[Federal Register: August 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 169)]
[Notices]
[Page 50515-50541]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr31au07-177]
Download: 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 50515]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding Priorities for the Disability and Rehabilitation Research
Projects and Centers Program; Notice
[[Page 50516]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research--
Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program--
Disability Rehabilitation Research Projects (DRRPs), Rehabilitation
Research and Training Centers (RRTCs), and Rehabilitation Engineering
Research Centers (RERCs)
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed priorities for DRRPs, RRTCs, and RERCs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services proposes certain funding priorities for the
Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program
administered by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation
Research (NIDRR). Specifically, this notice proposes 10 priorities for
DRRPs, 11 priorities for RRTCs, and 6 priorities for RERCs. The
Assistant Secretary may use these priorities for competitions in fiscal
year (FY) 2008 and later years. We take this action to focus research
attention on areas of national need. We intend these priorities to
improve rehabilitation services and outcomes for individuals with
disabilities.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before October 1, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about these proposed priorities to
Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,
Room 6029, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20204-2700. If you
prefer to send your comments through the Internet, use the following
address: donna.nangle@ed.gov.
You must include the term ``Proposed Priorities for DRRPs, RRTCs,
and RERCs'' and the priority title in the subject line of your
electronic message.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Nangle. Telephone: (202) 245-
7462.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may
call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice of proposed priorities is in
concert with President George W. Bush's New Freedom Initiative (NFI)
and NIDRR's Final Long-Range Plan for FY 2005-2009 (Plan). The NFI can
be accessed on the Internet at the following site:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/newfreedom.
The Plan, which was published in the Federal Register on February
15, 2006 (71 FR 8165), can be accessed on the Internet at the following
site: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/nidrr/policy.html.
Through the implementation of the NFI and the Plan, NIDRR seeks to:
(1) Improve the quality and utility of disability and rehabilitation
research; (2) foster an exchange of expertise, information, and
training to facilitate the advancement of knowledge and understanding
of the unique needs of traditionally underserved populations; (3)
determine best strategies and programs to improve rehabilitation
outcomes for underserved populations; (4) identify research gaps; (5)
identify mechanisms of integrating research and practice; and (6)
disseminate findings.
One of the specific goals established in the Plan is for NIDRR to
publish all of its proposed priorities, and following public comment,
final priorities, annually, on a combined basis. Under this approach,
NIDRR's constituents can submit comments at one time rather than at
different times throughout the year, and NIDRR can move toward a fixed
schedule for competitions and more efficient grant-making operations.
This notice proposes priorities that NIDRR intends to use for DRRP,
RRTC, and RERC competitions in FY 2008 and possibly later years.
However, nothing precludes NIDRR from publishing additional priorities,
if needed. Furthermore, NIDRR is under no obligation to make an award
for each of these priorities. The decision to make an award will be
based on the quality of applications received and available funding.
NIDRR also intends to publish at least one additional separate
notice of proposed priority for an additional DRRP that would focus on
traditionally underserved populations, as required under section 21 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. Moreover, for FY 2008
competitions using priorities that already have been established and
for which publication of a notice of proposed priority is unnecessary
(e.g., competitions for Field-Initiated Projects, Advanced
Rehabilitation Research Training Projects, Fellowships, and Small
Business Innovation Research Projects), NIDRR has published or will
publish notices inviting applications. More information on these other
projects and programs that NIDRR intends to fund in FY 2008 can be
found on the Internet at the following site:
http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/nidrr/priority-matrix.html.
Invitation To Comment
We invite you to submit comments regarding these proposed
priorities. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in
developing the notice of final priorities, we urge you to identify
clearly the specific proposed priority or topic that each comment
addresses.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of
reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed
priorities. Please let us know of any further opportunities we should
take to reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while
preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about these proposed priorities in room 6030, 550 12th Street,
SW., Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30
a.m. and 4 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week
except Federal holidays.
Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking
Record
On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or
print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs
assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public
rulemaking record for these proposed priorities. If you want to
schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
We will announce the final priorities in one or more notices in the
Federal Register. We will determine the final priorities after
considering responses to this notice and other information available to
the Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing or
using additional priorities, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking
requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use these proposed priorities, we invite
applications through a notice in the Federal Register. When inviting
applications we designate the priorities as absolute, competitive
preference, or invitational.
The effect of each type of priority follows:
[[Page 50517]]
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by either
(1) Awarding additional points, depending on how well or the extent to
which the application meets the competitive preference priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the
competitive preference priority over an application of comparable merit
that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the invitational
priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the
invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over other
applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Priorities
In this notice, we are proposing 10 priorities for DRRPs, 11
priorities for RRTCs, and 6 priorities for RERCs.
For DRRPs, the proposed priorities are:
Priority 1--Health Care Coordination for Individuals with
Physical Disabilities.
Priority 2--Assistive Technology (AT) Reuse.
Priority 3--Health and Health Care Disparities Among
Individuals with Disabilities.
Priority 4--Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems (TBIMS)
Centers Collaborative Research Projects.
Priority 5--Classification and Measurement of Medical
Rehabilitation Interventions.
Priority 6--Vocational Rehabilitation Service Models for
Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders.
Priority 7--Center on Knowledge Translation for Assistive
Technology Transfer.
Priority 8--Asset Accumulation and Economic Self-
Sufficiency for Individuals with Disabilities.
Priority 9--Technology Transfer in Resource-Limited
Environments.
Priority 10--Research and Knowledge Translation Center for
Individuals with Disabilities and Their Families.
For RRTCs, the proposed priorities are:
Priority 11--General Rehabilitation Research and Training
Center (RRTC) Requirements.
Priority 12--Enhancing the Health and Wellness of
Individuals with Neuromuscular Diseases.
Priority 13--Enhancing the Health and Wellness of Persons
with Arthritis.
Priority 14--Stroke Rehabilitation.
Priority 15--Personal Assistance Services (PAS) in the
21st Century.
Priority 16--Participation and Community Living for
Individuals with Psychiatric Disabilities.
Priority 17--Multiple Sclerosis: Interventions to Maximize
Health, Well-Being, and Participation.
Priority 18--Aging with Physical Disability: Reducing
Secondary Conditions and Enhancing Health and Participation.
Priority 19--Disability Statistics and Demographics.
Priority 20--Health and Function Across the Lifespan of
Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
Priority 21--Participation and Community Living for
Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
For RERCs, the proposed priorities are:
Priority 22--RERC for Hearing Enhancement.
Priority 23--RERC for Accessible Public Transportation.
Priority 24--RERC for Prosthetics and Orthotics.
Priority 25--RERC for Communication Enhancement.
Priority 26--RERC for Universal Interface and Information
Technology Access.
Priority 27--RERC for Wheeled Mobility.
Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects (DRRP) Program
The purpose of the DRRP program is to plan and conduct research,
demonstration projects, training, and related activities to develop
methods, procedures, and rehabilitation technologies that maximize the
full inclusion and integration into society, employment, independent
living, family support, and economic and social self-sufficiency of
individuals with disabilities, especially individuals with the most
severe disabilities, and to improve the effectiveness of services
authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. DRRPs
carry out one or more of the following types of activities, as
specified and defined in 34 CFR 350.13 through 350.19: research,
development, demonstration, training, dissemination, utilization, and
technical assistance.
An applicant for assistance under this program must demonstrate in
its application how it will address, in whole or in part, the needs of
individuals with disabilities from minority backgrounds (34 CFR
350.40(a)). The approaches an applicant may take to meet this
requirement are found in 34 CFR 350.40(b). In addition, NIDRR intends
to require all DRRP applicants to meet the requirements of the General
Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects (DRRP) Requirements
priority that it published in a notice of final priorities in the
Federal Register on April 28, 2006 (71 FR 25472).
Additional information on the DRRP program can be found at:
http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/res-program.html#DRRP.
Proposed Priorities
Priority 1--Health Care Coordination for Individuals With Physical
Disabilities
Background
Individuals with disabilities use a disproportional share of health
care services in the United States (DeJong et al., 2002). The Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) programs recognize this trend
and try to control its economic consequences by enrolling individuals
with disabilities in managed care programs in increasing numbers
(Palsbo & Mastal, 2006). A small but growing number of Medicaid managed
care plans are designed specifically for individuals with disabilities.
These plans feature intensive care coordination services that integrate
the complex health and long-term care needs of individuals with
disabilities (Palsbo & Mastal, 2006; Master, 2003).
Pursuant to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and
Modernization Act of 2003, CMS also contracts with a growing number of
Medicare health plans to provide health care coordination and services
for Medicare beneficiaries who have severe or disabling chronic
conditions (Peters, 2005).
Health care coordination is an increasingly important component of
high-quality health care for individuals with disabilities (Cheng et
al., 2004; Lawthers et al., 2003; Kroll, 2003). On average, individuals
with disabilities have more complex and multi-faceted health care needs
than individuals without disabilities. For example, individuals with
disabilities often require the involvement of multiple medical and
ancillary providers, including long-term care providers (DeJong et al.,
2002). Individuals with disabilities also often find it difficult to
navigate the complex, fragmented health and long-term care service
systems that are critical to maintaining their health, functional
abilities, and independence in the community. Recognizing the
[[Page 50518]]
importance of integration and coordination of health and long-term care
services, NIDRR states that ``individuals with disabilities should have
access to an integrated continuum of health care services, including
primary care and health maintenance services, specialty care, medical
rehabilitation, long-term care, and health promotion programs'' (NIDRR
Long-Range Plan, 2005-2009). Toward this goal, NIDRR seeks to sponsor
rigorous research to assess the outcomes associated with managed health
care coordination programs for individuals with disabilities.
A number of small pilot studies suggest an association between
enrollment in managed health care coordination programs for individuals
with disabilities and positive outcomes such as increased satisfaction
with health care services, greater access to a wide variety of health
and long-term care services, and decreased utilization of costly
emergency and hospital-based services (Surpin, 2007; Palsbo, Mastal, &
O'Donnell, 2006; Master, 2003). More systematic, peer-reviewed research
is required to determine the extent to which these health care
coordination programs for individuals with disabilities relate to
improvements in both the health and health care experiences of their
clients and to cost savings for public financing mechanisms.
References
Cheng, E., Siderow, A., Swarztrauber, K., Eisa, M., Lee, M., &
Vickrey, B. (2004). Development of Quality of Care Indicators for
Parkinson's Disease. Movement Disorders. 19(2): 136-150.
DeJong, G., Palsbo, S., Beatty, P., Jones, G., Kroll, T., & Neri, M.
(2002). The Organization and Financing of Health Services for People
With Disabilities. Milbank Quarterly. 80(2): 261-301.
Kroll, T. (2003). Towards Improving Health Care Delivery for People
With Physical Disabilities: Findings From Focus Groups with Health
Care Consumers in Minnesota. Managed Care Quarterly. 11(4): 8-14.
Lawthers, A., Pransky, G., Peterson, L., & Himmelstein, J. (2003).
Rethinking Quality in the Context of Persons With Disability.
International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 15(4): 279-281.
Master, R., Simon, L., & Goldfield, N. (2003). Commonwealth Care
Alliance. A New Approach to Coordinated Care for the Chronically Ill
and Frail Elderly That Organizationally Integrates Consumer
Involvement. Journal of Ambulatory Care Management. 26(4): 355-361.
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. Notice
of Final Long Range Plan for Fiscal Years 2005-2009. Pages: 8166-
8200. http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/nidrr/policy.html.
Palsbo, S. & Mastal, M. (2006). Disability Care Coordination Care
Organizations: The Experience of Medicaid Managed Care Programs for
People With Disabilities. Center for Health Care Strategies.
Resource Paper. http://www.chcs.org/usr--doc/DCCOs.pdf.
Palsbo, S., Mastal, M., & O'Donnell, L. (2006). Disability Care
Coordination Organizations: Improving Health and Function in People
With Disabilities. Lippincotts Case Management. 11(5): 255-264.
