Interrogating and Reflecting on Disability Prevalence Data Collected Using the Washington Group Tools: Results from Population-Based Surveys in Cameroon, Guatemala, India, Maldives, Nepal, Turkey and Vanuatu

Mactaggart, Islay; Bek, Ammar Hasan; Banks, Lena Morgon; Bright, Tess; Dionicio, Carlos; Hameed, Sameena; Neupane, Shailes; Murthy, Gvs; Örücü, Ahmed; Oye, Joseph; Naber, Jonathan; Shakespeare, Tom; Patterson, Andrea M.; Polack, Sarah; Kuper, Hannah

doi:10.3390/ijerph18179213

Cited by 15 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…From an analysis of 2013 United States National Health Interview Survey data, the Group found a prevalence rate of 9.5% using all six questions and 9.3% using the first four [ 23 ]. Comparisons of using four or six questions in Vietnam found similarly low differences [ 24 ] and recent research, as noted, confirmed this [ 13 ]. We understand the argument that ensuring all six questions are asked may reduce the risk that anyone is missed.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Use of the Washington Group Questions in Non-Government Programming

Robinson

Nguyen

Smith

2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Washington Group questions (WGQ) on functioning have been widely promoted as the go-to tool for disability data collection. Designed for use by government, the WGQ have been adopted by non-government organizations (NGOs) for use in programming. However, little is known about how the WGQs are being used by NGOs or how use may be contributing to disability inclusion. Method: This paper describes exploratory research on the use of the WGQ in NGO programming. An online survey provided an overview of adoption followed by semi-structured interviews from a purposive sample to explore data collection, analysis, and use. Results: Thematic analysis showed limited inclusion outcomes directly attributable to use of the WGQ, adoption driven by individual champions rather than systematically across organizations, and challenges in data collection resulting in a wide range of prevalence rates. What information the WGQ can realistically contribute to programs was also overestimated. However, the process of using the WGQ was raising awareness on disability inclusion within program teams and communities. Conclusion: Acknowledging differences in emerging use by NGOs beyond the WGQ’s intended purpose, alongside promoting a flexible and staged approach to adoption and use in programming, may improve utility and disability inclusion outcomes over time.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

“…Recent studies of use in government surveys and related programs have mostly focused on issues relating to disability prevalence. A study of use in population surveys identified prevalence figures from approximately 3% to 20% [ 13 ]. Contributing factors included the choice of question set and cut-off points.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of the Washington Group Questions in Non-Government Programming

Robinson

Nguyen

Smith

2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The survey assessed disability based on four domains: seeing, concentrating (functioning impairment), moving around, and self-care (activity limitations/participation restriction), and the prevalence ranged from 2.3% in Ireland to 30% in South Africa. Using data from seven cross-sectional national surveys, and assessing disability across six functional domains, Mactaggart et al [ 15 ] estimated the prevalence of disability as ranging from 3.2% in Vanuatu to 14.1% in Turkey. At the same time, a study in Saudi Arabia found that the prevalence of disability was 3.3% using two of the six questions from the Washington Group (WG) on Disability Statistics [ 22 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Disability was assessed based on the responses of the participants in two ways: Standard Threshold—those who reported ‘a lot of difficulty’ and ‘cannot do at all’ were considered as having a disability, while those reporting ‘no difficulty’ and ‘some difficulty’ were not regarded as having a disability, as recommended by the developers [ 12 ]. Wider Threshold- those reporting ‘some difficulty’, ‘a lot of difficulty’, and ‘cannot do at all’ were considered as having a disability [ 15 ]. …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Prevalence and Correlates of Disability in Singapore: Results from a Nationwide Cross-Sectional Survey

