Last data update: May 06, 2024. (Total: 46732 publications since 2009)
Records 1-12 (of 12 Records) |
Query Trace: Madans J[original query] |
---|
QuickStats: Age-adjusted percentage* of adults aged ≥18 years who reported their level of satisfaction with life,(†) by disability status(§) - National Health Interview Survey,(¶) United States, 2022
Weeks JD , Madans JH , Elgaddal N . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2023 72 (51) 1383 In 2022, 44.6% of adults aged ≥18 years reported they were very satisfied with their life, 51.3% reported they were satisfied, 3.3% reported they were dissatisfied, and 0.8% reported they were very dissatisfied. Adults without disabilities were more likely to be very satisfied (46.8%) or satisfied (50.3%) with their life than dissatisfied (2.4%) or very dissatisfied (0.5%). Adults with disabilities were more likely to be satisfied with their life (61.2%) compared with very satisfied (20.5%), dissatisfied (14.2%), or very dissatisfied (4.1%). Adults without disabilities were more likely than adults with disabilities to be very satisfied with their life. Conversely, adults with disabilities were more likely than adults without disabilities to be satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied. |
Harmonizing disability data to improve disability research and policy
Mont D , Madans J , Weeks JD , Ullmann H . Health Aff (Millwood) 2022 41 (10) 1442-1448 Disability is complex and multifaceted, complicating governments' efforts to collect the high-quality, comprehensive data necessary for developing, implementing, and monitoring policies. Yet data are needed to obtain information on functioning in the population, to identify the population with disabilities, and to disaggregate indicators of well-being by disability to determine whether people with disabilities are participating in society to the same extent as those without disabilities. In this article we discuss the need for data harmonization to improve disability research and policy. We describe standard question sets on disability developed for inclusion in surveys and administrative systems, as well as the need for coordination of both statistical and administrative data systems. Until disability data become more harmonized, it will not be possible to support the development of comprehensive, evidence-based policies and programs to address the needs of the population with disabilities. |
The development and testing of a module on child functioning for identifying children with disabilities on surveys. I: Background
Loeb M , Mont D , Cappa C , De Palma E , Madans J , Crialesi R . Disabil Health J 2018 11 (4) 495-501 This is the first of three papers that will document the development of a survey module on child functioning developed by UNICEF in collaboration with the Washington Group on Disability Statistics (WG), and demonstrate - both conceptually and through test results - the strengths of that module compared with alternative tools for identifying children with disabilities in household surveys. This first paper in the series sets the background and reviews the literature leading to the development of the UNICEF/WG Child Functioning Module (CFM) and presents the WG Short Set of questions (WG-SS) and the Ten Question Screening Instrument (TQSI) as precursors, outlining some of their shortcomings and how the UNICEF/WG CFM was designed to meet those challenges. Subsequent articles will summarize results from the cognitive and field testing of the CFM including comparisons with results derived from the TQSI and the WG-SS. |
The development and testing of a module on child functioning for identifying children with disabilities on surveys. III: Field testing
Cappa C , Mont D , Loeb M , Misunas C , Madans J , Comic T , de Castro F . Disabil Health J 2018 11 (4) 510-518 BACKGROUND: A module on child functioning developed by UNICEF and the Washington Group on Disability Statistics (WG) for use in censuses and surveys reflects current thinking around disability measurement and is intended to produce internationally comparable data. The Child Functioning Module (CFM) was developed in response to limitations of the Ten Question Screening Instrument (TQSI) for use in surveys and builds on the WG Short Set (WG-SS) of questions that was designed to capture disability in censuses, particularly among the adult population. OBJECTIVE: This paper documents the testing of the module and summarizes its results, including a description of prevalence levels across countries using different cut-offs, and comparisons with prevalence levels obtained using the TQSI and the WG-SS. METHODS: Field tests were conducted in Samoa as part of the 2014 Demographic and Health Survey and in Mexico as part of the 2015 National Survey of Boys, Girls and Women. The module was also implemented in Serbia as part of a dedicated survey conducted in the province of Vojvodina, in February 2016. RESULTS: Using the recommended cut-offcut-off, the percentage of children reported as having functional difficulty ranges from 1.1% in Serbia to 2% in Mexico among children aged 2-4 years, and from 3.2% in Samoa to 11.2% in Mexico among children aged 5-17 years. Across all three countries, the prevalence of functional difficulty was highest in the socio-emotional domains. A comparison of the prevalence levels obtained using the WG-SS and the CFM shows that, except for the question on cognition/learning, the WG-SS and the CFM are relatively close for children aged 5-17 years for the domains that are included in both question sets, but the WG-SS excludes many children identified by the CFM in other domains. The comparison between the TQSI and the CFM shows that, while the prevalence estimates are similar for seeing and hearing, significant differences affect other domains, particularly cognition/learning and communication. CONCLUSIONS: The CFM addresses a full range of functional domains that are important for child development. The module represents an improvement on the TQSI in that it allows for scaled responses to determine the degree of difficulty, and so can separate out many potential false positives. The module is also preferred over the WG-SS for collecting data on children, first, because most of the questions in the WG-SS are not suitable for children under the age of 5 years, and second, because the WG-SS leaves out important functional domains for children aged 5-17 years, namely those related to developmental disabilities and behavioural issues. |
