Resources search
How can we measure disability in research related to the COVID-19 response?
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
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
Association between social factors and performance during Functional Capacity Evaluations: a systematic review
Expand view
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.
E-bulletin
Source e-bulletin on Disability and Inclusion