Peters, C.P. (2005). Medicare Advantage SNPs: A New Opportunity for
Integrated Care? Washington DC: National Health Policy Forum. Issue
Brief 808.
Surpin, R. (2007). Independence Care System: A Disability Care
Coordination Organization in New York City. Journal of Ambulatory
Care Management. 30(1): 52-63.
Proposed Priority
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes a priority for a Disability Rehabilitation Research
Project (DRRP) on Health Care Coordination for Individuals with
Disabilities. The purpose of this priority is to conduct research on
the outcomes of Medicare or Medicaid managed health care coordination
programs for individuals with disabilities. Under this priority, the
DRRP must be designed to contribute to the following outcomes:
(a) New knowledge about the extent to which enrollment in health
care coordination programs enhances access to health care for
individuals with disabilities. The DRRP must contribute to this outcome
by conducting research on, and evaluating, one or more existing
Medicaid- or Medicare-funded health care coordination programs for
individuals with disabilities.
(b) New knowledge about the health outcomes associated with
participation in health care coordination programs for individuals with
disabilities. The DRRP must contribute to this outcome by conducting
research on, and evaluating, one or more existing Medicaid- or
Medicare-funded health care coordination programs for individuals with
disabilities.
(c) New knowledge about potential Medicaid or Medicare cost savings
that are associated with health care coordination efforts for
individuals with disabilities. The DRRP must contribute to this outcome
by conducting research on, and evaluating, one or more existing
Medicaid- or Medicare-funded health care coordination programs for
individuals with disabilities.
In addition, the DRRP must work with the NIDRR Project Officer to
coordinate its research efforts with the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services--Office of Research, Development, and Information.
Priority 2--Assistive Technology (AT) Reuse
Background
Reuse programs are emerging as one potential solution to providing
more assistive technology (AT) to individuals with disabilities at
lower costs (Pass It On Center). For example, the Rehabilitation
Services Administration (RSA) of the U.S. Department of Education has
funded model demonstration projects to establish or expand statewide AT
device reutilization programs. Device reuse programs, such as exchange
programs and reassignment programs, facilitate the transfer of
previously-used AT from one consumer to another. Each of these programs
has distinct features and benefits. An exchange program assists in
connecting users to transfer AT directly among themselves. Reassignment
programs, on the other hand, accept used AT, sanitize it, identify
appropriate users, and redistribute the AT following sanitization and
matching.
One advantage of reuse programs, in general, is that they provide
consumers with access to AT devices at reasonably lower costs. AT
equipment provided through these programs also leads to an increased
capacity for community living and participation by individuals with
disabilities. AT reuse programs meet varied needs and circumstances
surrounding consumer access to AT, such as access on a temporary basis,
or access for trial purposes to assess the benefit and effectiveness of
a device for a consumer's use.
A number of barriers and obstacles limit the utility of AT reuse
programs. A recent study found that individuals with disabilities or
other family members, not third parties, most frequently pay for
commonly used AT devices, special adaptations, and environmental
accommodations (Carlson & Ehrlich, 2006). Consumer access to AT and
compensation for AT is often limited by conflicting eligibility
requirements of current policies regulating the provision of AT. In
addition, third-party payment restrictions frequently minimize the
extent to which Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, and vocational
rehabilitation can assist with AT costs. Increased awareness of the
potential costs and benefits associated with AT reuse programs can
positively impact their use, and in addition, has implications for
third-party payment coverage for reused AT. Furthermore,
[[Page 50519]]
AT reuse programs do not have the benefit of a national coordinated
system to assist in sustaining or expanding programs. Nor do AT reuse
programs have the benefit of research that has identified methods,
models, and measures for enhancing program effectiveness and improving
consumer outcomes.
At the present time, there is little data available to guide the
management, enhancement, or expansion of these programs. Few research
studies have been conducted to inform the AT reuse field of validated
methods, models, and measures that lead to improved program and
consumer outcomes. This field needs new knowledge regarding factors
that influence success of AT reutilization programs, e.g., program
design, staffing, training, funding sources, and use of collaborative
partnerships in operating AT reuse programs. Specifically, more
research is needed to examine how these and other factors affect
program outcomes and to identify the most effective measures available
to assess program quality as well as the costs and benefits of the
program. Numerous reuse programs in the United States could benefit
from research in this area.
References
Carlson, D. & Ehrlich, N. (2006). Sources of payment for assistive
technology: Findings from a national survey of persons with
disabilities. Assistive Technology, 18(1), 77-86.
Pass It On Center. http://www.passitoncenter.org.
Proposed Priority
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes a priority for a Disability Rehabilitation Research
Project (DRRP) on Assistive Technology (AT) Reuse for individuals with
disabilities. The purpose of this priority is to support research that
will identify methods, systems, policies, and collaborative strategies
to improve reutilization and recycling of AT. Under this priority, the
DRRP must be designed to contribute to the following outcomes:
(a) Enhanced understanding of how third-party payments for
purchases of AT affect AT reuse programs. The DRRP must contribute to
this outcome by conducting an analysis of current policy and consumer
eligibility requirements and by generating relevant recommendations
related to AT reuse.
(b) New knowledge that positively affects the establishment,
expansion, and maintenance of AT reuse programs. The DRRP must
contribute to this outcome by conducting research studies validating
effective methods and models for conducting AT reutilization activities
(e.g., program design; alternative recycling methods; partnerships;
program marketing strategies; and recruitment, retention, and training
of AT reuse staff).
(c) Improved methods and strategies for assessing the costs and
benefits, including cost-savings, of AT reuse programs. The DRRP must
contribute to this outcome by identifying, developing, and testing
appropriate models to be used at the program level that can help inform
third-party payers of the costs and benefits associated with AT reuse
programs.
(d) Improved understanding of AT reuse outcomes for individuals
with disabilities. The DRRP must contribute to this outcome by
conducting studies that assess and inform the AT field about the impact
of acquiring AT through reuse programs.
(e) Improved collaboration and use of research findings through
effective coordination within the network of relevant NIDRR RRTCs,
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers, DRRPs, and federally
funded programs, such as the Rehabilitation Services Administration
(RSA) AT State grants, the National AT Device Reutilization
Coordination and Technical Assistance Center, and grantees under RSA's
Model Demonstrations for AT Device Reutilization program.
Priority 3--Health and Health Care Disparities Among Individuals With
Disabilities
Background
In 2005, the U.S. Surgeon General released a ``Call to Action to
Improve the Health and Wellness of Persons With Disabilities'' that
delineated a series of strategies to optimize the health and wellness
of individuals with disabilities, (U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS), 2005). The Surgeon General proposed these strategies in
light of the growing body of research literature indicating that
individuals with disabilities are, on average, less likely than those
without disabilities to report positive health (Krahn, Hammond, &
Turner, 2006; Hough, 1999) and less likely to receive recommended
health care services (Kroll et al., 2006; McCarthy et al., 2006; Jones
& Beatty, 2003).
While the body of research that examines health disparities between
individuals with and without disabilities is expanding, few studies
have examined the health and health care disparities within the diverse
population of individuals with disabilities in the United States.
Health disparities recently have been defined as ``observed clinically
and statistically significant differences in health outcomes or health
care use between socially distinct vulnerable and less vulnerable
populations'' (Kilbourne et al., 2006). The broad population of 52
million individuals with disabilities (HHS, 2005) is heterogeneous in
terms of a number of factors that may be related to increased
vulnerability for poor health care access and poor health. These
factors include, but are not limited to, disabling condition category
(i.e., mental illness, sensory, physical, cognitive, or combinations
thereof), disability severity, age, gender, race, ethnicity,
socioeconomic status, education level, urban/rural status, health
insurance payer type (Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance), provider
type, and other social, personal, and environmental characteristics.
NIDRR recognizes that ``while health services researchers are
increasingly attuned to racial and ethnic disparities in health care,
less attention and fewer resources are devoted to disability-related
disparities and the innovations in policy and practice that might
reduce them'' (NIDRR Long Range Plan, 2005). The Health and Function
chapter of the NIDRR Long Range Plan promotes research on the health
and health care experiences of the wide diversity of individuals with
disabilities (NIDRR Long Range Plan, 2005).
Given the wide diversity of individuals with disabilities and the
limited information available about existing health care access and
outcome disparities that exist within this population, research is
needed to improve our understanding about the factors that contribute
to health disparities. New knowledge about these factors can be used to
create targeted policies, programs, and interventions that promote
health and wellness among the individuals with disabilities who are
most vulnerable and most likely to demonstrate health outcomes
traditionally attributed to disparate treatment or health care access
difficulties.
References
Hough, J. (1999). Disability and Health: A National Public Health
Agenda. In Simeonsson, R.J., McDevitt, L.N. (Eds.). Issues in
Disability and Health. The Role of Secondary Conditions and Quality
of Life. Chapel Hill NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Jones, G. & Beatty, P. (2003). Disparities in Preventive Service Use
Amongst Working-Age Adults With Mobility Limitations. In Altman, B.,
Barnartt, S., Hendershot, G., & Larson, S. (Eds.)
[[Page 50520]]
Research in Social Science and Disability 1 Volume 3: Using Survey
Data To Study Disability: Results From the National Health Interview
Survey on Disability. Pages: 109-130. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Kilbourne, A., Switzer, G., Hyman, K., Crowley-Matoka, M., & Fine,
M. (2006). Advancing Health Disparities Research Within the Health
Care System: A Conceptual Framework. American Journal of Public
Health. 96(12): 2113-2121.
Krahn, G., Hammond, L., & Turner, A. (2006). A Cascade of
Disparities: Health and Health Care Access for People With
Intellectual Disabilities. Mental Retardation and Developmental
Disabilities Research Reviews. 12(1): 70-82.
Kroll, T., Jones, G., Kehn, M., & Neri, M. (2006). Barriers and
Strategies Affecting the Utilization of Primary Preventive Services
for People With Physical Disabilities: A Qualitative Inquiry. Health
and Social Care in the Community. 14(4): 284-293.
McCarthy, E., Ngo, L., Roetzheim, R., Chirikos, T., Li, D., Drews,
R., & Iezzoni, L. (2006). Disparities in Breast Cancer Treatment and
Survival for Women With Disabilities. Annals of Internal Medicine.
145(9): 637-645.
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. Notice
of Final Long Range Plan for Fiscal Years 2005-2009. Pages: 8166-
8200. http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/nidrr/policy.html.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2005). The Surgeon
General's Call to Action To Improve the Health and Wellness of Persons
With Disabilities. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office
of the Surgeon General.
Proposed Priority
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes a priority for a Disability Rehabilitation Research
Project (DRRP) on Health and Health Care Disparities Among Individuals
With Disabilities. The purpose of this priority is to build a knowledge
base about health care access and health outcomes among the diverse
population of individuals with disabilities. Under this priority, the
DRRP must be designed to contribute to the following outcomes:
(a) A foundation of available knowledge about health disparities
among subpopulations of individuals with disabilities. The DRRP must
contribute to this outcome by conducting a review and synthesis of
existing research on health and health care access among individuals
with disabilities or subgroups of individuals with disabilities. The
DRRP must then use this review and synthesis to inform the subsequent
research and evaluation efforts of the DRRP.
(b) New knowledge about system-level factors that are associated
with the health and health care access of individuals with
disabilities. The DRRP must contribute to this outcome by conducting
research on the extent to which the health and health care access of
individuals with disabilities are related to system-level factors that
include, but are not limited to, rural or urban status, as well as
characteristics of their health care insurance or health care
providers.
(c) New knowledge about the individual-level characteristics of
individuals with disabilities that are associated with their health and
access to health care. The DRRP must contribute to this outcome by
conducting research on the extent to which the health and health care
access of individuals with disabilities are related to their disabling
condition categories (mental illness, sensory, physical, cognitive, or
combinations thereof), disability severity, age, gender, race,
ethnicity, socioeconomic status, education level, or other individual-
level characteristics.
