Resources search

Disability Data advocacy toolkit

LOCKWOOD, Elizabeth
et al
October 2020

Expand view

This toolkit was created in response to increasing interest and requests from persons with disabilities and their representative organizations from all over the world. The aim of this toolkit is to contribute to the growing global dialogue on the importance of data on persons with disabilities, specifically to provide some basic knowledge on data collection, analysis, and use of data for evidenced based advocacy to influence policy and decision makers. The toolkit discusses the use of the WG questions as best practices to be employed in data collections and disaggregating data by disability.

How can we measure disability in research related to the COVID-19 response?

MACTAGGART, Islay
KUPER, Hannah
August 2020

Expand view

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

Disability prevalence-context matters: A descriptive community-based survey

MAART, Soraya
AMOSUN, Seyi
JELSMA, Jennifer
August 2019

Expand view

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

E-bulletin