Resources search

Led by The Asia Foundation (the Foundation) in Kabul, Afghanistan, the WHO’s and World Banks’ Model Disability Survey (MDS) was implemented in Afghanistan in 2019 to provide rigorous and current data for policy and action. Using an adapted MDS, the MDSA 2019 was designed and implemented to generate representative data at nationally and regionally representative levels.

A complex survey using multistage sampling was administered respectively to adult (18+ years) and child (2–17 years) populations; a total of 14,290 households were surveyed, representing 111,641 Afghans across the country. Separate survey tools were implemented for adults (157 questions) and children (53 questions). Three core tools were developed covering: 1) household characteristics; 2) adult disabilities (related to functioning, health conditions, personal assistance, assistive products and facilitators, health care utilization, well-being and empowerment); 3) child disabilities (related to functioning and health conditions)

The objectives of the rapid assessment were to identify health and socio-economic challenges faced by persons with disabilities and their families during COVID-19 and formulate recommendations to the Government on COVID-19 disability-inclusive response and recovery. The rapid assessment was carried through a survey of persons with disabilities. A questionnaire was designed with inputs from OPDs, the Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs and other UN agencies. The questionnaire included 29 questions, covering personal status, changes in personal income before and during COVID-19, employment situation, main challenges during COVID-19 including on health and socio-economic issues, coping mechanisms and main needs

Invisibility of children with disabilities in data on educational access and learning is a key policy challenge for tracking progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals. In this article, we report findings from a household survey undertaken in rural Punjab, Pakistan. These data enable us to identify the extent to which children with disabilities are in school and learning the basics in literacy and numeracy. We find that, perhaps contrary to expectations, many of these children in this context are in mainstream (government and private) schools, although their chances of being in school are lower than their peers. We further find that overall levels of literacy and numeracy are low, even more so for children with disabilities. Our findings corroborate recent research from other countries. The paper highlights important lessons for the policy which are of relevance to other low-income contexts.

On April 22nd 2020, the European Disability Forum organised the fourth of a series of webinars about the Innovation to Inclusion project (also called i2i programme). 

Four speakers were invited to talk about Labour Market Data for persons with disabilities. After their presentation, there was some time for questions and answers.

• Mark Carew (Leonard Cheshire) spoke briefly about i2i’s approach to disability data and how i2i supports a good quality collection of disability data.
• Valentina Stoevska (Department of Statistics, International Labour Organisation) explained the objectives of the statistical data on the labour market characteristics of persons with disabilities. She talked about the use of Washington Group questions on the disability Labour Force Surveys. To conclude her presentation, Ms Stoevska briefly illustrated with some statistics the employment characteristics of persons with disabilities.
• Robert Buluma (Governance, Peace and Security statistics of the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics) briefly provided some information on the development of a disability monograph.
• Anderson Gitonga (United Disabled Persons of Kenya (UDPK)) spoke about the importance of the meaningful participation of persons with disabilities in data gathering and touched upon the technical working group that has been formed in Kenya.

This study estimates the prevalence of disability in the Maldives and compares indicators of poverty and living conditions between people with and without disabilities, using nationally-representative, population-based data (n = 5363). The prevalence of disability was estimated at 6.8%. Poverty and household living conditons, education, health, work and social participation were examined. Data were collected from July to August 2017 through a nationally-representative population-based survey with a nested case–control study

Sustainability 2020, 12, 2066 

https://doi.org/10.3390/su12052066

This study measured and compared the prevalence of disability and developmental delay among children attending preschool centres in rural Malawi. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 48 preschool centres in Thyolodistrict, Malawi. Data were collected from parents or guardians of 20 children per centre. Disability was ascertained using the Washington Group/UNICEF Child Functioning Module. Child development was measured using the language and social domains of the Malawi Development Assessment Tool. A total of 960 children were enrolled; 935 (97.4%) children were assessed for disability and 933 (97.2%) for developmental delay; 100 (10.7%) children were identified as having a disability

Child Care Health Dev. 2020;46:187–194.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12741

This Guidebook supports the implementation of the Washington Group Short Set (WG-SS) – a set of questions designed to identify (in a census or survey format) people with a disability – in multi-topic household surveys, towards improving the collection of disaggregated disability data. The first section presents an overview of the disability definitions in the sociopsychological literature, exploring how disability is defined and who is considered disabled. The second section looks at three different methods for capturing disability in multi-topic household surveys: the Washington Group (WG) question sets, the World Health Organization (WHO) survey instruments for disabilities, and the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) module on disabilities. The third section presents the six core WG-SS functional domains, ‘seeing’, ‘hearing’, ‘walking’, ‘cognition’, ‘selfcare’, and ‘communication’, that are intended for the general population five years of age and above. Finally, the Guidebook offers a series of recommendations for ensuring the improvement of disability data collection in multi-topic household survey.

On the 13th of March 2020 flash flooding hit Dili with little notice, causing the biggest floods in people’s memory, affecting 15 sucos (neighbourhoods) in Dili. Ra’es Hadomi Timor-Oan (RHTO), Timor-Leste’s leading national Disabled Persons Organisation for the first time took part in the government led rapid disaster assessment with the support of Oxfam in Timor-Leste under the Disaster Ready program supported by the Australian Humanitarian Partnership and Australian Government. From this assessment RHTO developed a summary report and press release on disability inclusion in the assessment with recommendations for government and disaster stakeholders to support improving disability inclusion in future assessments and response. Two RHTO staff undertook the assessment in two sucos Bairu-Pite and Vila Verde together with other disaster actors. Government assessment forms were used for data collection. In recognition that these forms did not sufficiently capture the needs of persons with disabilities RHTO also utilised the Washington Group Questions and asked further more specific questions when interviewing persons with disabilities.

Purpose: To examine current practices of occupational health professionals in assessing significant others’ cognitions and behavioral responses that may influence work outcomes of workers with a chronic disease.

Methods: A survey study among occupational health professionals, focusing on the assessment of illness perceptions, work-related beliefs and expectations, and behavioral responses of significant others of workers with a chronic disease. We performed linear regression analyses to investigate which factors are related to occupational health professionals’ assessment practices. We used thematic analysis to analyze qualitative data on occupational health professionals’ reasons to assess or overlook significant others’ cognitions and behavioral responses.

Results: Our study sample included 192 occupational health professionals. Most seldom asked about significant others’ cognitions and behavioral responses. Organizational norms and occupational health professionals’ self-efficacy were related to reported assessment practices. Reasons to assess significant others’ cognitions and behavioral responses included recognizing their influence on work participation, and occurrence of stagnation. However, occupational health professionals indicated some doubt whether such assessment would always contribute to better care.

Conclusions: It is not common practice for occupational health professionals to assess significant others’ cognitions and behavioral responses, although they recognize the influence of these factors on work outcomes. More research is needed as to how occupational health professionals can best address the role of significant others, and apply these new insights in their daily practice.