(d) Improved policies, programs, or interventions that promote the
health and health care access of the subpopulations of individuals with
disabilities who are least likely to receive recommended health care
services. The DRRP must contribute to this outcome by applying
knowledge derived from research conducted under paragraphs (a), (b),
and (c) of this priority.
In addition, the DRRP must collaborate with the Rehabilitation
Research and Training Center on Health and Wellness, and other projects
as identified through consultation with the NIDRR project officer.
Priority 4--Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems (TBIMS) Centers
Collaborative Research Projects
Background
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report that at
least 1.4 million individuals sustain a traumatic brain injury (TBI) in
the United States each year (Langlois, Rutland-Brown, & Thomas, 2004).
Of these, approximately 50,000 die, 235,000 are hospitalized, and 1.1
million are treated and released from emergency departments. These
estimates do not include those individuals who sustained a TBI and did
not seek medical care, or who were seen only in private doctors'
offices. The three leading causes of TBI are motor vehicle/traffic
collisions, falls, and assaults.
CDC reports that each year an estimated 80,000 to 90,000 Americans
sustain TBI resulting in permanent disability. At least 5.3 million
Americans have a long-term or lifelong need for help to perform
activities of daily living as a result of TBI (Thurman et al., 1999).
The nature and extent of disability resulting from TBI depend on
several factors, such as the severity and location of the injury, the
length of impaired consciousness, the age and general health of the
patient, and the intensity of rehabilitation services (Cifu et al.,
2003; Dikmen et al., 2003; Sarajuuri et al., 2005). Common clinical
sequelae of TBI include problems with cognition, sensory processing,
communication, and behavioral or mental health. Some TBI survivors also
can develop long-term medical complications, such as Parkinson's
disease and other motor problems, Alzheimer's disease, and post-
traumatic dementia (National Institute of Neurological Disorders and
Stroke, 2002).
NIDRR created the TBI Model Systems (TBIMS) program in 1987 to
demonstrate the benefits of a coordinated system of neurotrauma and
rehabilitation care and to conduct innovative research on all aspects
of care for those who sustain TBI. The mission of the TBIMS program is
to improve the lives of persons who experience TBI and their families
by creating and disseminating new knowledge about the natural course of
TBI and rehabilitation treatment and outcomes for individuals who
sustain TBI. NIDRR currently funds 14 TBIMS centers throughout the
United States. (Additional information on the TBIMS centers can be
found at http://www.naric.com). These centers provide comprehensive
systems of brain injury care to individuals who sustain TBI. They also
conduct TBI research, including clinical research and the analyses of
standardized data in collaboration with other related projects. The
research activities of the TBIMS centers include participation in joint
research module projects, which range from pilot research to more
extensive studies. TBIMS centers also are required to contribute
information on common data elements to a centralized TBIMS database.
(Additional information on the TBIMS database can be found at
http://www.tbindsc.org.) To date, TBIMS centers have contributed 6157 cases
to the TBIMS database, with followup data extending to 15 years post
injury.
In 2003 NIDRR leveraged the capacity of the TBIMS program by
funding large-scale collaborative research projects.
[[Page 50521]]
These collaborative projects included a randomized controlled trial of
the effectiveness of amantadine hydrochloride in promoting recovery of
functioning following TBI, and a study of the effect of scheduled
telephone intervention on outcomes after TBI. Through the funding of
this priority, the TBIMS program will continue to serve as a platform
for multi-site research that contributes to evidence-based
rehabilitation interventions and improves the lives of individuals with
TBI.
References
Cifu, D.X., Kreutzer, J.S., Kolakowsky-Hayner, S.A., Marwitz, J.H.,
& Englander, J. (2003). The Relationship Between Therapy Intensity
and Rehabilitative Outcomes After Traumatic Brain Injury: A
Multicenter Analysis. Archives of Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation, 84(10): 1441-8.
Dikmen, S.S., Machamer, J.E., Powell, J.M., & Temkin, N.R. (2003).
Outcome 3 to 5 Years After Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain
Injury. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84(10):
1449-57.
Langlois, J.A., Rutland-Brown, W., & Thomas, K.E. (2004). Traumatic
Brain Injury in the United States: Emergency Department Visits,
Hospitalizations, and Deaths. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and
Control.
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS).
(2002, February). Traumatic Brain Injury: Hope Through Research.
Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Health. NIH Publication No. 02-
2478. See: http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/tbi/detail--tbi.htm.
Sarajuuri, J.M., Kaipio, M.L., Koskinen, S.K., Niemela, M.R., Servo,
A.R., & Vilkki, J.S. (2005). Outcome of a Comprehensive
Neurorehabilitation Program for Patients with Traumatic Brain
Injury. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 86(12):
2296-302.
Thurman, D.J., Alverson, C.A., Dunn, K.A., Guerrero, J., & Sniezek,
J.E. (1999). Traumatic Brain Injury in the United States: A Public
Health Perspective. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 14(6):
602-615.
Proposed Priority
The Assistant Secretary proposes a priority for Disability and
Rehabilitation Research Projects (DRRPs) on Traumatic Brain Injury
Model Systems (TBIMS) Collaborative Projects. Each DRRP under this
priority must conduct research that contributes to evidence-based
rehabilitation interventions, including, but not limited to, medical,
psychological, vocational, and social interventions for the purpose of
improving the lives of individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI).
To be eligible under this priority, an applicant must be currently
funded under NIDRR's TBIMS program.
Under this priority, each DRRP must be designed to contribute to
the following outcomes:
(a) Increased utilization of the TBIMS capacity. The DRRP must
contribute to this outcome by collaborating with three or more of the
NIDRR-funded TBIMS centers (for a minimum of four TBIMS sites).
Note: Applicants under this priority may propose to include
other TBI research sites that are not participating in a NIDRR-
funded TBIMS program in their collaborative research projects.
(b) Improved long-term outcomes of individuals with TBI. The DRRP
must contribute to this outcome by using clearly identified research
designs to conduct collaborative research on questions of significance
to TBI rehabilitation. The DRRP's research must focus on one or more
specific domains identified in NIDRR's Final Long-Range Plan for FY
2005-2009, including health and function, participation and community
living, technology, and employment, and must be designed to ensure that
the research study has appropriate research hypotheses and methods to
generate reliable and valid findings.
In addition, the DRRP must address the following requirements:
Demonstrate the capacity to carry out collaborative,
multi-site research projects, including the ability to coordinate
research among centers; maintain data quality; and adhere to research
protocols, confidentiality requirements, and data safety requirements.
Coordinate with the NIDRR-funded Model Systems Knowledge
Translation Center to provide scientific results and information for
dissemination to clinical and consumer audiences. (Additional
information on this center can be found at
http://uwctds.washington.edu/projects/msktc.asp).
Priority 5--Classification and Measurement of Medical Rehabilitation
Interventions
Background
One of the central objectives of NIDRR-funded medical
rehabilitation research is to ``increase the number of interventions
demonstrated to be efficacious in improving health and function
outcomes in targeted disability populations'' (NIDRR Long Range Plan,
2005-2009). To demonstrate that a treatment is efficacious, both the
intervention and the intended outcome must be operationally defined and
measured in a rigorous way.
NIDRR-sponsored researchers have been leaders in the development of
widely used outcomes measures that are employed to help determine the
impact of medical rehabilitation on the health and function of
individuals with disabilities, as well as the impact of medical
rehabilitation on the participation of these individuals in society.
While the ability to measure outcomes of medical rehabilitation
continues to mature through recent and ongoing NIDRR-sponsored
research, the ability to classify, measure, and replicate specific
interventions within the complex medical rehabilitation process is
still in its infancy. A recent analysis of published research on
medical rehabilitation interventions indicates that nearly two-thirds
of articles fail to describe adequately the rehabilitative treatment
being evaluated (Dijkers et al., 2002).
Medical rehabilitation has been referred to as a ``black box''
because the wide-range of interventions that take place within
rehabilitation settings have not been classified or measured in a
systematic way (DeJong et al., 2004). Determining the components of the
medical rehabilitation process that positively impact outcome (i.e.,
the ``active ingredients'') is challenging. This is due to the
simultaneous delivery of inter-related treatments by a variety of
allied health professionals to individuals with unique needs.
Development of a treatment taxonomy (i.e., a systematic method for
classifying and measuring rehabilitation interventions) will promote
the quality and rigor of rehabilitation research and will foster the
transfer of evidence-based treatments into clinical practice (Whyte,
2003).
In the past, NIDRR has sponsored rehabilitation outcomes research
that can serve as a basis for future efforts to develop a taxonomy of
medical rehabilitation interventions. For instance, a recent NIDRR-
funded stroke outcomes research project involved the creation of point-
of-contact forms for recording the delivery of rehabilitation
interventions provided by physical therapists (Latham et al., 2005),
occupational therapists (Richards et al., 2005), speech-language
pathologists (Hatfield et al., 2005), and other allied health
professionals. A major strength of this project was that it relied upon
the rich experiences and expertise of front-line rehabilitation
clinicians to create detailed forms for collecting data about specific
interventions. A limitation of this bottom-up, inductive approach to
classifying and measuring rehabilitation
[[Page 50522]]
interventions is its general lack of a theoretical foundation. A
theoretical foundation would have the benefit of guiding the collection
and analysis of treatment and outcomes data, and increase the field's
ability to see how seemingly disparate treatments fit together into a
coherent framework for rehabilitation practice and functional recovery
(DeJong et al., 2004). Efforts to develop rehabilitation intervention
taxonomies must be guided by treatment theories in order to increase
the likelihood that ``active ingredients'' of rehabilitative care can
be isolated and replicated (Whyte, 2006).
Other clinical fields, such as nursing (Dochterman & Bulechek,
2004), have been actively developing intervention taxonomies to guide
clinical service delivery, rigorous clinical documentation, and
effectiveness research in a wide range of nursing sub-fields.
Literature describing intervention taxonomies and their development in
other fields are likely to be instructive to those engaged in the
development of a medical rehabilitation treatment classification
system.
References
DeJong, G., Horn, S., Gassaway, J., Slavin, M., & Dijkers, M.
(2004). Toward a Taxonomy of Rehabilitation Interventions: Using an
Inductive Approach to Examine the ``Black Box'' of Rehabilitation.
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 85(4): 678-686.
Dijkers, M., Kropp, G., Esper, R., Yavuzer, G., Cullen, N., &
Bakdalieh, Y. (2002). Quality of Intervention Research Reporting in
Medical Rehabilitation Journals. American Journal of Physical
Medicine and Rehabilitation. 81(1): 21-33.
Dochterman, J. & Bulechek, G. (Eds.). Nursing Interventions
Classification (NIC) (4th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
Hatfield, B., Millet, D., Coles, J., Gassaway, J., Conroy, B., &
Smout, R. (2005). Characterizing Speech and Language Pathology
Outcomes in Stroke Rehabilitation. Archives of Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation. 86(S2): S61-S72.
Latham, K., Jette, D., Slavin, M., Richards, L., Procino, A., Smout,
R., & Horn, S. (2005). Physical Therapy During Stroke Rehabilitation
for People With Different Walking Abilities. Archives of Physical
Medicine and Rehabilitation. 86(S2): S41--S50.
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR)
Final Long Range Plan, 2005-2009. Page 8187.
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/nidrr/policy.html.
Richards, L., Latham, N., Jette, D., Rosenberg, L., Smout, R., &
DeJong, G. (2005). Characterizing Occupational Therapy in Stroke
Rehabilitation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.
86(S2): S51-S60.
Whyte, J. (2006). Using Treatment Theories to Refine the Designs of
Brain Injury Rehabilitation Treatment Effectiveness Studies. Journal
of Head Trauma Rehabilitation. 21(2): 99-106.
