgy MJ. The psychology of quality of life. Hedonic Well-Being, Life Satisfaction, and Eudaimonia: Springer Science & Business Media; 2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4405-9.CrossRef

13.

Phillips D. Quality of life: concept, policy and practice. London: Routledge; 2006. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203356630CrossRef

14.

Panek T. Jakość życia. Od koncepcji do pomiaru [quality of life. From the concept to the measurement]. Warsaw: Warsaw School of Economics; 2016.

15.

Ferrans CE. Definitions and Conceptual Models of Quality of Life. In: Lipscomb J, Gotay CC, Snyder C, editors. Outcomes Assessment in Cancer. Measures, Methods, and Application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005. p. 14–30.

16.

Stiglitz J, Fitoussi JJ, Durand M. Beyond GDP: Measuring what counts for economic and social performance. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2018. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264307292-en.CrossRef

17.

Cummins RA. Moving from the quality of life concept to a theory. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2005;49(10):699–706 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2005.00738.x.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Felce D. Defining and applying the concept of quality of life. J Intellect Disabil Res. 1997;41(2):126–35 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.1997.tb00689.x.PubMedCrossRef

19.

World Health Organization. Measuring quality of life. Geneva: WHO; 1997.

20.

Eurostat. Final report of the expert group on quality of life indicators. 2016. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-statistical-reports/-/KS-FT-17-004. Accessed 16.08.2020.

21.

Eurostat. Sponsorship group on measuring progress. Well-being and sustainable development: final report adopted by the European Statistical System Committee. 2011. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/7330775/7339383/SpG-Final-report-Progress-wellbeing-and-sustainable-deve/428899a4-9b8d-450c-a511-ae7ae35587cb. Accessed 10.07.2020.

22.

Berger-Schmitt R, Noll H-H. Conceptual Framework and Structure of a European System of Social Indicators: EuReporting Working Paper No. 9. Mannheim: Centre for Survey Research and Methodology (ZUMA); 2000.

23.

Stiglitz J, Sen A, Fitoussi JP. Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. 2009. www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr. Accessed 15.09.2020.

24.

Karr V. A life of quality: informing the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. J Disabil Policy Stud. 2011;22:66–82.CrossRef

25.

Hornslien AG, Sandset EC, Bath PM, Wyller TB, Berge E. Effects of candesartan in acute stroke on cognitive function and quality of life results from the Scandinavian candesartan acute stroke trial. Stroke. 2013;44(7):2022–3 https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.113.001022.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Taft C, Magnusson ES, Ekstedt G, Malmgren K. Health-related quality of life, mood, and patient satisfaction after epilepsy surgery in Sweden - a prospective controlled observational study. Epilepsia. 2014;55(6):878–82 https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.12616.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

27.

Sen A. Choice, welfare and measurement. Oxford: Basil Blackwell; 1982.

28.

Sen A. Development as freedom. New York: Knopf; 1999.

29.

Sen A. Social exclusion: concept, applications, and scrutiny. Social development papers 1. Tokyo: Asian Development Bank; 2000.

30.

Sen A. The idea of justice. London: Penguin Books; 2010.

31.

Sen A. The standard of living. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1987. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511570742CrossRef

32.

Sen A. Well-being, agency and freedom: the Dewey lectures 1984. J Philos. 1985;LXXXII(4):169–221.

33.

Sen A. Equality of what? In: McMurrin S, editor. Tanner Lectures on Human Values. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1980.

34.

Alkire S. Valuing freedom: Sen’s capability approach and poverty reduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199245797.001.0001CrossRef

35.

Robeyns I. Sen's capability approach and gender inequality: selecting relevant capabilities. Fem Econ. 2003;9(2/3):61–92 https://doi.org/10.1080/1354570022000078024.CrossRef

36.

Robeyns I. The capability approach: a theoretical survey. J Hum Dev. 2005;6(1):93–117 https://doi.org/10.1080/146498805200034266.CrossRef

37.

Kuklys W. Amartya Sen's capability approach: theoretical insights and empirical applications. Berlin: Springer; 2005.

38.

Comim F, Qizilbash M, Alkire S. The capability approach. Concepts, measures and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511492587CrossRef

39.

Schlosberg D. Climate justice and capabilities: a framework for adaptation policy. Ethics Int Aff. 2012;26(4):445–61 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679412000615.CrossRef

40.

Lorgelly P, Lorimer K, Fenwick E, Briggs A, Anand P. Operationalising the Capability Approach as an Outcome Measure in Public Health: The Development of the OCAP-18. Soc Sci Med. 2015;142:68–81 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.08.002.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Slabbert I. Applying the capability approach in social work education. Soc Work Educ. 2018;37(7):867–81 https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2018.1458830.CrossRef

42.

Basu K, López-Calva L. Functionings and capabilities. In: Arrow K, Sen A, Suzumura K, editors. Handbook of social choice and welfare. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2011. p. 153–87.

43.

Sen A. Inequality re-examined. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1992.

44.

Crocker D. Ethics of global development: agency, capability and deliberative democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2008. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511492594CrossRef

45.

