Alternative partial respiratory disability rating schemes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

There is no standardized method for rating 'percentage partial disability' for persons with respiratory impairment of a degree less than totally disabling. Twelve alternative schemes for using results of clinical physiologic testing for 'rating' partial respiratory disability are compared by examining their effects on 'ratings' of 650 actual asbestos lung disease compensation claimants. The schemes differ by basis (function remaining or function lost), presence of a quantitative 'threshold', and 'standard' for comparison; some estimate future disability rather than current. Large differences in performance between schemes were noted. The average ratings ranged from 17 to 57 '% Disability'. The relative effects on subjects with high versus low degree of physiologic impairment differed between rating schemes. The ratings were different for subjects with different patterns of physiologic abnormality.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)481-487
Number of pages7
JournalAmerican Review of Respiratory Disease
Volume134
Issue number3
StatePublished - 1986
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Asbestos
Disabled Persons
Lung Diseases

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

Cite this

Alternative partial respiratory disability rating schemes. / Harber, Philip I.

In: American Review of Respiratory Disease, Vol. 134, No. 3, 1986, p. 481-487.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{fb55811c83824e09b41a0ac5420e699c,
title = "Alternative partial respiratory disability rating schemes",
abstract = "There is no standardized method for rating 'percentage partial disability' for persons with respiratory impairment of a degree less than totally disabling. Twelve alternative schemes for using results of clinical physiologic testing for 'rating' partial respiratory disability are compared by examining their effects on 'ratings' of 650 actual asbestos lung disease compensation claimants. The schemes differ by basis (function remaining or function lost), presence of a quantitative 'threshold', and 'standard' for comparison; some estimate future disability rather than current. Large differences in performance between schemes were noted. The average ratings ranged from 17 to 57 '{\%} Disability'. The relative effects on subjects with high versus low degree of physiologic impairment differed between rating schemes. The ratings were different for subjects with different patterns of physiologic abnormality.",
author = "Harber, {Philip I}",
year = "1986",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "134",
pages = "481--487",
journal = "American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine",
issn = "1073-449X",
publisher = "American Thoracic Society",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Alternative partial respiratory disability rating schemes

AU - Harber, Philip I

PY - 1986

Y1 - 1986

N2 - There is no standardized method for rating 'percentage partial disability' for persons with respiratory impairment of a degree less than totally disabling. Twelve alternative schemes for using results of clinical physiologic testing for 'rating' partial respiratory disability are compared by examining their effects on 'ratings' of 650 actual asbestos lung disease compensation claimants. The schemes differ by basis (function remaining or function lost), presence of a quantitative 'threshold', and 'standard' for comparison; some estimate future disability rather than current. Large differences in performance between schemes were noted. The average ratings ranged from 17 to 57 '% Disability'. The relative effects on subjects with high versus low degree of physiologic impairment differed between rating schemes. The ratings were different for subjects with different patterns of physiologic abnormality.

AB - There is no standardized method for rating 'percentage partial disability' for persons with respiratory impairment of a degree less than totally disabling. Twelve alternative schemes for using results of clinical physiologic testing for 'rating' partial respiratory disability are compared by examining their effects on 'ratings' of 650 actual asbestos lung disease compensation claimants. The schemes differ by basis (function remaining or function lost), presence of a quantitative 'threshold', and 'standard' for comparison; some estimate future disability rather than current. Large differences in performance between schemes were noted. The average ratings ranged from 17 to 57 '% Disability'. The relative effects on subjects with high versus low degree of physiologic impairment differed between rating schemes. The ratings were different for subjects with different patterns of physiologic abnormality.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0022534551&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0022534551&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 3752704

AN - SCOPUS:0022534551

VL - 134

SP - 481

EP - 487

JO - American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

JF - American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

SN - 1073-449X

IS - 3

ER -