Whyte, J. (2003). It's More Than a Black Box; It's a Russian Doll:
Defining Rehabilitation Treatments. American Journal of Physical
Medicine and Rehabilitation. 82(8): 639-652.
Proposed Priority
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes a priority for a Disability Rehabilitation Research
Project (DRRP) on Classification and Measurement of Medical
Rehabilitation Interventions. This DRRP must conduct research and
development toward the creation of a taxonomy of medical rehabilitation
interventions. Under this priority, the DRRP must be designed to
contribute to the following outcomes:
(a) Enhanced research capacity and improved clinical practice in
the field of medical rehabilitation. The DRRP must contribute to this
outcome by conducting research to develop validated methods for the
systematic classification of the broad range of medical rehabilitation
interventions delivered by rehabilitation physicians, physical
therapists, occupational therapists, speech language pathologists,
rehabilitation nurses, rehabilitation psychologists, and other allied
health professionals.
(b) Enhanced research capacity and improved clinical practice in
the field of medical rehabilitation through the application of one or
more treatment theories to guide the development of a rehabilitation
treatment taxonomy.
(c) Collaboration with relevant NIDRR-sponsored projects, such as
the Rehabilitation Research Training Center on Measuring Rehabilitation
Outcomes, and other projects as identified through consultation with
the NIDRR project officer.
Priority 6--Vocational Rehabilitation Service Models for Individuals
With Autism Spectrum Disorders
Background
In recent years, policy makers, educators, and rehabilitation
service providers have become increasingly aware of the critical
shortage of services available to youth and young adults with Autism
Spectrum Disorders (ASDs), including vocational rehabilitation services
(Dew & Alan, 2007). ASDs are a group of lifelong developmental
disabilities that include autistic disorder, pervasive developmental
disorder-not otherwise specified, and Asperger disorder. ASDs are
characterized by impairments in social interactions and verbal and
nonverbal communication, as well as the presence of repetitive or
unusual behaviors and interests (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), 2006a). The severity of impairments can range from
mild to severe. Recent prevalence estimates vary, indicating that ASD
occurs in 2 to 6 individuals per 1000 individuals, that is, between 1
in 500 and 1 in 166 children have an ASD. ASDs are four times more
likely to occur in boys than in girls. The CDC (2006b) reported that
ASDs are more prevalent than certain other childhood disabilities, such
as cerebral palsy (2.8 per 1000 children), hearing loss (1.1 per 1000
children), vision impairment (0.9 per 1000 children), and Downs
syndrome (1.25 per 1000 children) (CDC, 2006b). ASDs usually are
diagnosed before the age of three, and the effects are lifelong,
although impairments may be attenuated with intervention.
Like other transition-age youth with disabilities, students
diagnosed with ASD who have turned 22 or graduated from high school
with a regular diploma generally no longer have a legal right to
appropriate transition services, such as life skills training,
transportation, vocational training, and individual and family
counseling, under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) (National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS-2) 2005). Large
proportions of youth with ASD rated low on self-care tasks, functional
cognitive skills, social skills and communication when compared to the
entire population of youth with disabilities served under IDEA (NLTS-2,
2005). Many families find that the services provided to individuals
diagnosed with ASD are not tailored to the needs of the children and
young adults in this population. Families also report that locating,
accessing, and financing needed services for these young adults
requires navigating complicated public and private medical, social, and
vocational rehabilitation service systems (American Society of Autism,
2001).
In 2005, fewer than 2,000 individuals with ASDs received vocational
rehabilitation services. Of these individuals, only 1,200 were
successfully employed (Dew & Alan, 2007). Of the youth with ASDs who
were out of school one year or more, only 1 in 5 reported receiving
services from a vocational rehabilitation State agency. These youth
with ASDs also were less likely to be employed than youth with other
disabilities, and the
[[Page 50523]]
employed youth with ASDs worked fewer hours than employed youth with
other disabilities (NLTS-2, 2005). Increased vocational and
rehabilitation interventions are needed if these individuals are to
experience vocational and economic success equal to the success of
transition-age youth without ASD.
References
Autism Society of America. (2001). Position Paper on The National
Crisis in Adult Services for Individuals with Autism A Call to
Action. See: http://www.autismservicescenter.org/articles2.htm.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2006a). Fact sheet: CDC
Autism research. See: http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/index.htm.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2006b). How common are
Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD)? See:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/asd--common.htm.
Dew, D. & Alan, G. (2007). Rehabilitation of Individuals With Autism
Spectrum Disorders (Institute on Rehabilitation Issues Monograph No
32). Washington, DC: The George Washington University, Center for
Rehabilitation Counseling Research and Education.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences,
National Center for Special Education Research. (2005). National
Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2), Wave 3 parent interview and
youth interview/survey. (This information has not yet been published
on the NLTS-2 Web site. It will be published sometime early next
year). \
Proposed Priority
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes a priority for a Disability Rehabilitation Research
Project (DRRP) on Vocational Rehabilitation Service Models for
Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs). This DRRP must
conduct research on vocational rehabilitation (VR) service models for
individuals with ASDs that contributes to evidence-based rehabilitation
interventions to improve the lives of individuals with ASDs. Under this
priority, the DRRP must be designed to contribute to one or both of the
following outcomes:
(a) Improved vocational and postsecondary education outcomes of
individuals with ASDs. The DRRP must contribute to this outcome by
developing or testing VR intervention strategies for individuals with
ASDs, the measures needed to assess the effectiveness of VR
intervention strategies for individuals with ASDs, or both.
(b) Improved long-term vocational and postsecondary education
services for individuals with ASDs. The DRRP must contribute to this
outcome by analyzing the factors affecting the organization and
delivery of these services to individuals with ASDs and by recommending
changes that could improve these service delivery mechanisms.
Priority 7--Center on Knowledge Translation for Assistive Technology
Transfer
Background
While billions of dollars are expended on technology-related
research and development efforts in the United States each year
(Association of University Technology Managers, 2005), very little of
this funding is applied toward development of technology to improve the
lives of individuals with disabilities (National Council on Disability,
2000). NIDRR addresses this critical niche with two grant programs that
are dedicated to the application of technology and the development of
products and devices that are intended to improve the lives of
individuals with disabilities: The Rehabilitation Engineering Research
Centers (RERC) and Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) programs.
For 30 years, the RERC program and its predecessor, the
Rehabilitation Engineering Centers program, have been a major force in
the development of technology to enhance independent function and
societal participation for individuals with disabilities. For over a
decade, NIDRR's SBIR program has encouraged small businesses to explore
their technological potential by supporting proof of concept
investigations of prototype devices intended to benefit individuals
with disabilities.
In addition to supporting the research and development of products
and devices that are designed to improve the lives of individuals with
disabilities through its RERC and SBIR programs, NIDRR is also
expected, under section 200(3)(D) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended, to promote the transfer of rehabilitation technology to
individuals with disabilities through research and demonstration
projects.
The term ``technology transfer'' has been defined as the process by
which university-developed technologies are commercialized (Powers,
2004) and, more specifically, as the ``transmittal of developed ideas,
products, and techniques from a research environment to one of
practical application by consumers'' (National Council on Disability,
2000). The processes involved in technology transfer are understood to
be an important component of knowledge translation (KT), which refers
to the steps between the generation of knowledge and its application to
produce beneficial outcomes for society (Canadian Institutes for Health
Research, 2005).
Technology transfer for individuals with disabilities is a specific
subset of the current technology transfer effort. Technology transfer
for products intended for use by individuals with disabilities is often
difficult because of the small markets served by any one particular
assistive technology product or device. While several government and
private agencies are working to promote technology transfer for larger
and more lucrative markets, very few Federal efforts focus on the
transfer of technology for use by individuals with disabilities
(National Council on Disability, 2000). Not only is NIDRR mandated to
fill this gap, but it is well positioned to do so, given the research
and development work supported and the scientist-market networks
established through its RERC and SBIR programs.
Research from the broader technology transfer field provides
limited guidance on how to improve technology transfer for individuals
with disabilities. Although some researchers have examined the
processes involved in technology transfer as well as methods for
evaluating transfer efforts such as best practice analyses (e.g., Erich
& Gutterman, 2003; Leahy, 2003; Tornatzky, 2001), research in this area
is still limited. For example, best practices analyses have generally
involved qualitative case descriptions rather than systematic tests of
the models, methods, and measures used for successful technology
transfer. A strong need remains for the systematic review of existing
models, methods, and measures as well as for the identification of best
practices in technology transfer. Once identified, best practices for
technology transfer must be adopted by key stakeholders. Training and
technical assistance have been named as important methods for promoting
the adoption of best practices and, thus, for facilitating the success
of the commercialization process (Canadian Institutes of Health
Research, 2005).
Current Federal investments are attempting to meet the need for
technology transfer research generally, but little research has been
devoted to examining the potential relevance, applicability, or
usability of general technology transfer research within the specific
subfield of assistive technology for individuals with disabilities
(National Council on Disability, 2000).
[[Page 50524]]
The need for further technology transfer research is especially
acute among those who are developing and attempting to make
technologies, products, and devices for individuals with disabilities.
References
Association of University Technology Managers (2005). AUTM U.S.
Licensing Survey: FY 2005. Northbrook, IL. See:
http://www.autm.net/surveys/dsp.surveyDetail.cfm?pid=33.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research. (2005). CIHR's
commercialization and innovation strategy. Ottawa, Canada. See:
http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/30162.html.
Erlich, J.N. & Gutterman, A. (2003). A practical view of strategies
for improving Federal technology transfer. Journal of Technology
Transfer, 28, 215-226.
Leahy, J.A. (2003). Paths to market for supply push technology
transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28, 305-317.
National Council on Disability. (2000). Federal Policy Barriers to
Assistive Technology. See: http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2000/assisttechnology.htm.
Powers, J.B. (2004). R&D funding sources and university technology
transfer: What is stimulating universities to be more
entrepreneurial? Research in Higher Education, 45(1), 1-23.
Tornatzky, L.G. (2001). Benchmarking university-industry technology
transfer: A six year retrospective. Journal of Technology Transfer,
26, 269-277.
Proposed Priority
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes a priority for a Disability and Rehabilitation
Research Project to serve as the Center on Knowledge Translation for
Assistive Technology Transfer (Center). The Center must conduct
rigorous research, development, technical assistance, dissemination,
and utilization activities to increase successful knowledge translation
(KT) for technology transfer of products developed by NIDRR-funded
technology grantees.
The Center must partner with key stakeholders such as trade and
professional associations, and relevant industry representatives, and
focus on no more than three of the following technology areas, which
are referenced in the NIDRR Long-Range Plan, 2005-2009: Sensory,
Communication, Informational Technology and Telecommunications, and
Environmental Access.
Under this priority, the Center must be designed to contribute to
the following outcomes:
(a) Improved understanding of barriers to and facilitators of
successful KT for technology transfer in different industries related
to NIDRR's technology portfolio. The Center must contribute to this
outcome by--
(1) Identifying and compiling existing research-based knowledge
about barriers to and facilitators of successful KT for technology
transfer; and
(2) Conducting research on barriers to and facilitators of
successful KT for technology transfer related to the technology areas
on which the Center focuses.
(b) Advanced knowledge of best practices in KT for technology
transfer. The Center must contribute to this outcome by--
(1) Identifying existing models, methods, or measures of KT for
technology transfer in different industries related to NIDRR's
technology portfolio;
(2) Further developing and testing models, methods, or measures in
the technology areas on which the Center focuses; and
(3) Establishing best technology transfer practices that can be
used to effectively implement and evaluate the success of technology
transfer activities in the technology areas on which the Center
focuses.
(c) Increased utilization of the validated best practices for KT
for technology transfer. The Center must contribute to this outcome by
providing training and technical assistance to NIDRR-funded technology
grantees to implement and evaluate the success of such practices.
