Resources search

Evidence shows that people with disabilities often rate their own quality of life much higher than others rate their quality of life: subjective satisfaction of disabled people is usually comparable to that of non disabled people. [...] physicians and other healthcare professionals need to accept that many people with disabilities, particularly where their health conditions are congenital or long term, do not necessarily perceive their disability as a problem or pathology.

The Lancet
Volume 374, Issue 9704, 28 November–4 December 2009, Pages 1815-1816

This article gives a historic overview of the two fields of disability and of HIV. The first field involves people living with HIV and their experiences of disability brought on by the disease. The second field involves people with disabilities and their experiences of vulnerability to, and life with, HIV. The authors argue that although these two fields have evolved relatively independently over time, the divide between them is collapsing, with the result that new understanding about shared concerns and the mutual benefits that may be gained from integrating policies. This resource would useful for people interested in the field of disability and HIV in general

Visual disability in India is categorised based on severity, and sometimes the disabled person does not fit unambiguously into any of the categories.  This study aimed to identify and quantify disability that does not fit in the current classification, and propose a new classification that includes all levels of vision. The research team found that around 10% of patients did not fall within did not fall within any of the existing categories, forcing the disability board to use its own judgement, and resulting in a tenancy to over-garde the disability. The authors propose a classification based on the national program in India for control of blindness' definition of normal vision (20/20 to 20/60), low vision ( < 20/60 to 20/200), economic blindness ( < 20/200 to 20/400) and social blindness ( < 20/400). It ranges from the mildest disability (normal vision in one eye, low vision in the other) up to the most severe grade (social blindness in both eyes).  The article concludes by acknowledging that the current classification of visual disabilities does not include all combinations of vision; some disabled patients cannot be categorised. The classification proposed by the authors is comprehensive, progresses logically, and follows the definitions of the national India program

Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, Vol 57, Issue 6