Childhood disability and socio-economic circumstances in low and middle income countries: systematic review

Abstract

BackgroundThe majority of children with disability live in low and middle income (LAMI) countries. Although a number of important reviews of childhood disability in LAMI countries have been published, these have not, to our knowledge, addressed the association between childhood disability and the home socio-economic circumstances (SEC). The objective of this study is to establish the current state of knowledge on the SECs of children with disability and their households in LAMI countries through a systematic review and quality assessment of existing research.MethodsElectronic databases (MEDLINE; EMBASE; PUBMED; Web of Knowledge; PsycInfo; ASSIA; Virtual Health Library; POPLINE; Google scholar) were searched using terms specific to childhood disability and SECs in LAMI countries. Publications from organisations including the World Bank, UNICEF, International Monetary Fund were searched for. Primary studies and reviews from 1990 onwards were included. Studies were assessed for inclusion, categorisation and quality by 2 researchers.Results24 primary studies and 13 reviews were identified. Evidence from the available literature on the association between childhood disability and SECs was inconsistent and inconclusive. Potential mechanisms by which poverty and low household SEC may be both a cause and consequence of disability are outlined in the reviews and the qualitative studies. The association of poor SECs with learning disability and behaviour problems was the most consistent finding and these studies had low/medium risk of bias. Where overall disability was the outcome of interest, findings were divergent and many studies had a high/medium risk of bias. Qualitative studies were methodologically weak.ConclusionsThis review indicates that, despite socially and biologically plausible mechanisms underlying the association of low household SEC with childhood disability in LAMI countries, the empirical evidence from quantitative studies is inconsistent and contradictory. There is evidence for a bidirectional association of low household SEC and disability and longitudinal data is needed to clarify the nature of this association.

Changing Trends of Childhood Disability, 2001–2011

“…Disadvantaged children continue to have higher absolute rates of disability, which is consistent with other studies and known risk factors. [26][27][28][29][30] However, more advantaged children had a greater relative increases in the prevalence of disability over the study period. For example, disability rates among children in households at .400% of the poverty level rose 28% over the decade, more than twice the rate of growth seen for children in households living below the poverty line.…”

Prueba piloto para la elaboración perfil epidemiológico de discapacidad en el municipio de Madrid (Cundinamarca)

“…Los resultados del presente estudio, son comparables con el informe sobre derecho a la educación de las personas con discapacidad desarrollado por Crosso, quien refiere que en Colombia solo el 0,32 % de alumnos tiene alguna discapacidad en las escuelas colombianas (16). Filmer, en un análisis de encuestas poblacionales realizadas en catorce países en vía de desarrollo, encontró una relación entre las condiciones de pobreza, escolaridad y discapacidad, siendo la población adulta con discapacidad y con bajos niveles de escolaridad, la que tiene mayor probabilidad de ubicarse dentro de los dos quintiles más pobres (17,18). Lo anterior sugiere la necesidad de establecer una relación entre las condiciones socioeconómicas y la discapacidad desde perspectivas cuantitativas (10).…”

The development and testing of a module on child functioning for identifying children with disabilities on surveys. I: Background

“…One problem was that the TQSI was not used as intended. As explained below, the TQSI was designed as a two-stage procedure [9, 22]. The ten questions were designed to cast a relatively large net, and then be followed up by a more extensive clinical assessment in a second stage.…”