Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Health Promotion as a Rehabilitation Service for People with Disabilities

1990; University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences; Volume: 56; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

0022-4154

Michael Teague, Robert E. Cipriano, Valerie L. McGhee,

Inclusion and Disability in Education and Sport

The aim of rehabilitation, restore an individual to his/her I former functional and environmental status, or alternatively, to maintain or maximize remaining function (Williams, 1984, p. xiii), continues to be at heart of all care provided to people with disabilities. Rehabilitation services based on this aim have experienced remarkable advances in past decade; e.g., more effective intervention strategies, better coordination and planning of services, attention to career planning and development (Marge, 1988). However, comprehensive programs have generally not been a part of rehabilitation advances (Brandon, 1985). The exclusion of comprehensive programs for people with disabilities may largely be due to lack of a focused definition and framework for applying terms prevention and promotion to rehabilitation objectives and strategies. Drawing primarily from work of Goodstadt, Simpson and Lorranger (1987) and Marge (1988), following discussion shows how philosophy may be incorporated within rehabilitation process. Goodstadt, et al. (1987) provided an excellent discussion on maintenance and enhancement objectives that serve as foundation for comprehensive programs. Marge (1988) distinguished between primary and secondary disabilities and emphasized importance of programs for preventing increased risks associated with secondary disabilities. Health Promotion: A Conceptual Framework A popular definition for is the science and art of helping people alter their lifestyles to move toward optimal (O Donnell, 1986, p. 1). Unfortunately, this popular definition may be too vague. Goodstadt, et al. (1987) argued that purpose of defining term was to establish both conceptual boundaries and relationships that govern not only what a concept should include but what it excludes. Moreover, definition should clearly separate contextual uses of works from their broader, common meanings (p. 61). For example, term health screening has a specific meaning which differs from its everyday application in field. To present a more focused definition that meets this criteria, it is helpful to differentiate between terms and disease. The Health Continuum Edelman and Milio (1986) suggested that and wellness may be simplistically defined as lack of disease and that illness and disease may be assumed to be interchangeable terms. The author added, however, that and disease are not antonyms, and disease and illness are not synonyms. Although disease is generally viewed as a biomedical term, illness is a of being. In other words, illness includes social, psychological, and spiritual dimensions as well as biological dimensions. O'Donnell (1987) viewed nature of illness as a progressive continuum ranging from mild to serious. The left end of Figure I continuum represents a state of extreme illness or premature death. Wellness exists somewhat independent of disease and disability and is represented on right end of Figure 1. For example, individuals with rheumatoid arthritis may be considered healthy within limitations imposed by their disease. Despite this independent view between illness/disability and wellness, Goodstadt, et al. (1987) argued that they are interrelated, is always some degree of wellness even among ill, and that there is usually some unsatisfactory aspect of health, since optimal is by definition an ideal never attained (p. 60). Brandon (1985) suggested that traditional medical model view of as absence of disease or infirmity (p. 54) excludes people with disabilities from being viewed as healthy. However, broader view of provided by Goodstadt, et al, clearly establishes an interrelationship between initial disability and wellness. …