ObjectiveTo assess the Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) access and appropriateness of people with disabilities compared to those without, in Guatemala.MethodsA case-control study was conducted, nested within a national survey. The study included 707 people with disabilities, and 465 age- and sex-matched controls without disabilities. Participants reported on WASH access at the household and individual level. A sub-set of 121 cases and 104 controls completed a newly designed, in-depth WASH questionnaire.ResultsHouseholds including people with disabilities were more likely to use an improved sanitation facility compared to control households (age-sex-adjusted OR: 1.7, 95% CI 1.3–2.5), but otherwise there were no differences in WASH access at the household level. At the individual level, people with disabilities reported greater difficulties in relation to sanitation (mean score 26.2, SD 26.5) and hygiene access and quality (mean 30.7, SD 24.2) compared to those without disabilities (15.5, 21.7, p<0.001; 22.4, 19.1, p<0.01). There were no differences in different aspects of water collection between people with and without disabilities in this context where over 85% of participants had water piped into their dwelling. Among people with disabilities, older adults were more likely to experience difficulties in hygiene and sanitation than younger people with disabilities.ConclusionsPeople with disabilities in Guatemala experience greater difficulties in accessing sanitation facilities and practicing hygienic behaviours than their peers without disabilities. More data collection is needed using detailed tools to detect these differences, highlight which interventions are needed, and to allow assessment of their effectiveness.
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.
ObjectiveTo compare access to healthcare services for people with disabilities to those without disabilities, within a national case-control study in Guatemala.MethodsWe undertook a population-based case-control study, nested within a national survey in Guatemala. Cases with disabilities were people with self-reported difficulties in functioning. One control without disabilities was selected per case, matched by age, gender and cluster. Information was collected on: health status, access to health services and rehabilitation, and socioeconomic status.ResultsThe study included 707 people with disabilities, and 465 controls. People with disabilities were more likely to report a serious health problem (aOR 2.8, 2.2–3.7) or doctor-diagnosis of one of 17 general health conditions (aOR 2.9, 2.2–3.8) as compared to controls without disabilities. People with disabilities were twice as likely as controls to have received treatment for a diagnosed condition (aOR 2.2, 1.7–2.8). Coverage of treatment for impairment-related health conditions was low, as was awareness and access to rehabilitation services. People with disabilities were more likely than controls to report being disrespected (aOR 1.9, 1.0–3.7) or finding it difficult to understand information given (aOR 1.6, 1.1–1.4).ConclusionEfforts are needed to raise awareness about rehabilitation services and improve quality of health services for people with disabilities in Guatemala, to ensure that their rights are fulfilled and to assist in the achievement of Universal Health Coverage. Better tools are needed to measure healthcare access, including consideration of geographic access, quality and affordability, to allow the generation of comparable data on access to healthcare among people with disabilities.
This analysis of surveys from six low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) aimed to (i) estimate the prevalence of disability among older adults and (ii) compare experiences and participation in key life areas among older people with and without disabilities which may show vulnerability during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data were analysed from district-level or national surveys in Cameroon, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Nepal and the Maldives, which across the six databases totalled 3499 participants aged 60 years and above including 691 people with disabilities. Disability was common among adults 60+, ranging from 9.7% (8.0–11.8) in Nepal to 39.2% in India (95% CI 34.1–44.5%). Mobility was the most commonly reported functional difficulty. In each setting, older people with disabilities were significantly less likely to be working and reported greater participation restrictions and environmental barriers in key life areas compared to people in the same age categories without disabilities (p < 0.05). Disability is common in this population, and older people with disabilities may have greater difficulties participating in COVID-19 responses and have high economic vulnerabilities. It is imperative to prioritise the needs of older people with disabilities in the COVID-19 pandemic, including ensuring accessibility of both health services and the community in general.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.