An evaluation of the American Community Survey indicators of disability
Altman BM , Madans J , Weeks JD . Disabil Health J 2017 10 (4) 485-491 BACKGROUND: Collection of data in the Census for implementing disability legislation has been continuous since 1970 although the questions used have changed several times. Concerns have been raised about the ability of the newest question set developed for the American Community Survey (ACS) to adequately represent the populations with disabilities because it does not capture all those eligible for certain benefit programs. OBJECTIVE: Using national data, we examine how the addition of questions on the receipt of SSI/SSDI changes the composition of the population identified by the ACS measures. In ancillary materials we also examine the addition of a work limitation question to the population identified by ACS measures. METHODS: Using descriptive secondary analysis of 2011 NHIS data we compare the characteristics of those identified by the ACS questions to those identified by the ACS questions and receipt of SSI/SSDI and those only receiving SSI/SSDI. The comparison is based on conditions, specific functional limitations and severity of limitation. RESULTS: Provide evidence that ACS questions identify a population representing persons at risk for participation difficulties including those who receive SSI/SSDI. The ACS population has higher proportions with mental health and development disabilities than comparison population. The ancillary data demonstrates the work limitation question does not make a significant difference in identifying recipients of SSI/SSDI. CONCLUSION: The analysis demonstrates that the disability measures developed for the ACS produce an unbiased picture of the population with disabilities by including persons with all conditions, more severe disability or selected types of functional limitations. |
A framework for monitoring progress using summary measures of health
Madans JH , Weeks JD . J Aging Health 2016 28 (7) 1299-314 OBJECTIVE: Initiatives designed to monitor health typically incorporate numerous specific measures of health and the health system to assess improvements, or lack thereof, for policy and program purposes. The addition of summary measures provides overarching information which is essential for determining whether the goals of such initiatives are met. METHOD: Summary measures are identified that relate to the individual indicators but that also reflect movement in the various parts of the system. RESULTS: A hierarchical framework that is conceptually consistent and which utilizes a succinct number of summary measures incorporating indicators of functioning and participation is proposed. DISCUSSION: While a large set of individual indicators can be useful for monitoring progress, these individual indicators do not provide an overall evaluation of health, defined broadly, at the population level. A hierarchical framework consisting of summary measures is important for monitoring the success of health improvement initiatives. |
Harmonising summary measures of population health using global survey instruments
Berger N , Robine JM , Ojima T , Madans J , Van Oyen H . J Epidemiol Community Health 2016 70 (10) 1039-44 Summary measures of population health-health expectancies in particular-have become a standard for quantifying and monitoring population health. To date, cross-national comparability of health expectancies is limited, except within the European Union (EU). To advance international comparability, the European Joint Action on Healthy Life Years (JA: EHLEIS) set up an international working group. The working group discussed the conceptual basis of summary measures of population health and made suggestions for the development of comparable health expectancies to be used across the EU and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) members. In this paper, which summarises the main results, we argue that harmonised health data needed for health expectancy calculation can best be obtained from 'global' survey measures, which provide a snapshot of the health situation using 1 or a few survey questions. We claim that 2 global measures of health should be pursued for their high policy relevance: a global measure of participation restriction and a global measure of functional limitation. We finally provide a blueprint for the future development and implementation of the 2 global measures. The blueprint sets the basis for subsequent international collaboration, having as a core group Member States of the EU, the USA and Japan. Other countries, in particular OECD members, are invited to join the initiative. |
Comments on Sabariego et al. Measuring disability: Comparing the impact of two data collection approaches on disability rates. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 2015, 12, 10329-10351
Madans JH , Mont D , Loeb M . Int J Environ Res Public Health 2015 13 (1) ijerph13010065 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. 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. |
NHAMCS: does it hold up to scrutiny?
