目的 研究河南省“一户多残”家庭的社会经济发展状况及其服务需求。方法 使用2016年度河南省残疾人基本服务状况和需求数据，对“一户多残”家庭的社会经济发展状况与服务需求进行研究。结果 本研究涉及河南省所辖全部19个地市的74,732名“一户多残”残疾人，占总调查人数的4.0%，其中男性54.9%，农业户口83.2%。在人均收入方面，非农业户口残疾人收入低于低保标准41.8%，低于低收入标准或低保边缘标准14.7%，其他43.1%；农业户口残疾人属于国家建档立卡贫困户23.9%，疑似贫困人口未建档立卡35.7%，非贫困人口39.9%。在住房状况方面，非农业户口残疾人自有产权住房75.3%，享受住房保障政策7.1%，无房12.9%；农业户口残疾人自有住房状况良好70.5%，自有住房鉴定为危房3.5%，自有住房疑似危房15.9%，无房1.7%，自有住房2016年度内已接受危房改造2.2%。非农业户口“一户多残”残疾人经济与住房状况在不同残疾类别上均有非常高度显著性差异(χ2>51.267, P<0.001)，收入低于低收入标准或低保标准边缘和其他的残疾人在不同残疾等级上有显著性差异(χ2>8.400, P<0.05)。农业户口“一户多残”残疾人经济与住房状况在不同残疾类别上均有非常高度显著性差异(χ2>70.149, P<0.001)，在不同残疾等级上均无显著性差异(χ2<6.446, P>0.05)。在就业扶贫服务需求方面，职业技能培训5.0%，职业介绍3.9%，农村实用技术培训6.6%，资金信贷扶持7.6%，其他10.7%。河南省“一户多残”残疾人就业扶贫需求在不同残疾类别上均有非常高度显著性差异(χ2>73.180, P<0.001)，有职业技能培训需求、职业介绍需求、农村实用技术培训需求和资金信贷扶持的在不同残疾等级上有非常显著性差异(χ2>11.440, P<0.01)。在托养服务需求方面，居家托养54.1%，日间照料11.1%，寄宿托养2.9%。河南省“一户多残”残疾人托养服务需求在不同残疾类别和残疾等级上均有非常高度显著性差异(χ2>38.960, P<0.001)。在康复需求方面，手术2.1%，药物22.5%，功能训练16.1%，辅助器具29.8%，护理14.8%。河南省“一户多残”残疾人康复服务需求在不同残疾类别上有非常高度显著性差异(χ2>99.220, P<0.001)，有护理需求的残疾人在不同残疾等级上有非常显著性差异(χ2=12.465, P<0.01)。在无障碍改造服务需求方面，户外坡道、扶手改造17.7%，房门改造14.2%，卫生间改造30.3%，厨房改造20.5%，闪光可视门铃改造3.4%，煤气泄漏警报发声装置改造2.3%，上网读屏软件改造0.6%，其他改造30.1%。除闪光可视门铃，煤气泄漏报警发生装置和上网读屏软件外，河南省“一户多残”残疾人无障碍改造服务需求在不同残疾类别上均有非常高度显著性差异(χ2>68.000, P<0.001)，有闪光及可视门铃、煤气泄漏警报发声装置和上网读屏软件改造需求的残疾人在不同残疾等级上均有非常高度显著性差异(χ2>46.960, P<0.001)。结论 “一户多残”家庭社会经济发展状况面临风险。相关政策建议包括提高支持力度，保障其基本住房状况，关注他们在就业扶贫需求上的个别化差异，为其提供更多就业机会，为有能力创业的残疾人提供资金信贷支持，加大对于居家托养的支持力度，加大康复服务的资金和辅助器具投入，且要关注他们的无障碍改造需求，为其生活提供合理便利。

Objective To research the social economic development and service needs of families with more than one disabled in Henan, China. Methods The data of 2016 Basic Service Status and Needs of People with Disabilities in Henan was analyzed. Results A total of 74,732 (4.0%) people with disabilities from all 19 cities in Henan had been surveyed, 54.9% were males and 83.2% were from rural areas. In terms of social and economic development, 41.8% of people with disabilities in urban areas were below least living baseline, 14.7% met standards of low income; 23.9% of people with disabilities in rural areas were recorded as national poverty household, 35.7% were not recorded as national poverty household, 39.9% were not in poverty. In terms of housing, 75.3% of people with disabilities in urban areas had their own houses, 7.1% had housing security welfare, 12.9% had no house; 70.5% of people with disabilities in rural areas had their own houses in good condition, 3.5% had their own houses which were identified as houses in risk, 15.9% had their own houses which were suspected to be houses in risk, 1.7% had no house, and 2.2% had their own houses reconstruction. There were significant differences in the economic and housing conditions among different types of disabilities (χ2>51.267, P<0.001), and in people under standards of low income and others among different levels of disabilities (χ2>8.400, P<0.05). For people with disabilities in rural areas, there were significant differences in the economic and housing conditions among different types of disabilities (χ2>70.149, P<0.001), and no significant difference was found among different levels of disabilities (χ2<6.446, P>0.05). In terms of employment needs, vocational skills training 5.0%, introducing a job 3.9%, practical training in rural areas 6.6%, capital credit support 7.6%, and others 10.7%. There were significant differences in the employment needs among different types of disabilities (χ2>73.180, P<0.001), and in the needs of vocational skills training, introducing a job, practical training in rural areas and capital credit support among different levels of disabilities (χ2>11.440, P<0.01). In terms of caring service needs, home caring 54.1%, day care 11.1%, and institutional residential care 2.9%. There were significant differences in caring service needs both among different types and levels of disabilities (χ2>38.960, P<0.001). In terms of rehabilitation needs, surgery 2.1%, medicine 22.5%, functioning training 16.1%, assistive devices 29.8%, and nursing 14.8%. There were significant differences in rehabilitation needs among different types of disabilities (χ2>99.220, P<0.001), and in needs of nursing among different levels of disabilities (χ2=12.465, P<0.01). In terms of barrier-free reconstruction, sloping and handrail 17.7%, door 14.2%, bathroom 30.3%, kitchen 20.5%, visual doorbell with flash 3.4%, gas leak alarm device 2.3%, and internet access and screen software 0.6%. There were significant differences in barrier-free reconstruction among different types of disabilities (χ2>68.000, P<0.001) except visual doorbell with flash, gas leak alarm device and internet access and screen software. There was significant difference in needs of flash and visual doorbell, gas leak alarm device and internet access screen software among different levels of disabilities (χ2>46.960, P<0.001). Conclusion The social economic development of families with more than one disabled were faced risk. Recommendation to policy development included to improve the support efforts, and ensure their basic housing, pay attention to their individual differences in employment poverty alleviation needs and provide more opportunities to get jobs, and provide financial support, increase support for home care, increase inputs of funding and assistive devices for rehabilitation services, and attach importance to their needs of barrier-free reconstruction.