Priority 8--Asset Accumulation and Economic Self-Sufficiency for
Individuals With Disabilities
Background
The availability of savings and assets are important to all
individuals because they promote and allow investment in long-term
goals such as education and home ownership. Savings and assets are also
associated with increased household stability, community involvement,
political participation, and self-sufficiency in the general population
(Abt Associates, 2000).
For individuals with disabilities, the availability of financial
savings and assets facilitates progress toward a wide range of
community participation goals. Financial savings and assets can
facilitate this progress in numerous ways, such as making it possible
to purchase needed assistive technology (AT), make down payments on a
home, modify one's home for greater accessibility, start a business, or
pay for college (Putnam et al., 2005). Little is known about asset
accumulation patterns among individuals with disabilities. One of the
few relevant studies comparing individuals with and without
disabilities indicates that individuals with musculoskeletal conditions
and related health difficulties have fewer assets than those without
musculoskeletal conditions (Yelin, 1997). Because working-age adults
with disabilities are more likely than their non-disabled counterparts
to live in poverty (Weathers, 2005) and are less likely to be employed
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2002), they have less opportunity to accumulate
savings and other assets. However, being low-income does not preclude
savings and asset accumulation (Beverly, 1997).
Research is required to generate new knowledge about both the
barriers to, and facilitators of, savings and asset accumulation for
individuals with disabilities. These barriers and facilitators are
likely to exist at both the individual and system levels. At the
individual level, the following factors have been shown to be
associated with asset levels in the general population: income level,
education level, employment status, marital status, motivation to save,
racial and ethnic status, age, financial literacy, and maintenance of a
bank account, among others (Putnam et al., 2005; Beverly, 1997) . In
addition, factors associated with asset accumulation that are specific
to individuals with disabilities may include type of disabling
condition, disability severity, and age-of-onset.
In addition to the individual-level factors described in the
previous paragraph, there are also a number of barriers to, and
facilitators of, asset accumulation at the system level. For example,
individuals with disabilities who participate in Federal income support
programs are placed under strict asset limits that preclude substantial
accumulation of savings (Stapleton et al., 2006) . Low employment rates
among individuals with disabilities are associated with reduced access
to institutionalized saving mechanisms such as pensions or payroll
deductions for retirement savings accounts (Beverly, 1997) . Sub-
optimal access to bank buildings and general financial services for
individuals with disabilities may also reduce asset accumulation
opportunities (Putnam et al., 2005).
New knowledge about both the barriers to, and facilitators of,
asset accumulation must be applied to the development of targeted
interventions or to tailoring currently existing asset accumulation
interventions to the specific needs and circumstances of individuals
with disabilities. Financial literacy education, for example, could
[[Page 50525]]
be tailored to address the needs and circumstances of individuals with
specific disabling conditions (Cook, 2007). Individual Development
Accounts (i.e., special bank accounts that help individuals save money
for a specific purpose such as their education or the purchase of a
first home) could be established for savings goals that are
particularly relevant to individuals with disabilities, such as
offsetting out-of-pocket expenses for health care or personal
assistance services, or purchasing AT or home modifications.
References
Abt Associates (2000). Evaluation of Asset Accumulation Initiatives:
Final Report. See: http://abtassociates.com/reports/9031.pdf.
Beverly, S. (1997). How Can The Poor Save? Theory and Evidence on
Saving in Low Income Households. Center for Social Development.
Washington University, St. Louis, MO. Working Paper 97-3.
See: http://gwbweb.wustl.edu/csd/Publications/1997/wp97-3.pdf.
Cook, J. (2007). Asset Accumulation Through Individual Development
Accounts in Chicago. E-Newsletter published by the National
Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Psychiatric
Disability, at the University of Illinois at Chicago. See:
http://www.wid.org/publications/?page=equity--test&sub=200702&topic=pm.
Putnam, M., Sherraden, M., Edwards, K., Porterfield, S., Wittenburg,
D., Holden, K., & Welch-Saleeby, P. (2005). Building Financial
Bridges to Economic Development and Community Integration:
Recommendations for a Research Agenda on Asset Development for
People With Disabilities. Journal of Social Work in Disability &
Rehabilitation. 4(3): 61-86.
Stapleton, D., O'Day, B., Livermore, G., & Imparato, A. (2006).
Dismantling the Poverty Trap. Disability Policy for the 21st
Century. Milbank Quarterly. 84(4): 701-732.
U.S. Census Bureau (2002). Survey of Income and Program
Participation. Table 5: Disability Status, Employment, and Annual
Earnings: Individuals 21 to 64 Years Old: 2002. See: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/disability/sipp/disable02.html.
Weathers, R. (2005). A Guide to Disability Statistics From The
American Community Survey. Disability Statistics User Guide Series.
Employment and Disability Institute. Cornell University.
Yelin, E. (1997). The Earnings, Income, and Assets of Persons aged
51-61 With and Without Musculoskeletal Conditions. The Journal of
Rheumatology. 24(10): 2024-2030.
Proposed Priority
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes a priority for a Disability and Rehabilitation
Research Project (DRRP) on Asset Accumulation and Economic Self-
Sufficiency for Individuals with Disabilities. This DRRP must create
new research-based knowledge to promote asset accumulation among
individuals with disabilities. Under this priority, the DRRP must be
designed to contribute to the following outcomes:
(a) New knowledge of both the barriers to, and facilitators of,
asset accumulation and economic self-sufficiency for low- to moderate-
income individuals with disabilities and their families. This DRRP must
contribute to this outcome by focusing on the individual-level
characteristics that may affect savings and asset accumulation, as well
as system-level factors that include policies or programs designed to
create system-level incentives or disincentives to the accumulation of
assets.
(b) Improved asset accumulation outcomes and economic self-
sufficiency among individuals with disabilities. The DRRP must
contribute to this outcome by developing and testing no more than two
interventions that capitalize on the facilitators and address the
barriers to asset accumulation described in paragraph (a) of this
priority. These interventions may include the tailoring of existing
asset accumulation interventions to the specific needs and
circumstances of individuals with disabilities.
Priority 9--Technology Transfer in Resource-Limited Environments
Background
Growth in the number of older people in the populations of the
United States, Europe, Asia, and elsewhere suggest that there will be a
steady increase in demand over the next several decades for a broad
spectrum of assistive technology (AT) devices from hearing aids and
canes to advanced wheelchairs, specially equipped automobiles, and
personal communication devices. However, despite an increasing demand
for AT, many individuals with disabilities still cannot access the AT
devices they need (Bureau of Industry and Security, 2003).
Moreover, in developing countries, environmental constraints often
affect the usability of many AT products. For example, products that
are developed to enhance mobility may be affected by the lack of paved
roads. Lack of maintenance and repair facilities also may affect
distribution to, and usability of, technology by individuals with
disabilities in many parts of the world. Distance and limited
distribution networks tend to inhibit access to AT equipment and
services. These constraints are particularly significant in rural
areas, where farm accidents account for many disabilities, and in
countries where landmine injuries affect individuals whose primary
occupation is farming (Swanson, 2007).
In the United States, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has
recognized the needs of farmers and ranchers with disabilities by
funding the AgriAbility project, which provides training, technical
assistance, and information about technology and other services through
agricultural extension services. NIDRR has also funded research
projects to examine service delivery needs for farmers with
disabilities. While NIDRR and other Federal agencies have funded
successful projects in this area, and although these projects have
resulted in the development of low-tech products for use by individuals
with disabilities in the United States and in international settings,
there is still a persistent need to develop methods of moving new
technologies into practice in settings where resources may be scarce.
Many barriers to implementing knowledge translation (KT) strategies
for technology development also exist. The three major barriers to the
acquisition of technology products in developing countries, and certain
parts of the United States, are: lack of awareness of their existence
or how to acquire them, lack of necessary materials to produce them,
and lack of expertise needed to produce them locally (Jeserich, 2003a;
Jeserich, 2003b; Ripat & Booth, 2005; Robitaille, 2003).
Several models exist to guide the development, manufacture, and
distribution of low-cost, high-quality products in developing countries
or economically disadvantaged areas within the United States. Each of
these models highlights different aspects of product development,
manufacturing or distribution processes. For example, in the charitable
model, it is common to use regional distribution points to make
products available to those who need them. Likewise, the workshop model
focuses on training individuals to construct products that are needed
by individuals in their community by using locally available resources,
and the manufacturing model requires teaching individuals to construct
products by setting up local factories and distributing the products
regionally or nationally. The globalization model requires that an
established company expand into a region either by establishing a
factory or importing products there (Pearlman et al., 2006).
None of these models, however, offers a universal solution to the
challenge of
[[Page 50526]]
designing, developing, manufacturing, and distributing low-cost, high-
quality products to individuals in developing countries or in
economically disadvantaged regions of the United States. Different
aspects of these models work well under different environmental
conditions. Research is needed to expand our understanding of how best
to foster the transfer of technology in these settings.
References
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) (2005). CIHR IRSC
Innovation in action: Knowledge translation strategy--2004-2009.
Ottawa: See http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/kt--strategy--2004-2009--e.pdf.
Jeserich, M. (2003a, January 15). Building Appropriate Chairs for
the Developing World: Whirlwind Wheelchair International brings
access to the third world. AT Journal, 65. See:
http://www.atnet.org/news/2003/jan03/011501.htm.
Jeserich, M. (2003b, February 1). Cubans make due with limited
assistive technology: Even with a more independent culture, Cuba's
streets and lack of resources provide barriers. AT Journal, 66. See:
http://www.atnet.org/news/2003/feb03/020101.htm.
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. Notice
of Final Long Range Plan for Fiscal Years 2005-2009. Pages: 8165-
8200. http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/nidrr/policy.html.
Pearlman, J., Cooper, R.A., Zipfel, E., Cooper, R., & McCartney, M.
(2006). Towards the development of an effective technology transfer
model of wheelchairs to developing countries. Disability and
Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 1 (1-2), 103-110.
Ripat, J. & Booth, A. (2005). Characteristics of assistive
technology service delivery models: Stakeholder perspectives and
preferences. Disability and Rehabilitation, 27(24), 1461-1470.
Robitaille, S. (2003, August 21). Assistive tech needs a hand in DC.
Business Week Online.
Swanson, L. (1997). Canadian farmers with disabilities. Abilities,
30, pages 50-51.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security
(BIS) (2003). Technology Assessment of the U.S. Assistive Technology
Industry. Washington, DC: See:
http://www.bis.doc.gov/DefenseIndustrialBasePrograms/OSIES/DefMarketResearchRpts/assisttechrept/index.htm.
Proposed Priority
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes a priority for a Disability Rehabilitation Research
Project (DRRP) on Technology Transfer in Resource-Limited Environments.
Under this priority, the DRRP must be designed to contribute to the
following outcomes:
(a) Increased access to, and acquisition of, high-quality, low-cost
technology products by individuals with disabilities who need them. The
DRRP must contribute to this outcome by conducting research to evaluate
the application of various models of transferring technology products
to individuals with disabilities in resource-limited environments,
either in the United States or abroad. The DRRP's research must examine
the relationship of factors such as type of technology, delivery system
options, socio-economic conditions, and disability type, on successful
transfer of needed technologies to individuals with disabilities. NIDRR
is particularly concerned about providing technology to support
individuals engaged in agricultural occupations due to a significant
need for AT by this population.
(b) Increased awareness by individuals with disabilities of high-
quality, low-cost technology products, already developed or in
development, for use in resource-limited environments. The DRRP must
contribute to this outcome by conducting research on methods of
providing information on available products to individuals with
disabilities and their caregivers in resource-limited environments in
the United States, developing countries, or both. The DRRP's research
must examine the relationship of factors, such as literacy rates and
the availability of print, Internet, or other communication resources,
as well as socioeconomic factors and disability type on effective
strategies to increase awareness among individuals with disabilities in
these areas.
Priority 10--Research and Knowledge Translation Center for Individuals
With Disabilities and Their Families
Background
In the United States, there are approximately 20.3 million
households in which at least one individual has a disability. This
includes households in which at least one child under the age of 18 has
a disability and those in which at least one adult has a disability.
