Mental health evaluation by adolescents with a disability and by their parents
Le résumé fourni par la source
This chapter provides an overview of health definitions, and thus a historical review of the perceptions of health-related issues over the years. The biomedical model and the holistic health perspective are compared. This part of the work highlights in particular the importance of health as a value, with its individual areas. It is strongly asserted that health should be perceived as an interdisciplinary multidimensional construct. Attention is drawn to the particular situation of adolescents with disabilities and FASD and their families at a time of pandemic, war, and deficiencies of systemic care. The chapter contains a presentation and discussion of the research results pertaining to: the definition of health by adolescents with an intellectual disability, a physical disability, and FASD, and by their parents, as well as the respondents’ self-rated health in the physical, emotional, social, and spiritual dimension. The authors compare the respondents’ definitions to the current scientific ones and subsequently make an attempt at interpreting the differences and similarities and their significance, in order to design and organize rehabilitation and prevention activities. The chapter presents self-rated health and disability acceptance of the surveyed adolescents and their parents. The analysis of the results of our research presented in this chapter shows that adolescents define health similarly to their parents; however, they rate their own health lower compared to their parents.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Mental health evaluation by adolescents with a disability and by their parents
- Date Crossref
- 21/06/2023
- Éditeur
- Routledge
- Type
- book-chapter
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.