Search Results (9)

To monitor progress in including persons with disabilities, including in interventions which can improve their health and quality of life, it is crucial to collect data on their participation. However, there are many different ways of defining disability and thus categorising individuals as disabled/not disabled, which may impact measures of participation. This study aims to assess the relationship between three different measures of disability and the level of participation of persons with disabilities. We analysed data from a population-based survey of disability amongst Syrian refugees in Istanbul, which collected data on disability using the Washington Group enhanced set of disability questions as well a two-question set asking about perceived activity limitations due to disability. The prevalence of disability ranged from 13.5 to 22.4% depending on the measure used. The group of people that are categorised as disabled also differs, indicating who is being seen as disabled changes when a different measure is used. Levels of participation, with regards to paid work, education and being partnered, also varied by measure, for example, being in paid work ranged from 26% to 38%. These findings underscore the importance of carefully selecting and clearly defining disability measures in studies, (health) interventions and policy contexts. Full article

Understanding how energy is used and where it can be saved in an existing building is critical not only from a cost and environmental standpoint, but for legal compliance as well, as the United States and the rest of the world increasingly have set tighter restrictions on energy usage and carbon emissions. Energy savings can be achieved from installing LED lights and occupancy sensors; however, the exact savings and impact of each method can vary depending on the building in question. The objective of this case study is to perform analysis of the lighting systems in Washington State University Tri-Cities’ Floyd & East buildings to determine energy savings potential. Lighting systems in each building were broken into several groups based on their operational patterns and then numerically modeled with the aid of Python. The results of this case study shows that 60% energy savings, totaling 350 MWh in a year, can be achieved by retrofitting fluorescent lights with LEDs and occupancy sensors. This energy savings translates to a reduction of 62.4 t of CO${}_2$ emissions per year. The results of our cost-analysis in this model shows that the LED light retrofit has a break-even point at 15 months of operation. Full article

Measuring disability among migrants is a significant challenge; however, there is no consensus on how to measure disability and functional limitations. The present study reports a methodological approach to measure disability in refugees and asylum seekers using Washington Group (WG) tools, namely the WG Short Set (WG-SS), the Short Set Enhanced (WG-SS-E), and the Extended Set on Functioning (WG-ES). We interviewed 161 migrants in different regions of Italy. The recommended threshold for each WG tool was used. We identified 13.7% of migrants with disabilities using the WG-SS, 21.7% using the WG-SS-E, and 31.6% using the WG-ES. Anxiety and depression were the main weights to identify migrants with disabilities (11.8%). The WG-SS does not measure mental health, and therefore we do not suggest its use in the field. However, the WG-SS-E, together with some questions on pain and fatigue, should be considered to identify migrants with a greater risk of disability. Full article

This study analyses the use of the self-reported Washington Group (WG) question sets as a first stage screening to identify people with clinical impairments, service and assistive product (AP) referral needs using different cut-off levels in four functional domains (vision, hearing, mobility and cognition). Secondary data analysis was undertaken using population-based survey data from five countries, including one national survey (The Gambia) and four regional/district surveys (Cameroon, Chile, India and Turkey). In total 19,951 participants were sampled (range 538–9188 in individual studies). The WG question sets on functioning were completed for all participants alongside clinical impairment assessments/questionnaires. Using the WG “some/worse difficulty” cut-off identified people with mild/worse impairments with variable sensitivity (44–79%) and specificity (73–92%) in three of the domains. At least 64% and 60% of people with mild/worse impairments who required referral for surgical/medical and rehabilitation/AP services, respectively, self-reported “some/worse difficulty”, and much fewer reported “a lot/worse difficulty.” For moderate/worse impairment, both screening cut-offs improved identification of service/AP need, but a smaller proportion of people with need were identified. In conclusion, WG questions could be used as a first-stage screening option to identify people with impairment and referral needs, but only with moderate sensitivity and specificity. Full article

The Washington Group (WG) tools capture self-reported functional limitations, ranging from 6 domains in the Short Set (SS) to 11 in the Extended Set (ESF). Prevalence estimates can vary considerably on account of differences between modules and the different applications of them. We compare prevalence estimates by WG module, threshold, application and domain to explore these nuances and consider whether alternative combinations of questions may be valuable in reduced sets. We conducted secondary analyses of seven population-based surveys (analyses restricted to adults 18+) in Low- and Middle-Income Countries that used the WG tools. The prevalence estimates using the SS standard threshold (a lot of difficulty or higher in one or more domain) varied between 3.2% (95% Confidence Interval 2.9–3.6) in Vanuatu to 14.1% (12.2–16.2) in Turkey. The prevalence was higher using the ESF than the SS, and much higher (5 to 10-fold) using a wider threshold of “some” or greater difficulty. Two of the SS domains (communication, self-care) identified few additional individuals with functional limitations. An alternative SS replacing these domains with the psychosocial domains of anxiety and depression would identify more participants with functional limitations for the same number of items. The WG tools are valuable for collecting harmonised population data on disability. It is important that the impact on prevalence of use of different modules, thresholds and applications is recognised. An alternative SS may capture a greater proportion of people with functional domains without increasing the number of items. Full article