NIDRR has funded research on children with disabilities and their
families (e.g., the Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on
Policies Affecting Families of Children With Disabilities), as well as
on adults with disabilities who are parents of children under the age
of 18 (e.g., the National Resource Center for Parents with
Disabilities). The family is a critical unit of analysis in both of
these important research areas.
It is necessary to understand the experiences of individuals with
disabilities and their families as they attempt to navigate programs
and service delivery systems that are critical to their participation
in society. The needs and experiences of individuals with disabilities
and their families differ based on the underlying condition and age of
the individual, as well as key sociodemographic characteristics and
structure of the individual's family. High-quality, in-depth research
on these heterogeneous needs and experiences must serve as an empirical
basis for the ongoing development, delivery, and evaluation of targeted
information resources for families that include an individual with a
disability, whether that individual is a child or the parent of a
child.
Individuals with disabilities and their families could benefit from
research-based training and technical assistance resources that are
designed to help them navigate relevant programs and service delivery
systems more effectively (Mitchell & Sloper, 2002). These programs and
service delivery systems include, but are not limited to, childcare,
family law, long-term care, and health care programs and services.
Accordingly, NIDRR seeks to fund a center that will translate existing
research-based knowledge about these complex programs and service
delivery systems to ensure that such resources are available to
individuals with disabilities and their families. Additional work in
this area will help promote the achievement of one of NIDRR's primary
goals, the successful dissemination of research-based knowledge and
products for use by intended target audiences, including individuals
with disabilities and their families and caregivers (NIDRR Long Range
Plan, 2005-2009).
Research has been conducted on the many programs and service
delivery systems that individuals with disabilities and their families
must navigate. There is a need for translation of this research into
materials that can be used by individuals with disabilities and their
families as they make critical decisions and choices about the services
that are available to them. For example, the families of children with
disabilities could benefit from translation and widespread
dissemination of peer-reviewed research on child care services (Devore
& Bowers, 2006), respite and related support services (McGill,
Papachristoforou, & Cooper, 2006), and effectively meeting the complex
health care needs of children with disabilities
[[Page 50527]]
in the community (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2005).
In addition, adults with disabilities who are parents may come into
contact with components of the complex family law system that often
assume that disability precludes effective parenting (Kirshbaum &
Olkin, 2002). These components of the family law system include
statutes and case law related to custody, adoption, and divorce.
Translation of legal research on parenting with a disability (Odegard,
1993) may be useful to parents with disabilities and their families.
Parents with physical disabilities also would benefit from translation
of research on baby care adaptations (Tuleja & DeMoss, 1999), as well
as research on the more general experiences of parents with
disabilities (Wade, Mildon, & Matthews, 2007; Conley-Jung & Olkin,
2001).
Families that include one or more individuals with disabilities
must often make decisions about an array of options for providing and
financing the long-term services and supports that are necessary to
help the family member live and participate in the community. Research
on the effectiveness of various service delivery models (Hagglund,
Clark, Farmer, & Sherman, 2004; Benjamin, Matthias, & Franke, 2000)
could be translated into information that helps individuals with
disabilities and their families make critical long-term care decisions.
Regardless of the age of the family member with a disability,
working within the health care system to receive needed services is
important to maintaining health, function, and high levels of
participation in the community. The translation of peer-reviewed
research on health promotion programs (Ravesloot, Seekins, Cahill,
Lindgren, & Nary, 2006), health care coordination programs (Palsbo,
Mastal, & O'Donnell, 2006), and preventive care (Smeltzer, 2006) are
likely to be useful to individuals and their families as they make
decisions about their health and well being.
References
American Academy of Pediatrics (2005). Clinical Report: Helping
Families Raise Children with Special Health Care Needs at Home.
Pediatrics. 115(2): 507-512.
Benjamin, A., Matthias, R., & Franke, T. (2000). Comparing Consumer-
Directed and Agency Models For Providing Supportive Services at
Home. Health Services Research. 35(1): 351-366.
Conley-Jung, C. & Olkin, R. (2001). Mothers With Visual Impairments
or Blindness Raising Young Children. Journal of Visual Impairment
and Blindness. 91(1): 14-29.
Devore, S. & Bowers, B. (2006). Childcare for Children With
Disabilities: Families Search for Specialized Care and Cooperative
Childcare Partnerships. Infants & Young Children: An
Interdisciplinary Journal of Special Care Practices. 19(3): 203-212.
Hagglund, K., Clark, M., Farmer, J., & Sherman, A. (2004). A
Comparison of Consumer-Directed and Agency-Directed Personal
Assistance Services Programs. Disability and Rehabilitation. 26(9):
518-527.
Kirshbaum, M. & Olkin, R. (2002). Parents With Physical, Systemic,
or Visual Disabilities. Sexuality and Disability. 20(1): 65-80.
Mcgill, P., Papachristoforou, E., & Cooper, V. (2006). Support for
Family Carers of Children and Young People with Developmental
Disabilities and Challenging Behavior. Child: Care, Health &
Development. 32(2): 159-165.
Mitchell, W. & Sloper, P. (2002). Information that Informs Rather
Than Alienates Families With Disabled Children: Developing a Good
Model of Practice. Health and Social Care in the Community. 10(2):
74-81.
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. Notice
of Final Long Range Plan for Fiscal Years 2005-2009. Page: 8174.
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/nidrr/policy.html.
Odegard, J. (1993). The Americans With Disabilities Act: Creating
``Family Values'' for Physically Disabled Parents. Law and
Inequality. 11: 533-653.
Palsbo, S., Mastal, M., & O'Donnell, L. (2006). Disability Care
Coordination Organizations: Improving Health and Function in People
With Disabilities. Lippincott's Case Management. 11(5): 255-264.
Ravesloot, C., Seekins, T., Cahill, T., Lindgren, S., & Nary, D.
(2006). Health Promotion for People With Disabilities: Development
and Evaluation of the Living Well With a Disability Program. Health
Education Research Online. Published on October 10, 2006. See:
http://her.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/cyl114v1.
Smeltzer, S. (2006). Preventive Health Screening For Breast and
Cervical Cancer and Osteoporosis in Women With Physical
Disabilities. Family and Community Health. 29(1 Suppl): 35S-43S.
Tuleja, C. & DeMoss, A. (1999). Baby Care Assistive Technology.
Technology and Disability. 11(1,2): 71-78.
Wade, C., Milton, R., & Matthews, J. (2007). Service Delivery to
Parents With An Intellectual Disability: Family-Centered or
Professionally Centered? Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual
Disabilities. 20(2): 87-98.
Proposed Priority
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes a priority for a Disability and Rehabilitation
Research Project (DRRP) to serve as the Research and Knowledge
Translation Center for Individuals with Disabilities and Their Families
(Center). The Center must conduct research on the experiences and
knowledge needs of individuals with disabilities and their families,
and translate these findings into training, technical assistance, and
informational resources.
The Center must focus on the knowledge needs of families that
include a child with a disability, an adult with a disability who is a
parent of at least one child under the age of eighteen, or both.
Under this priority, the Center must be designed to contribute to
the following outcomes:
(a) Increased knowledge about the experiences and information needs
of individuals with disabilities and their families, and how those
experiences and needs differ by variables such as condition type,
severity, and age, as well as key characteristics of other family
members and the overall structure of the family. The Center must
contribute to this outcome by synthesizing existing research and
advancing the knowledge base through the collection and analysis of
data about the experiences and knowledge needs of families that include
one or more individuals with a disability. Through this research and
analysis, the Center must examine the extent to which the needs of
individuals with disabilities and their families are being met by the
programs and service systems that are critical to their community
integration and participation (e.g., statutes and case law related to
custody, adoption, and divorce; health care; long-term care; assistive
technology provision programs; child care; transportation; and a wide
variety of related social support services).
(b) Improved participation and community integration of individuals
with disabilities. The Center must contribute to this outcome by
developing, implementing, and evaluating research-based training,
technical assistance, and informational resources that are targeted to
the specific knowledge needs of individuals with disabilities and their
families, as those needs are identified through the research activities
described in paragraph (a) of this priority, or other research-based
knowledge.
In addition, the Center must coordinate with relevant NIDRR
Knowledge Translation grantees to develop and implement a method for
identifying high-quality, research-based information for dissemination
to individuals with disabilities and their families.
[[Page 50528]]
Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers (RRTCs)
RRTCs conduct coordinated and integrated advanced programs of
research targeted toward the production of new knowledge to improve
rehabilitation methodology and service delivery systems, alleviate or
stabilize disability conditions, or promote maximum social and economic
independence for individuals with disabilities. Additional information
on the RRTC program can be found at:
http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/res-program.html#RRTC.
Statutory and Regulatory Requirements of RRTCs
RRTCs must--
Carry out coordinated advanced programs of rehabilitation
research;
Provide training, including graduate, pre-service, and in-
service training, to help rehabilitation personnel more effectively
provide rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities;
Provide technical assistance to individuals with
disabilities, their representatives, providers, and other interested
parties;
Demonstrate in their applications how they will address,
in whole or in part, the needs of individuals with disabilities from
minority backgrounds;
Disseminate informational materials to individuals with
disabilities, their representatives, providers, and other interested
parties; and
Serve as centers of national excellence in rehabilitation
research for individuals with disabilities, their representatives,
providers, and other interested parties.
Priority 11--General Rehabilitation Research and Training Center (RRTC)
Requirements
Background
NIDRR proposes the following General RRTC Requirements priority
because it believes that the effectiveness of any RRTC depends on,
among other things, how well the RRTC coordinates its research efforts
with the research of other NIDRR-funded projects, involves individuals
with disabilities in its activities, and identifies specific
anticipated outcomes that are linked to its objectives in applying for
RRTC funding. Accordingly, NIDRR intends to use proposed Priority 11--
General RRTC Requirements in conjunction with each of the other RRTC
priorities proposed in this notice (i.e., priorities 12 through 21).
Proposed Priority
To meet this priority, the Rehabilitation Research and Training
Center (RRTC) must--
(a) Conduct a state-of-the-science conference on its respective
area of research by the fourth year of the grant cycle and publish a
comprehensive report on the final outcomes of the conference by the end
of the fourth year of the grant cycle. This conference must include
materials from the experts internal and external to the RRTC;
(b) Coordinate on research projects of mutual interest with
relevant NIDRR-funded projects as identified through consultation with
the NIDRR project officer;
(c) Involve individuals with disabilities in planning and
implementing its research, training, and dissemination activities, and
in evaluating the RRTC; and
(d) Coordinate with the appropriate NIDRR-funded Knowledge
Translation Centers and professional and consumer organizations, to
provide scientific results and information for dissemination to
policymakers, service providers, researchers, and others.
Priority 12--Enhancing the Health and Wellness of Persons With
Neuromuscular Diseases
Background
The term ``muscular dystrophy'' is used to refer to the more than
40 neuromuscular diseases (NMDs). The Muscular Dystrophies are
currently classified in nine types (Myotonic, Duchenne, Becker, Limb-
Girdle, Facioscapulohumeral, Congenital, Oculopharyngeal, Distal and
Emery-Dreifuss), and some of these are categorized into further
subtypes. NMDs affect individuals of both sexes at every stage of life:
infancy, adolescence, adulthood, and old age. Their effects range from
gradual loss of mobility and independence to severe disability and
death. The most common NMD is Duchenne/Becker Muscular Dystrophy
(DBMD). DBMD affects approximately 1 out of every 3,500 to 5,000 boys
(Single Gene Disorders and Disability, 2006).