NRU. Promoting liveability: the experience of NDC–partnerships. London: ODPM; 2005.

46.

Zhang W. Research on how to improve the livability of city community. Appl Mech Mater. 2012;174-177:3503–6 https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.174-177.3503.CrossRef

47.

van Kamp I, Leidemeijer K, Marsman G, de Hollander A. Urban environmental quality and human well-being: towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts: a literature study. Landsc Urban Plan. 2003;65(1-2):5–18 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00232-3.CrossRef

48.

Clayden A, McKoy K, Wild A. Improving residential liveability in the UK: home zones and alternative approaches. J Urban Des. 2007;11(1):55–71.CrossRef

49.

Leby J, Hashim A. Their relative importance in the eyes if neighbourhood residents. J Construct Dev Countries. 2010;15(1):67–91.

50.

Shafer CS, Koo Lee B, Turner S. A tale of three greenway trails: user perceptions related to quality of life. Landsc Urban Plan. 2000;49(3-4):163–78 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00057-8.CrossRef

51.

Newman P. Sustainability and cities: extending the metabolism model. Landsc Urban Plan. 1999;33:219–26.CrossRef

52.

Pacione M. Urban liveability: a review. Urban Geogr. 1990;11(1):1–30 1, https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.11.1.1.CrossRef

53.

Smith T, Nelischer M, Perkins N. Quality of an urban community: a framework for understanding the relationship between quality and physical form. Landsc Urban Plan. 1997;39(2–3):229–41 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(97)00055-8.CrossRef

54.

De Haan F, Ferguson B, Adamowicz R, Johnstone P, Brown R, Wong T. The needs of society: a new understanding of transitions. Sustainability and liveability. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. 2013;85:121–32.CrossRef

55.

Parkes A, Kearns A, Atkinson R. What makes people dissatisfied with their neighbourhoods? Urban Stud. 2002;39(13):2413–38 https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098022000027031.CrossRef

56.

Węziak-Białowolska D. Quality of life in cities – empirical evidence in comparative European perspective. Cities. 2016;58:87–96 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.05.016.CrossRef

57.

Cheshmehzangi A. The reinvention of liveability in public places: interaction mapping analysis of Central Nottingham’s improved walkability. J Hum Behav Soc Environ. 2015;25(5):426–40 https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2014.980594.CrossRef

58.

Balsas C. Measuring the liveability of an urban space: an exploratory study of key performance indicators. Plan Pract Res. 2004;19(1):101–10 https://doi.org/10.1080/0269745042000246603.CrossRef

59.

Hogg S, Medway D, Warnaby G. Towards a typology of marketing town center management schemes through the use of KPIs. In: Manchester Metropolitan University Working Paper; 2001. WP01/11.

60.

Sen A. Commodities and capabilities. Amsterdam: North-Holland; 1985.

61.

Sen A. Inequality reexamined. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1992.

62.

Hauser RM, Goldberger AS. The treatment of unobservable variables in path analysis. Sociol Methodol. 1971;3:81–117 https://doi.org/10.2307/270819.CrossRef

63.

Jöreskop KG, Goldberger AS. Estimation of a model with multiple indicators and multiple causes of a single latent variable. J Am Stat Assoc. 1975;70(351):631–9.CrossRef

64.

Krishnakumar J. Going beyond functionings to capabilities: an econometric model to explain and estimate capabilities. J Human Dev Capabil. 2007;8(1):39–63 https://doi.org/10.1080/14649880601101408.CrossRef

65.

Diamantopoulos A, Siguaw JA. Formative vs. reflective indicators in measure development: does the choice of indicators matter? Br J Manag. 2006;17(4):263–82 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00500.x.CrossRef

66.

Edwards JR, Bagozzi RP. On the nature and direction of relationships between constructs and measures. Psychol Methods. 2000;5(2):155–74 https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.5.2.155.PubMedCrossRef

67.

Pearl J. The casual foundations of structural equation modeling. In: Hogle RH, editor. Handbook of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press; 2014. p. 68–91.

68.

Maggino F, Zumbo BD. Measuring the quality of life and the construction of social indicators. In: Land KC, Michalos AC, Sirgy MJ, editors. Handbook of social indicators and quality of life research. New York: Springer; 2012. p. 201–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2421-1_10.CrossRef

69.

Reinhardt J, Fellinghauer C, Brinkhof M, Post M. Perceived impact of environmental barriers on participation among people living with spinal cord injury in Switzerland. J Rehabil Med. 2016;48(2):210–8 https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2048.PubMedCrossRef

70.

Visagie S, Eide AH, Dyrstad K, Mannan H, Swartz L, Schneider M, et al. Factors related to environmental barriers experienced by persons with and without disabilities in diverse African settings. PLoS One. 2017;12(10):e0186342 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186342.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

71.

Albrecht GL, Devlieger PJ. The disability paradox: high quality of life against all odds. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48(8):977–88 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00411-0.PubMedCrossRef

72.

