Resources search

Labour force statistics for people with and without disabilities are presented graphically including: 

• Unemployment rate by disability status
• Employment-to-population ratio by disability status
• Share of employed in paid employment by disability status
• Share of employed with less than primary education by disability status
• Employment-to-population ratio by disability status (men and women)

Comparison of deaths in the UK where the coronavirus (COVID-19) was mentioned on the death certificate by broad age group, sex and disability status, using linked census and mortality records on deaths registered up to 21 July 2020.

There is growing evidence that COVID-19 is disproportionally impacting the lives of people with disabilities. This includes evidence of the increased risk of severe outcomes of contracting COVID-19 amongst people with existing health conditions, including many people with disabilities. It also includes a wide range of other potential impacts such as: reductions or disruptions in non-COVID-19 health or rehabilitation services, the effects of shielding on isolation and mental health, the implications of social distancing on people who require carer support, and the impact on poverty, participation and wellbeing due to disrupted disability-inclusive development programmes.

Measurement of disability in research has historically been contested and a number of different tools exist. Clear guidance is needed on how to determine which tool to use to understand the situation of people with disabilities in different settings, and plan responsive and inclusive COVID-19 programmes and policies to support their needs. Good quality, comparable data on disability is essential for tracking the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as prevention and mitigation interventions, amongst people with disabilities. Such evidence is also imperative for tracking progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals, and UNCRPD compliance.

This evidence brief synthesises findings from a scoping review of ICF-compatible tools to measure disability in population-based surveys with a focus on LMICs (2018), protocols and research outputs from seven population-based surveys of disability across Asia, Africa and the Pacific, secondary analyses of the South African Census, US National Health Interview Survey and three Demographic and Health Surveys, reflections from global stakeholders in disability measurement (including the UN Flagship Report on Disability), and evidence compiled for the upcoming Global Disability Research Massive Open Online Course at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine

To build the evidence base on inclusion, and inform our priorities for innovation, the Elrha Humanitarian Innovation Fund (HIF) commissioned a Gap Analysis on the Inclusion of People with Disability and Older People in Humanitarian Response. This is the first of two reports from the Gap Analysis and summarises findings from the literature review components of this work. The Gap Analysis has been led by the Nossal Institute for Global Health at the University of Melbourne. The Nossal Institute team was supported by Arbeiter-Samariter-Bund’s Office for Indonesia and the Philippines (ASB) in the review of grey literature.  This report begins by outlining the approach taken to the academic and grey literature reviews. This is followed by an overview of findings, which maps evidence from different sectors against thematic areas based on the Humanitarian Inclusion Standards for Older People and People with Disabilities (HIS).

Supplementary information is available as a separate accompanying annex. The annex includes a summary of each article identified in the review arranged by HIS and sector; graphs showing the distribution of articles, including by year, humanitarian context, and geographical region; and a list of guidelines on the inclusion of people with disability and older people in humanitarian response

This Working Paper provides an overview of disability as a concept and relevant global treaties and statistics, including evidence of trends and complexities in promoting disability inclusive employment broadly and with some focus on formal employment specifically. We describe the current situation in each of the four focus countries, demonstrating the similarities and differences between them. We then discuss some promising interventions that have been tried, usually on a small scale, in diverse settings, and which may be applicable in our four focus countries (Bangladesh, Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda). Finally, we present the potential interventions that will be trialled in the Inclusion Works programme, using an innovation-driven, adaptive management approach.

The Inclusion Works programme (2018–2022), funded by the UK Department for International Development, aims to improve employment rates for people with disabilities in Bangladesh, Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda. 

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the UK government or members of the Inclusion Works consortium.

Background: There is increasing interest in the collection of globally comparable disability data. Context may influence not only the rates but also the nature of disability, thus locally collected data may be of greater use in service delivery planning than national surveys.

Objectives: The objective of this article was to explore the extent to which two areas, both under-resourced but geographically and socially distinct, differed in terms of the prevalence and patterns of disability.

Method: A cross-sectional descriptive survey design was utilised, using stratified cluster sampling in two under-resourced communities in the Western Cape, South Africa. Nyanga is an informal urban settlement in Cape Town and Oudtshoorn is a semi-rural town. The Washington Group Short Set of questions was used to identify persons with disabilities (PWD), and a self-developed questionnaire obtained socio-demographic information.

Results: The overall prevalence of disability was 9.7% (confidence intervals [CIs] 9.7–9.8) and the proportion of PWD was significantly different between the two sites (Chi-Sq = 129.5, p < 0.001). In the urban area, the prevalence rate of any disability was 13.1% (CIs 12.0–14.3) with 0.3% (CIs 0.1–0.6) reporting inability to perform any function at all. In contrast, the semi-rural community had a lower overall prevalence rate of 6.8% (CIs 6.0% – 7.8%) but a higher rate of those unable to perform any function: 1% (CIs 0.07–1.4). Disability was associated with gender, age, unemployment and lower income status in both areas.

Conclusion: Deprived areas tend to show higher disability prevalence rates than the National Census estimates. However, the discrepancy in prevalence and patterns of disability between the two under-resourced areas indicates the need for locally specific data when planning health interventions.

African Journal of Disability, Vol 8, 2019

Purpose: Determine the association of different social factors with Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) performance in adults.

Materials and methods: A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO electronic databases. Studies were eligible if they studied social factor’s association with the performance of adults undergoing FCE. Studies were assessed on methodological quality and quality of evidence. The review was performed using best-evidence synthesis methods.

Results: Thirteen studies were eligible and 11 social factors were studied. Considerable heterogeneity regarding measurements, populations, and methods existed among the studies. High quality of evidence was found for the association of FCE performance with the country of FCE and examiner’s fear behavior; moderate quality of evidence with previous job salary; and low or very low quality of evidence with compensation status, litigation status, type of instruction, time of day (workday), primary or mother language, and ethnicity. Other social factors were not studied.

Conclusions: Evidence for associations of various social factors with FCE performance was found, but robust conclusions about the strength of the associations cannot be made. Quality of evidence ranged from high to very low. Further research on social factors, also within a biopsychosocial context, is necessary to provide a better understanding of FCE performance.

Although there are no national data and statistics regarding violence against disabled citizens in Brazil, findings from a number of small-scale research studies suggest that it is a problem of considerable magnitude. This article draws on the existing literature on violence and oppression, empirical studies on violence against disabled people in Brazil and interviews with a sample of disabled Brazilians to argue that the most prevalent forms of violence in the nation are subtle and concealed forms of oppression that reproduce discriminatory power structures in Brazilian society. Such power structures prevent the developing world in general and Brazil in particular from securing democratic and sustainable development in the post-2015 era, when disadvantaged people must be at the center. The analysis is organized in three parts. First, I outline briefly the main issues in defining impairment, disability and violence, since these represent political choices that shape policy decisions. Second, I analyze the forms of violence that affect disabled Brazilians and the relationships and institutions that create and sustain them. Third, I describe and evaluate the government's key current strategies aimed at addressing violence against disabled Brazilians. The purpose here is to suggest ways in which violence against disabled Brazilians can be addressed in public policies as a sustainable development issue and thus help close the "gap" between disabled and nondisabled populations to create truly sustainable democratic societies that honor human dignity.