Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31450663›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2019

Disability-Disaggregated Data Collection: Hospital-Based Application of the Washington Group Questions in an Eye Hospital in Paraguay.

Manfred Mörchen, Olmedo Zambrano, Alexander Páez, Paola Salgado, Jason Penniecook, Andrea Brandt von Lindau, David Lewis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Use of the Washington Group Questions in Non-Government Programming.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Manfred MörchenChristoffel Blindenmission (CBM) International, Stubenwaldallee 5, 64625 Bensheim, Germany. manfred.moerchen@cbm.org.
Olmedo ZambranoChristoffel Blindenmission (CBM) International, Stubenwaldallee 5, 64625 Bensheim, Germany.
Alexander PáezFundaciόn Visiόn, Ingavi, Fernando de la Mora 8000, Paraguay.
Paola SalgadoFundaciόn Visiόn, Ingavi, Fernando de la Mora 8000, Paraguay.
Jason PenniecookFundaciόn Visiόn, Ingavi, Fernando de la Mora 8000, Paraguay.
Andrea Brandt von LindauChristoffel Blindenmission (CBM) International, Stubenwaldallee 5, 64625 Bensheim, Germany.
David LewisCBM Australia, 56 Rutland Rd, Melbourne 3128, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Disability-disaggregated data are increasingly considered important to monitor progress in Universal Eye Health Care. Hospital-based data are still elusive because of the cultural ambiguities of the term disability, especially in under-resourced Health Information Systems in low-and middle-income countries. The aim of this study was to estimate the hospital-based rate of disability in patients presenting at an eye department of a rural hospital in Paraguay and to discuss implications for the management of access barriers. Therefore, we introduced two standardized sets of the Washington Group (WG) Questions as a pilot project. In total, 999 patients answered the self-report WG short set (WG-SS) questionnaire with six functional domains, and 501 of these patients answered an extended set, which included additional domains for "anxiety" and "depression" (WG-ES3). Overall, 27.7% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 24.9-30.3) were categorized as having a disability. A total of 9.6% (95% CI 7.9-11.6) were categorized as having a disability because of communication difficulties, which was second only to visual difficulties. The odds ratio for disability for patients aged 70 years and older was 8.5 (95% CI 5.0-14.4) and for male patients, it was 0.83 (95% CI 0.62-1.1). Of those patients who answered the WG-ES3, 3.4% were categorized as having a disability because of being worried, nervous or anxious and 1.4% because of feeling depressed. An analysis of the questions of the "depression" domain was impeded by a high rate of measurement errors. The results of the different domains can now be used to inform the identification and mitigation of potential access barriers to eye health services for different types of impairments.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAnxietyChildChild, PreschoolDepressionEye DiseasesFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHospitals, RuralHumansMaleMiddle AgedParaguayPersons with Disabilitiesdisabilityhealth information systeminclusive eye healthWashington Group

Identifiers

PMID31450663
PMCPMC6747208

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.