A Comparison of Self‐Reported Unmet Healthcare Needs among Adaptive and Able‐Bodied Athletes

Abstract

Background: Studies have revealed a higher incidence of injury and illness among elite adaptive athletes when compared to able-bodied athletes in competition. However, individuals with disabilities report poorer access to health care. Objective: The purpose of this study is to identify differences in healthcare access, satisfaction, and unmet needs between recreational adaptive and able-bodied athletes in all sports and within a single sport (hockey). Design: Cross-sectional, survey-based study. Setting: Recreation sports programs in Boston, MA and Chicago, IL. Participants: Adult, recreational, competitive adaptive, and able-bodied athletes. Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measure(s): The Short-Form Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ-18) for healthcare access and satisfaction; percentage of athletes reporting unmet sports-related healthcare needs in the prior year. Results: Sixty adaptive athletes (78% male, age 35.7 AE 12.4 years) and 65 able-bodied athletes (40% male, age 34.9 AE 11.9 years) participated. Mean access and satisfaction scores were not significantly different between groups in all sports (P = .53 and P = .19, respectively) or hockey (P = .28 and P = .55, respectively). Unmet needs were more commonly reported among adaptive athletes (18.3% all sports, 20.0% hockey) as compared to able-bodied athletes (9.2% all sports, 4.0% hockey). This reached statistical significance in the hockey group (P = .03), but not all sports (P = .12). Conclusions: No differences were seen between groups in healthcare access or satisfaction scores. Adaptive athletes of the same sport reported a higher rate of unmet sports-related healthcare needs but with few doctor's visits in the preceding year, suggesting discrepancies in expectations and healthcare-seeking behavior.

Focus areas and methodological characteristics of North American-based health disparity research in sports medicine: a scoping review

“…The included research articles were classified into five mutually exclusive primary focus areas during the data extraction phase: (1) access to and participation in sports , (2) access to SEM care , (3) health-related outcomes in SEM , (4) study methodology and (5) provider representation in SEM (table 1, online supplemental table S4). Most included studies were related to access to and participation in sports (n=45, 44%),17–61 followed by access to SEM care (n=28, 27%),62–89 health-related outcomes in SEM (n=24, 23%),90–113 provider representation in SEM (n=5, 5%)114–118 and methodology (n=1, 1%) 119…”

“…Within the access to SEM care domain, insurance (n=11 articles)62 64 66 67 74 77 78 82 88 89 and SES (n=7)65 68 72 73 79 80 82 were most represented (figure 3B), while other areas, such as intellectual ability, body composition and education level, were not studied at all. Additionally, only one article81 was identified that considered physical ability as it relates to access to sports medicine care.…”

“…83% (10/12) and 86% (6/7) of the articles that considered physical and intellectual ability, respectively, as a potential cause of health disparities looked at their role in relation to access and participation in sports. Only one article considered physical ability as it relates to access to sports medicine care,81 and no articles (for both physical and intellectual ability) were identified in relation to provider representation in SEM. Future studies that differentiate between physical, intellectual and sensory disabilities as well as the intersection of multiple disabilities will add to our understanding of disability for athletes.…”