Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29370847›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2018

Rethinking Disability.

Alarcos Cieza, Carla Sabariego, Jerome Bickenbach, Somnath Chatterji

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 115 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Alarcos CiezaDepartment of Management of Noncommunicable Diseases, Disability, Violence and Injury Prevention, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. ciezaa@who.int.
Carla SabariegoDepartment of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology-IBE, Chair for Public Health and Health Services Research, Research Unit for Biopsychosocial Health, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU), Munich, Germany.
Jerome BickenbachDepartment of Health Sciences and Health Policy, University of Lucerne and Swiss Paraplegic Research (SPF), Nottwil, Switzerland.
Somnath ChatterjiDepartment of Information, Evidence and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
World Health Organization · CHLudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEUniversity of Lucerne · CH

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Disability as a health outcome deserves more attention than it has so far received. With people living longer and the epidemiological transition from infectious to noncommunicable diseases as the major cause of health burden, we need to focus attention on disability - the non-fatal impact of heath conditions - over and above our concern for causes of mortality.With the first Global Burden of Disease study, WHO provided a metric that enabled the comparison of the impact of diseases, drawing on a model of disability that focused on decrements of health. This model has since been elaborated in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health as being either a feature of the individual or arising out of the interaction between the individual's health condition and contextual factors. The basis of WHO's ongoing work is a set of principles: that disability is a universal human experience; that disability is not determined solely by the underlying health condition or predicated merely on the presence of specific health conditions; and finally, that disability lies on a continuum from no to complete disability. To determine whether interventions at individual or population levels are effective, an approach to disability measurement that allows for an appropriate and fair comparison across health conditions is needed. WHO has designed the Model Disability Survey (MDS) to collect information relevant to understand the lived experience of disability, including the person's capacity to perform tasks actions in daily life, their actual performance, the barriers and facilitators in the environment they experience, and their health conditions. As disability gains prominence within the development agenda in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, and the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the MDS will provide the data to monitor the progress of countries on meeting their obligations.The lesson learned from WHO's activities is that disability is a universal human experience, in the sense that everyone can be placed on a continuum of functioning and either currently experiences or is vulnerable to experiencing disability over the course of their lives. This understanding of disability is the key to mainstreaming disability within the public discourse.

Indexed as

Disability EvaluationInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthPersons with DisabilitiesPublic HealthComprehensionEnvironmentFemaleHealth Status IndicatorsHumansMalePatient RightsSurveys and QuestionnairesThinkingUnited NationsWorld Health OrganizationDisabilityDisability and HealthGlobal Burden of DiseaseHealth Status IndicatorsInternational Classification of FunctioningModel Disability SurveyPublic Health

Identifiers

PMID29370847
PMCPMC5785824
OpenAlexW4210320149

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.