This paper presents a framework for measuring disability inclusion in order to examine the associations between disability severity and levels of inclusion, provides an example of its operationalization, and assesses the feasibility of using an existing dataset to measure disability inclusion using this framework. Inclusion here refers to the extent to which people with disabilities are accepted and recognized as individuals with authority, enjoy personal relationships, participate in recreation and social activities, have appropriate living conditions, are able to make productive contributions, and have required formal and informal support. Indicators for the operationalization were drawn from the Individual Deprivation Measure South Africa country study and were mapped on to the domains of inclusion (where relevant), and the Washington Group Short Set of questions were used to determine disability status (no, mild, or moderate/severe disability). The analysis indicates that individuals with disabilities experience generally worse outcomes and a comparative lack of inclusion compared to individuals without disabilities, and broadly that those with moderate or severe disabilities experience worse outcomes than those with mild disabilities. This analysis also provides insight into the limitations of using existing datasets for different purposes from their original design. Full article

Disability-disaggregated data are increasingly considered important to monitor progress in Universal Eye Health Care. Hospital-based data are still elusive because of the cultural ambiguities of the term disability, especially in under-resourced Health Information Systems in low-and middle-income countries. The aim of this study was to estimate the hospital-based rate of disability in patients presenting at an eye department of a rural hospital in Paraguay and to discuss implications for the management of access barriers. Therefore, we introduced two standardized sets of the Washington Group (WG) Questions as a pilot project. In total, 999 patients answered the self-report WG short set (WG-SS) questionnaire with six functional domains, and 501 of these patients answered an extended set, which included additional domains for “anxiety” and “depression” (WG-ES3). Overall, 27.7% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 24.9–30.3) were categorized as having a disability. A total of 9.6% (95% CI 7.9–11.6) were categorized as having a disability because of communication difficulties, which was second only to visual difficulties. The odds ratio for disability for patients aged 70 years and older was 8.5 (95% CI 5.0–14.4) and for male patients, it was 0.83 (95% CI 0.62–1.1). Of those patients who answered the WG-ES3, 3.4% were categorized as having a disability because of being worried, nervous or anxious and 1.4% because of feeling depressed. An analysis of the questions of the “depression” domain was impeded by a high rate of measurement errors. The results of the different domains can now be used to inform the identification and mitigation of potential access barriers to eye health services for different types of impairments. Full article

People with disability make up approximately 15% of the world’s population and are, therefore, a major focus of the ‘leave no-one behind’ agenda. It is well known that people with disabilities face exclusion, particularly in low-income contexts, where 80% of people with disability live. Understanding the detail and causes of exclusion is crucial to achieving inclusion, but this cannot be done without good quality, comprehensive data. Against the background of the Convention for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2006, and the advent of 2015’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development there has never been a better time for the drive towards equality of inclusion for people with disability. Governments have laid out targets across seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with explicit references to people with disability. Good quality comprehensive disability data, however, is essential to measuring progress towards these targets and goals, and ultimately their success. It is commonly assumed that there is a lack of disability data, and development actors tend to attribute lack of data as the reason for failing to proactively plan for the inclusion of people with disabilities within their programming. However, it is an incorrect assumption that there is a lack of disability data. There is now a growing amount of disability data available. Disability, however, is a notoriously complex phenomenon, with definitions of disability varying across contexts, as well as variations in methodologies that are employed to measure it. Therefore, the body of disability data that does exist is not comprehensive, is often of low quality, and is lacking in comparability. The need for comprehensive, high quality disability data is an urgent priority bringing together a number of disability actors, with a concerted response underway. We argue here that enough data does exist and can be easily disaggregated as demonstrated by Leonard Cheshire’s Disability Data Portal and other studies using the Washington Group Question Sets developed by the Washington Group on Disability Statistics. Disaggregated data can improve planning and budgeting for reasonable accommodation to realise the human rights of people with disabilities. We know from existing evidence that disability data has the potential to drive improvements, allowing the monitoring and evaluation so essential to the success of the 2030 agenda of ‘leaving no-one behind’. Full article

In the article, Measuring Disability: Comparing the Impact of Two Data Collection Approaches on Disability Rates, in Volume 12 of the Journal International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Carla Sabariego et al. [1] raise several issues regarding the use of the short set of questions developed by the Washington Group on Disability Statistics (WG) as compared with the approach to disability measurement proposed through the Model Disability Survey (MDS). We address these below. [...] Full article