Celemín JP, Velázquez GÁ. Spatial analysis of the relationship between a life quality index, HDI and poverty in the province of Buenos Aires and the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, Argentina. Soc Indic Res. 2018;140(1):57–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1777-z.CrossRef

73.

Reinhardt J, Fellinghauer C, Post M. Change in environmental barriers experienced over a 5-year period by people living with spinal cord injury in Switzerland: a prospective cohort study. Spinal Cord. 2020;59(4):441–51 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-020-00580-7.PubMedCrossRef

74.

Reinhardt J, Miller J, Stucki G, Sykes C, Gray DB. Measuring impact of environmental factors on human functioning and disability: a review of various scientific approaches. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33(22–23):2151–65. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2011.573053.CrossRefPubMed

75.

Fellinghauer B, Reinhardt JD, Stucki G, Bickenbach J. Explaining the disability paradox: a cross-sectional analysis of the Swiss general population. BMC Public Health. 2012;12(1):655. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-655.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

76.

Watson N. Well, I know this is going to sound very strange to you, but I don’t see myself as a disabled person: identity and disability. Disabil Soc. 2002;17(5):509–27 https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590220148496.CrossRef

77.

Neille J, Penn C. Beyond physical access: a qualitative analysis into the barriers to policy implementation and service provision experienced by persons with disabilities living in rural context. Rural Remote Health. 2015;15(3):1–15.

78.

O'Donovan MA, Doyle A, Gallagher P. Barriers, activities and participation: incorporating ICF into service planning datasets. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31(25):2073–80 https://doi.org/10.3109/09638280902918738.PubMedCrossRef

79.

Guo Y, Hon Chan C, Chang Q, Liu T, Yip P. Neighborhood environment and cognitive function in older adults: a multilevel analysis in Hong Kong. Health Place. 2019;58:102–46.CrossRef

80.

Milton S, Mold A, Tinker A, Herrick C. Growing old in new towns: a call for research on health and ageing in planned urban environments. Health Place. 2019;58:102–66.CrossRef

81.

Rachele JN, Sugiyama T, Davies S, Loh V, Turrell G, Carver A, et al. Neighbourhood built environment and physical function among mid-to-older aged adults: a systematic review. Health Place. 2019;58:102–37.CrossRef

82.

Yafei L, Dijst M, Faber J, Geertman S, Cui C. Healthy urban living: residential environment and health of older adults in Shanghai. Health Place. 2017;47:80–9.CrossRef

83.

Pawson R. Evidence-based policy. A realist perspective. London: Sage Publications; 2006. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209120CrossRef

84.

Toro-Hernandez ML, Villa-Torres L, Mondragón-Barrera MA, Camelo-Castillo W. Factors that influence the use of community assets by people with physical disabilities: results of participatory mapping in Envigado, Columbia. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):181. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-8285-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

85.

Emerson E, Einfeld SL. Challenging behaviour (3rd ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511861178CrossRef

86.

Jeromey B, Temple JB, Kelaher M, Williams R. Discrimination and avoidance due to disability in Australia: evidence from a National Cross Sectional Survey. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):1347. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6234-7.CrossRef

87.

Beck T, Diaz del Castillo P, Fovet F, Mole H, Noga B. Applying universal design to disability service provision: outcome analysis of a universal design (UD) audit. J Postsecond Educ Disabil. 2014;27(2):209–22.

88.

Malbon E, Carey G, Meltzer A. Personalisation schemes in social care: are they growing social and health inequalities? BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):805. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7168-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

89.

Grills NJ, Hoq M, Wong C-PP, Allagh K, Singh L, Soji F, et al. Disabled People’s Organisations increase access to services and improve well-being: evidence from a cluster randomized trial in North India. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):145. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-8192-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

90.

Field MJ, Jette AM. The future of disability in America. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Disability in America. Washington: National Academies Press (US); 2017.

91.

Allmark P, Machaczek K. Financial capability, health and disability. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(1):243 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1589-5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

92.

Borzaga C, Galera G, Franchini B, Chiomento S, Nogales R, Carini C. Social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe. Comparative synthesis report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2020. https://europa.eu/!Qq64ny. Accessed 7.11.2020

Title: Individual quality of life and the environment – towards a concept of livable areas for persons with disabilities in Poland
Authors: Izabela Grabowska
Radosław Antczak
Jan Zwierzchowski
Tomasz Panek
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10797-7

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Individual quality of life and the environment – towards a concept of livable areas for persons with disabilities in Poland

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Evaluating OzHarvest’s primary-school Food Education and Sustainability Training (FEAST) program in 10–12-year-old children in Australia: protocol for a pragmatic cluster non-randomized controlled trial

Developing targeted client communication messages to pregnant women in Bangladesh: a qualitative study

Associations between occupation and heavy alcohol consumption in UK adults aged 40–69 years: a cross-sectional study using the UK Biobank

The impact of equity factors on receipt of timely appropriate care for children with suspected malaria in eastern Uganda

The association between sleep duration and excess body weight of the American adult population: a cross-sectional study of the national health and nutrition examination survey 2015–2016

Modeling mortality risk effects of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco: results from the National Health Interview Survey Linked Mortality File Data