Individuals with NMDs face health, psychosocial, and economic
problems that negatively affect their overall health and well-being, as
reported at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) ``Burden of Muscle
Disease Workshop,'' hosted by the National Institute of Arthritis and
Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS) and the NIH Office of Rare
Diseases on January 26-27, 2005 (Burden of Muscle Disease Workshop,
2005). Neuromuscular diseases may contribute to significant health
problems because of muscle weakness, difficulty with exercise, fatigue,
poor endurance, weight problems (e.g., obesity), pulmonary
complications and associated sleep disorders. Research is needed to
generate new knowledge about secondary conditions of NMD that are not
as well understood--such as pain, reduced bone content, and metabolic
complications.
Exercise and nutrition have been a focus of rehabilitation
interventions because they are key factors in successful participation
in health and wellness programs for individuals with NMDs (Kilmer,
2002). However, due to the loss of functional muscle tissue from NMDs,
few studies have examined the response of individuals with NMDs to
cardiopulmonary testing and aerobic exercise training (McDonald, 2005).
In order to facilitate high-quality research in the areas of
cardiopulmonary testing and aerobic exercise training, the capacity to
measure physical, functional, and social participation outcomes must be
enhanced (Muscular Dystrophy Coordinating Committee Report, 2005)
through the development of new outcome measures, or validation of
existing measures in populations of individuals with NMD.
References
Burden of Muscle Disease Workshop Report, January 26-27, 2005. See:
http://www.niams.nih.gov/ne/reports/sci--wrk/2005/muscle--dis--summ.htm.
Kilmer, D.D. (2002). Response to Aerobic Exercise Training in Humans
with Neuromuscular Dis ease. American Journal of Physical Medicine
and Rehabilitation, 81(11 Suppl), S148-50.
McDonald, C. (2005). Childhood Neurological Disorders: crosscutting
breakout session. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 10(1), S91.
Muscular Dystrophy Coordinating Committee Report Scientific Working
Group, August 16-17, 2005. See:
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/find--people/groups/mdcc/MDCC--Action--Plan.doc
Single Gene Disorders and Disability (SGDD) (2006). See:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/duchenne/who.htm.
Proposed Priority
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes a priority for a Rehabilitation Research and Training
Center (RRTC) on Enhancing the Health and Wellness of Persons with
Neuromuscular Diseases (NMDs). This RRTC must conduct rigorous
research, training, technical assistance, and dissemination activities
to improve rehabilitation outcome measures and rehabilitation
interventions that can be applied in clinical or community-based
settings.
[[Page 50529]]
In doing so, the RRTC must focus on no more than two of the
following dimensions: Prevention or reduction of secondary conditions
(e.g., pain, fatigue, muscle weakness, associated sleep disorders,
metabolic complications); improved mobility; emotional well-being; and
access to community-based health promotion services and programs (e.g.,
fitness, recreation, and nutrition). Under this priority, the RRTC must
be designed to contribute to the following outcomes:
(a) Improved outcome measures for use with individuals with NMDs.
The RRTC must contribute to this outcome by identifying or developing
and testing methods and measures to assess health and rehabilitation
outcomes, participation in community-based programs, or both.
(b) Improved medical rehabilitation or community-based
rehabilitation interventions. The RRTC must contribute to this outcome
by identifying or developing and testing new rehabilitation
interventions, replicating promising practices or programs, or both.
Priority 13--Enhancing the Health and Wellness of Individuals With
Arthritis
Background
Approximately 60 million adults in United States will have
arthritis by the year 2020. Currently, approximately 21 million
individuals have osteoarthritis, and another 2.1 million have
rheumatoid arthritis (National Arthritis Action Plan, 1999). Arthritis
is the leading cause of disability in the United States for individuals
15 years of age and older, potentially limiting affected persons from
walking a few blocks or climbing a flight of stairs (Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report,
(2007)). Arthritis is also the second leading cause of work-related
disability in the United States (Cakmak & Bolukbas, 2005).
Arthritis impacts an individual physically, emotionally, and
socially and is characterized by several factors such as pain,
inflammation, damage to joint tissue, decreased mobility, fatigue,
stress, and depression. Developing interventions to alleviate arthritis
pain and functional limitations that are associated with arthritis are
particularly important. Exercise is an essential tool in managing
arthritis pain and stiffness and in improving mobility. Muscle strength
training is considered to be an important cornerstone of non-
pharmacological treatment for individuals with arthritis (Hakkinen,
2004). However, the rates of participation in regular exercise are
lower among individuals with arthritis than those without arthritis
(Barclay, 2006).
Arthritis also can lead to diminished enjoyment of, and
participation in, daily activities and community-based programs (e.g.,
going to church and socializing), which in turn can contribute to
feelings of isolation and depression. A depression management program
consisting of coordination of medications and counseling can reduce
both depression and arthritis pain and disability in older adults (Lin
et al., 2003).
Outcome measures are required to assess the effectiveness of
specific interventions to reduce the physical, functional, emotional,
and social sequelae of arthritis. While arthritis researchers have
access to effective measures of disease status, physical and functional
abilities, and quality of life, measures of social participation for
this population are less well developed (Backman, 2006). Research is
required to fill this gap in outcome measures through the development
of arthritis-specific measures of participation, or the validation of
existing measures of participation that have been developed for other
subpopulations of individuals with disabilities (Whiteneck et al.,
1992).
References
Backman, C.L. (2006). Outcomes Measures for Arthritis Care Research:
Recommendations from CARE III Conference. Journal of Rheumatology,
33, 1908-11.
Barclay, L. (2006). Perceived barriers to exercise identified for
patients with Arthritis. Arthritis Care Research 55:000-000. See:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/541721.
Cakmak, A. & Bolukbas, N. (2005). Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis:
Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation. Southern Medical Journal,
98(2), 212-216.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report, (2007). National and State Medical Expenditures and
Lost Earnings Attributable to Arthritis and Other Rheumatic
Condition--United States, 2003. See:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5601a2.htm?s--cid=mm5601a2--e
Hakkinen, A. (2004). Effective and Safety of Strength Training in
Rheumatoid Arthritis. Current Opinion in Rheumatology, 16(2), 132-
137.
Lin, E., Katon, W., Von Korff, M., Tang, L., Williams, J., Kroenke,
K., Hunkeler, E., Harpole, L., Hegel, M., Arean, P., Hoffing, M.,
Della Penna, R., Langston, C. & Unutzer, J. (2003). Effect of
Improving Depression Care on Pain and Functional Outcomes Among
Older Adults With Arthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal
of the American Medical Association. 290(18): 2428-2429.
National Arthritis Action Plan (1999): A Public Health Strategy.
See: http://www.arthritis.org/resources/about--naap.asp.
Whiteneck, G.G., Charlifue, S.W., Gerhart, K.A., Overholser, J.D., &
Richardson, G.H. (1992). Quantifying handicap: a new measure of
long-term rehabilitation outcomes. Archives of Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation, 73(6), 519-26.
Proposed Priority
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes a priority for a Rehabilitation Research and Training
Center (RRTC) on Enhancing the Health and Wellness of Individuals with
Arthritis. This RRTC must conduct rigorous research, training,
technical assistance, and dissemination activities to improve
rehabilitation outcome measures and rehabilitation interventions that
can be applied in clinical or community-based settings.
In doing so, the RRTC must focus on no more than two of the
following dimensions: prevention or reduction of secondary conditions
(e.g., pain, fatigue, depression); improved mobility; emotional well-
being; and access to community-based health promotion services and
programs (e.g., fitness, recreation, and nutrition). Under this
priority, the RRTC must be designed to contribute to the following
outcomes:
(a) Improved outcome measures for use with persons with arthritis.
The RRTC must contribute to this outcome by identifying or developing
and testing methods and measures to assess health and rehabilitation
outcomes, participation in community-based programs, or both.
(b) Improved medical rehabilitation or community-based
rehabilitation interventions. The RRTC must contribute to this outcome
by identifying or developing and testing new rehabilitation
interventions, replicating promising practices or programs, or both.
Priority 14--Stroke Rehabilitation
Background
Approximately 730,000 individuals experience strokes in the United
States each year. Nearly five million individuals in the United States
today have survived a stroke. Stroke patients continue to be the
largest diagnostic group in medical rehabilitation, and stroke is often
associated with high levels of disability (American Heart Association,
2006).
With the help of new technologies, significant progress has been
made in the development of rehabilitation
[[Page 50530]]
interventions and in the assessment of outcomes for those who have
experienced a stroke. Examples of recent advances in rehabilitation
interventions and outcomes assessment include the Extremity Constraint-
Induced Therapy Evaluation (EXCITE), a repetitive training of upper
extremities on task-oriented activities that enhances functional
abilities of stroke survivors 3 to 9 months after stroke (Wolf et al.,
2006; Messe & Cucchiara, 2006). A novel and promising technology, the
BION, is an implantable neuromuscular stimulation device to treat
complications of paralysis and disuse atrophy, including shoulder
subluxation, hand contractures, drop foot, and osteoarthritis (Loeb et
al., 2006).
Given the large and growing incidence of stroke in the United
States and the high levels of physical and cognitive disability often
associated with stroke, there is a need for further research on
promising new interventions, such as constraint-induced (CI) therapy,
bodyweight-supported treadmill training (BWS-TT), electrical
stimulation, and robotic technology (Bassett, 2006). In addition,
research is needed to develop more sensitive measures of neuro-recovery
and post-stroke secondary health conditions, as well as to develop
interventions to prevent a variety of post-stroke secondary health
conditions such as fatigue (Gladstone et al., 2002; Roth, 2005).
References
American Heart Association (AHA) (2006). Heart Disease and Stroke
Statistics--2006 Update: A report from the American Heart
Association Statistics Subcommittee. See:
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/short/113/6/e85.
Bassett, J. (2006). A Lifelong Journey. Advance for Directors in
Rehabilitation, 15(10), 42-48.
Gladstone, D.J., Danells, C.J., & Black, S.E. (2002). The fugl-meyer
assessment of motor recovery after stroke: a critical review of its
measurement properties. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repairs,
16(3): 232-40. See: http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/12234086.
Loeb, G.E., Richmond F.J.R., & Baker L.L. (2006). The BION Devices:
Injectable interfaces with peripheral nerves and muscles.
Neurosurgery Focus, 20(5). See: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/542356.
Messe, S.R. & Cucchiara, B.L. (2006). Highlights of the
International Stroke Conference 2006. Neurology and Neurosurgery,
8(1). See: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/527458.
Roth, E. (2005). Aging Issues: Neurological Disorders: crosscutting
breakout session. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 10(1), S70.
Wolf, S.L., Weinstein, C.J., Miller, J.P., Taub, E., Uswatte, G.,
Morris, D., Giuliani, C., Light, K.E., & Nichols-Larsen, D. (2006).
Effect of constraint-induced movement therapy on upper extremity
function 3 to 9 months after stroke. Journal of the American Medical
Association, 296(17), 2095-2104.
Proposed Priority
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes a priority for a Rehabilitation Research and Training
Center (RRTC) on Stroke Rehabilitation. This RRTC must conduct rigorous
research, training, technical assistance, and dissemination activities
to improve rehabilitation outcome measures and rehabilitation
interventions that can be applied in clinical or community-based
settings.
In doing so, the RRTC must focus on no more than two of the
following dimensions: prevention or reduction of secondary conditions
(e.g., pain, fatigue, depression); improved mobility; emotional well-
being; and access to community-based health promotion services and
programs (e.g., fitness, recreation, and nutrition). Under this
priority, the RRTC must be designed to contribute to the following
outcomes:
(a) Improved outcome measures for use with persons with stroke. The
RRTC must contribute to this outcome by identifying or developing and
testing methods and measures to assess health and rehabilitation
outcomes, participation in community-based programs, or both.
(b) Improved medical rehabilitation or community-based
rehabilitation interventions. The RRTC must contribute to this outcome
by identifying or developing and testing new rehabilitation
interventions, replicating promising practices or programs, or both.