Subramaniam

Koh

Asharani

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The study aims to estimate the prevalence of disability and the association of disability with socio-demographic correlates and health outcomes among the Singapore population. Methods: Face-to-face interviews were conducted with a representative sample of Singapore’s population. Using the Washington Group’s questionnaire, disability was defined using both the ‘standard’ (a lot of difficulty or higher in one or more domains) and the ‘wider’ threshold (of ‘some’ or greater difficulty). Data on socio-demographic correlates, self-reported lifestyle, physical activity, chronic conditions, and health-related quality of life were also collected. Results: The prevalence of any disability using the standard threshold was 3.1% (95% CI: 2.4–4.1). When separated by disability type, mobility (1.8%) was the most prevalent, followed by vision (0.8%), cognition (0.5%), hearing (0.3%), and self-care (0.2). In the adjusted regression analysis, lower education and unemployed and economically inactive status (versus employed) were significantly associated with disability. Conclusions: Although this prevalence is lower than other countries, it is a significant finding in terms of actual numbers and impact at both the individual and the societal levels. Our findings also highlight the need to strengthen health services and preventive interventions targeting older adults and those who are physically inactive to reduce the burden of disability in these groups.

show abstract

Psychiatric Symptoms, Treatment Uptake, and Barriers to Mental Health Care Among US Adults With Post–COVID-19 Condition

Naik,

Tran,

Staples

et al. 2024

JAMA Netw Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportancePsychiatric symptoms are reportedly common among adults with post–COVID-19 condition (PCC). However, nationally representative data regarding symptom prevalence, treatment uptake, and barriers to care are needed to inform the development of care models.ObjectivesTo evaluate the prevalence of psychiatric symptoms in US adults with PCC compared with those without PCC and assess treatment uptake and cost-related barriers to treatment.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsData from the 2022 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), a nationally representative US cross-sectional survey, were analyzed between October 2023 and February 2024.ExposureCurrent PCC, defined as new symptoms following SARS-CoV-2 infection lasting more than 3 months and ongoing at the time of interview.Main Outcomes and MeasuresDepression symptoms were evaluated by the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 and anxiety symptoms were assessed using the General Anxiety Disorder-7 instrument. Participants were classified as having received treatment if they received mental health counseling or therapy or medications for mental health. Sleep difficulties, cognitive difficulties, disabling fatigue, and cost-related barriers were assessed from additional NHIS questions.ResultsOf the 25 122 participants representing approximately 231 million US adults (median [IQR] age, 46 [32-61] years; 49.8% male and 50.2% female participants), a weighted prevalence (wPr) of 3.4% (95% CI, 3.1%-3.6%) had current PCC. Compared with other US adults, participants with current PCC were more likely to have depression symptoms (wPr, 16.8% vs 7.1%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.96; 95% CI, 1.51-2.55), anxiety symptoms (wPr, 16.7% vs 6.3%; AOR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.53-3.19), sleep difficulties (wPr, 41.5% vs 22.7%; AOR 1.95; 95% CI, 1.65-2.29), cognitive difficulties (wPr, 35.0% vs 19.5%; AOR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.66-2.50), and disabling fatigue (wPr, 4.0% vs 1.6%; AOR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.20-2.86). Among participants who had depression or anxiety symptoms, those with PCC had a similar likelihood of not having received treatment (wPr, 28.2% vs 34.9%; AOR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.66-1.57). However, participants with current PCC were more likely to report a cost-related barrier to accessing mental health counseling or therapy (wPr, 37.2% vs 23.3%; AOR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.40-2.98).Conclusions and RelevanceThe findings of this study suggest that people with PCC have a higher prevalence of psychiatric symptoms than other adults but are more likely to experience cost-related barriers to accessing therapy. Care pathways for PCC should consider prioritizing mental health screening and affordable treatment.

show abstract

Interrogating and Reflecting on Disability Prevalence Data Collected Using the Washington Group Tools: Results from Population-Based Surveys in Cameroon, Guatemala, India, Maldives, Nepal, Turkey and Vanuatu

Cited by 15 publications

References 25 publications

Use of the Washington Group Questions in Non-Government Programming

Use of the Washington Group Questions in Non-Government Programming

The Prevalence and Correlates of Disability in Singapore: Results from a Nationwide Cross-Sectional Survey

Psychiatric Symptoms, Treatment Uptake, and Barriers to Mental Health Care Among US Adults With Post–COVID-19 Condition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About