McCaig LF , Burt CW , Schappert SM , Albert M , Uddin S , Brown C , Madans J . Ann Emerg Med 2013 62 (5) 549-51 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) is committed to collecting and disseminating high-quality data that meet the information needs of a wide range of users. We take issue with the unfavorable assessment of National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) data in a recent editorial by Cooper1 and appreciate the opportunity to respond to her comments. | We agree with Cooper1 that research findings need to be critically assessed, and we appreciate the guidelines she provides for potential authors using NHAMCS data, which are consistent with our recent article.2 We are troubled, however, by her sweeping indictment of the NHAMCS data-gathering process and her concern that medical practice or policy may have changed based on “the false assumption that the data were valid.”1 In fact, the authors cited by Cooper1 appropriately assessed the limitations of using NHAMCS data3, 4, 5, 6 and reported that their findings3, 4, 5 were consistent with previous research. In cases in which findings from studies diverge, it is important to consider the methodology of each study. A particular strength of NHAMCS is that it includes hospitals other than academic medical centers, which commonly serve as the settings for research studies, thereby giving a more complete picture of health care use patterns. When comparing data from NHAMCS with other studies, one should always be careful to keep such methodological differences in mind before making conclusions about validity. |
Methods to improve international comparability of census and survey measures of disability
Madans JH , Loeb M . Disabil Rehabil 2012 35 (13) 1070-3 PURPOSE: To describe the methods used by the Washington Group on Disability Statistics (WG) to develop internationally comparable questions on disability that can be used worldwide. METHOD: The WG approach to developing disability measures included careful consideration of the theoretical and conceptual issues associated with disability, translating disability concepts into measurement tools, and mixed-method evaluations of the proposed questions using both cognitive and field interviewing methodologies. RESULTS: Disability is a complex construct the measurement of which presents considerable challenges for survey methodologists. The Washington Group on Disability Statistics (WG), a UN Statistical Commission sponsored city group, was established to address the methodological and measurement challenges that have characterized disability statistics and to develop questions for use worldwide that will provide comparable, valid and reliable disability statistics. The WG used a variety of methods to meet these objectives and has finalized a short set disability measure for use in censuses worldwide. CONCLUSIONS: The methodologies adopted by the WG have resulted in question sets that greatly improve the international comparability of disability statistics and will advance our understanding of disability worldwide. |
Results of a cross-national structured cognitive interviewing protocol to test measures of disability
Miller K , Mont D , Maitland A , Altman B , Madans J . Qual Quant 2011 45 (4) 801-815 This paper describes the Washington Group project to test a short battery of disability questions developed for national censuses. The study used an unusually structured cognitive test protocol and was administered to a total of 1,290 respondents selected from convenience samples in fifteen countries in Central and South America, Asia and Africa. The test protocol consisted of the six core disability questions followed by questions designed to illustrate: (1) whether core questions were administered with relative ease; (2) how core questions were interpreted by respondents; (3) the factors considered by respondents when forming answers to core questions; and (4) the degree of consistency between responses to core questions and a set of more detailed functioning questions. Additionally, demographic and general health sections allowed for an examination of comparability, specifically, whether test questions performed consistently across all respondents, or if nationality, education, gender or socio-economic status impacted the ways in which respondents interpreted or considered each core question. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved) (journal abstract). |
Measuring disability and monitoring the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: the work of the Washington Group on Disability Statistics
Madans JH , Loeb ME , Altman BM . BMC Public Health 2011 11 Suppl 4 S4 The Washington Group on Disability Statistics is a voluntary working group made up of representatives of over 100 National Statistical Offices and international, non-governmental and disability organizations that was organized under the aegis of the United Nations Statistical Division. The purpose of the Washington Group is to deal with the challenge of disability definition and measurement in a way that is culturally neutral and reasonably standardized among the UN member states. The work, which began in 2001, took on added importance with the passage and ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities since the Convention includes a provision for monitoring whether those with and without disabilities have equal opportunities to participate in society and this will require the identification of persons with disabilities in each nation. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) developed by the World Health Organization provided a framework for conceptualizing disability. Operationalizing an ICF-based approach to disability has required the development of new measurement tools for use in both censuses and surveys. To date, a short set of six disability-related questions suitable for use in national censuses has been developed and adopted by the Washington Group and incorporated by the United Nations in their Principles and Recommendations for Population and Housing Censuses. A series of extended sets of questions is currently under development and some of the sets have been tested in several countries. The assistance of many National and International organizations has allowed for cognitive and field testing of the disability questionnaires in multiple languages and locations. This paper will describe the work of the Washington Group and explicate the applicability of its approach and the questions developed for monitoring the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. |
- Page last reviewed:Feb 1, 2024
- Page last updated:May 06, 2024
- Content source:
- Powered by CDC PHGKB Infrastructure