Priority 15--Personal Assistance Services (PAS) in the 21st Century
Background
In 2005, health-related problems resulted in about 3.8 million
adults needing help from another person with personal care activities,
and about 7.8 million adults requiring help from another person with
daily activities, such as household chores or shopping. Among adults
ages 75 and over, a rapidly growing population, about 10 percent
required help with personal care and 19 percent required help with
daily activities (Adams, Dey, & Vickerie, 2005; Population Projections
Branch, 2004). Most personal assistance services (PAS) are provided by
unpaid caregivers such as family members or friends; in 2004, over 44
million adults provided help with care to an adult family member or
friend (Naiditch & Wasan, 2006). However, paid personal and home care
aides held only about 701,000 jobs in 2004 (Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS), U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), 2006).
The demand for personal and home care aides is expected to increase
greatly over the next 10 years because of the aging of the U.S.
population (BLS, DOL, 2006). The expected increase in demand is
especially troubling because a labor shortage crisis in the available
pool of caregivers already exists. This labor shortage crisis has
``potentially negative consequences for quality of care and quality of
life'' for individuals requiring personal and home care (Stone &
Wiener, 2001). In addition, many unpaid caregivers themselves are aging
and face their own ``considerable personal toll--physically, mentally,
emotionally, and financially, and in terms of retirement insecurity,
lost jobs or other missed opportunities'' (Miller & Mor, 2006).
Finally, the need for an improved network of PAS providers extends
beyond day-to-day activities; there is also an emerging need for PAS
providers during emergencies and disaster situations (National Council
on Disability, 2006).
The cost of PAS can be covered by a variety of sources, depending
on a person's income and the type of services provided. For example,
individuals with disabilities who work and receive Supplemental
Security Income (SSI) benefits may deduct PAS performed in an
employment setting or in preparing for, or traveling to or from, the
workplace as an Impairment-Related Work Expense. This deduction is used
to calculate available income and ultimately the amount of a person's
SSI cash benefit (Social Security Administration, 2006). While the loss
of such benefits has frequently been seen as a hindrance to securing or
maintaining employment, there is little research on the economic impact
of covering PAS costs for adults who are working and not eligible for
public assistance. A study of elderly adults with disabilities also
suggests that the use of assistive technology by an individual with
disabilities reduces the number of PAS hours required for that
individual (Hoenig, Taylor, & Sloan, 2003). However, there has been
little research on the relationship between the use of AT by working-
age adults with disabilities and the number of PAS hours required by
those individuals.
[[Page 50531]]
References
Adams, P.F., Dey, A.N., & Vickerie, J.L. (2005). Summary Health
Statistics for the U.S. Population: National Health Interview
Survey, 2005. Series 10, No. 233 Provisional Report. Hyattsville,
MD: National Center for Health Statistics. See:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr--10/sr10--233.pdf.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational
Outlook Handbook, 2006-07 Edition, Personal and Home Care Aides.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of
Labor. See: http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos173.htm.
Hoenig, H., Taylor, D.H., & Sloan, F.A. (2003). Does Assistive
Technology Substitute for Personal Assistance Among the Elderly?
American Journal of Public Health, 93(2), 330-337.
Miller, E.A. & Mor, V. (2006). Out of the Shadows: Envisioning a
Brighter Future for Long-Term Care in America. Providence, RI: Brown
University Center for Gerontology and Health Care Research. See:
http://www/chcr.brown.edu/PDFS/BROWN--UNIVERSITY--LTC--REPORT--FINAL.PDF.
Naiditch, L. & Wasan, P. (2006). Evercare Study of Caregivers in
Decline: Findings from a National Survey. Bethesda, MD: National
Alliance for Caregiving. See:
http://www.caregiving.org/data/Caregivers%20in%20Decline%20Study-FINAL-lowres.pdf.
National Council on Disability (2006). The Impact Of Hurricanes
Katrina And Rita On People With Disabilities: A Look Back And
Remaining Challenges. Washington, DC: National Council on
Disability. See:
http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2006/hurricanes--impact.htm.
Population Projections Branch (2004). U.S. Interim Projections by
Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic origin. Washington, DC: U.S. Census
Bureau. See: http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/.
Social Security Administration (2006). Understanding Supplemental
Security Income (SSI). Washington, DC: U.S. Social Security
Administration. See:
http://www.ssa.gov/notices/supplemental-security-income/ussi-2006.pdf.
Stone, R.I. & Wiener, J.M. (2001). Who Will Care For Us? Addressing
the Long-Term Care Workforce Crisis. Washington DC: The Urban
Institute.
Proposed Priority
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes a priority for a Rehabilitation Research and Training
Center (RRTC) on Personal Assistance Services (PAS) in the 21st
Century. This RRTC must conduct rigorous research, develop
interventions, and provide training that address future demands for PAS
and caregiving. Under this priority, the RRTC must be designed to
contribute to the following outcomes:
(a) Improved access to PAS by individuals with disabilities. The
RRTC must contribute to this outcome by: (1) Analyzing and describing
trends and needs of the population of PAS consumers; (2) identifying
gaps in programs and services; (3) developing effective evidence-based
interventions to address unmet needs for PAS; and (4) proposing
strategies to coordinate and secure PAS services during emergencies.
(b) A larger and better prepared paid and unpaid PAS workforce. The
RRTC must contribute to this outcome by: (1) Developing tools and
supports for unpaid caregivers that reflect the changing needs of
caregivers as they age; (2) developing strategies that lead to a PAS
workforce that is geographically diverse and that maximizes workforce
recruitment, retention, compensation and benefits, professional
training, development, and networking; and (3) identifying and
evaluating interventions and labor resources, such as job training
services, that help to improve workforce capacity of PAS providers.
(c) An understanding of the complexity of the economics of PAS. The
RRTC must contribute to this outcome by: (1) Analyzing the
interrelationship between the use of assistive technology, employment
supports, and PAS; and (2) analyzing the role of tax laws that affect
reimbursement for PAS.
Priority 16--Participation and Community Living for Individuals With
Psychiatric Disabilities
Background
Individuals with psychiatric disabilities have one of the lowest
rates of employment of any disability group--only 1 in 3 individuals
with psychiatric disabilities is employed (Kaye, 2002). They also
comprise the largest diagnostic category of working-aged adults
receiving Supplemental Security Income or Social Security Disability
Insurance (McAlpine and Warner, 2001).
In addition, individuals with psychiatric disabilities constitute a
large proportion of the homeless population. Of 2 million adults
experiencing an episode of homelessness, for example, 46 percent have a
psychiatric disability (Burt, 2001).
In April 2002, the President signed Executive Order 13263,
establishing a New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, and charged the
Commission with completing a comprehensive study of the mental health
service delivery system in the United States. The Commission's report,
Achieving the Promise: Transforming Mental Health Care in America, set
the course for public and private efforts across the country to improve
the state of mental health care (New Freedom Commission on Mental
Health, 2003). The Commission calls for a transformation of the mental
health service delivery system, focusing on recovery and resilience for
individuals with psychiatric disabilities. Recovery is, in part, ``the
process in which people are able to live, work, learn, and participate
fully in their communities,'' while resilience indicates ``the personal
and community qualities that enable us to rebound from adversity,
trauma, tragedy, threats, or other stresses--and to go on with life
with a sense of mastery, competence, and hope'' (New Freedom Commission
on Mental Health, 2003).
Being part of a community means being included, involved, and
valued; it means holding social roles that are meaningful. Inclusion
requires full access to opportunities and support in areas such as
employment, housing, education, health and mental health care,
recreation, social relationships, and other public and private sector
activities. Research, including NIDRR-funded research, has advanced the
knowledge base in these and other areas through a focus on recovery-
oriented services, peer supports, supported education, psychiatric
rehabilitation, and the avoidance of stigma. This research has led to
advances in theory development, measurement tools, treatment options,
and a variety of community-based supports. However, further research is
needed in these areas to maximize participation and community living
outcomes.
In addition, there is a strong need for research on understudied
aspects of participation and community living for individuals with
psychiatric disabilities. Two examples among many are emergency
preparedness and mental health disparities for traditionally
underserved populations (e.g., individuals from diverse racial, ethnic,
linguistic, and geographic backgrounds, and individuals with multiple
disabilities) (National Council on Disability, 2006; New Freedom
Commission on Mental Health, 2003; U.S. Public Health Service, Office
of the Surgeon General, 2001).
Finally, there is extensive documentation about the need to
accelerate the incorporation of research findings in mental health
service delivery so that individual lives can change as a result of the
research.
[[Page 50532]]
According to the Institute on Medicine report, Crossing the Quality
Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century, the time lag between
the discovery of effective medical treatments and the incorporation
into practice is 15 to 20 years. The President's New Freedom Commission
on Mental Health has called for a reduction in this delay as part of an
overall transformation of mental health care in America (Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2005; New Freedom
Commission on Mental Health, 2003; Institute of Medicine, 2001).
References
Burt, M.R. (2001). What will it take to end homelessness? Urban
Institute Brief. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Institute of Medicine (2001). Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New
Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Kaye, H.S. (2002). Employment and Social Participation Among People
With Mental Health Disabilities. In San Francisco, CA: National
Disability Statistics & Policy Forum.
McAlpine, D.D. and Warner, L. (2001). Barriers to Employment Among
Persons With Mental Illness: A Review of the Literature. New
Brunswick, NJ: Institute for Health.
National Council on Disability (July 7, 2006). The Needs of People
With Psychiatric Disabilities During and After Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita: Position Paper and Recommendations.
http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2006/peopleneeds.htm.
New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, Achieving the Promise:
Transforming Mental Health Care in America. Final Report. DHHS Pub.
No. SMA-03-3832. Rockville, MD: 2003.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Transforming Mental Health
Care in America. Federal Action Agenda: First Steps. DHHS Pub. No.
SMA-05-4060. Rockville, MD: 2005.
U.S. General Accounting Office (1996, April). SSA disability:
Program redesign necessary to encourage return to work. Report to
the Chairman, Special Committee on Aging and the U.S. Senate. GAO/
HEHS 96-62. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office.
United States Public Health Service Office of the Surgeon General
(2001). Mental Health: Culture, Race, and Ethnicity: A Supplement to
Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD:
Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Public Health Service.
Proposed Priority
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes a priority for a Rehabilitation Research and Training
Center (RRTC) on Participation and Community Living for Individuals
with Psychiatric Disabilities. The RRTC must conduct rigorous research,
training, technical assistance, and dissemination activities that
contribute to improved participation and community living outcomes for
individuals with psychiatric disabilities. Under this priority, the
RRTC must be designed to contribute to the following outcomes:
(a) Improved individual and system capacity to maximize the
meaningful involvement of individuals with psychiatric disabilities in
community life. The RRTC must contribute to this outcome by:
(1) Advancing the knowledge base and application of theories,
measures, methods, interventions, or a combination of those activities
that facilitate participation and community living. This must include a
focus on at least three of the following areas: employment, housing,
education, health and mental health care, recreation, social
relationships, or other public and private sector activities related to
community living.
(2) Reducing disparities in service delivery and program
development by including a focus on one or more of the following
understudied areas: (i) Emergency preparedness for individuals with
psychiatric disabilities; (ii) individuals with psychiatric
disabilities from diverse racial, ethnic, linguistic, and geographic
backgrounds; or (iii) individuals with psychiatric disabilities who
have co-occurring sensory or physical disabilities.
(b) Increased incorporation of mental health research findings into
practice or policy. The RRTC must contribute to this outcome by
coordinating with appropriate NIDRR-funded knowledge translation
grantees to advance or add to their work in the following areas:
(1) Developing and implementing procedures to evaluate the
readiness of mental health research findings for translation into
practice.
(2) Collaborating with stakeholder groups to develop, evaluate, or
implement strategies to increase utilization of mental health research
findings.
(3) Conducting training, technical assistance, and dissemination
activities to facilitate knowledge translation in the context of mental
health research.
Priority 17--Multiple Sclerosis: Interventions To Maximize Health,
Well-Being, and Participation
Background
Approximately 400,000 Americans