ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
Exploring the Use of Washington Group Questions to Identify People with Clinical Impairments Who Need Services including Assistive Products: Results from Five Population-Based Surveys.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Socioeconomic inequalities in disability among older adults in urban and rural Indonesia: a population-based study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Functional Needs Assessment Tool for estimating population-level functional difficulties and the need for services and assistive products: pilot testing in Western Uganda.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2026Article
- Under-reporting difficulties in seeing among older people with clinically assessed vision impairment: an exploration of 12 surveys from sub-Saharan Africa.International health · 2025Article
- Disability inclusion in the Brazilian health system: results of a health system assessment.Global health action · 2025Article
- Equal access to treatment for hearing loss in Chile: do all people have the same opportunities to receive appropriate treatment? A scoping review.International journal for equity in health · 2025Article
- Prevalence, pattern, and factors associated with self-reported disability among the tribal population in Jawadhi Hills, Tamil Nadu: a census.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Quality of life among people with disabilities and its related factors in Iran: a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2025Article
- The Definition Dilemma: How Definitions of Disability Shape Statistics on Social Participation.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Demographic, socioeconomic, and social barriers to use of mobility assistive products: a multistate analysis of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing.The Lancet. Public health · 2025Article
- Rehabilitation needs screening to identify potential beneficiaries: a scoping review.BMJ public health · 2024Article
- Psychiatric Symptoms, Treatment Uptake, and Barriers to Mental Health Care Among US Adults With Post-COVID-19 Condition.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Feasibility study of a menstrual health behaviour change intervention for women and girls with intellectual disabilities and their caregivers for Vanuatu's humanitarian responses.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Differences in need for and access to eye health services between older people with and without disability: A cross-sectional survey in four districts of northern Uganda.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Measuring Disability among Migrants with Washington Group Tools: Reflections for Field Use.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Global and regional prevalence of disabilities among children and adolescents: Analysis of findings from global health databases.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study analyses the use of the self-reported Washington Group (WG) question sets as a first stage screening to identify people with clinical impairments, service and assistive product (AP) referral needs using different cut-off levels in four functional domains (vision, hearing, mobility and cognition). Secondary data analysis was undertaken using population-based survey data from five countries, including one national survey (The Gambia) and four regional/district surveys (Cameroon, Chile, India and Turkey). In total 19,951 participants were sampled (range 538-9188 in individual studies). The WG question sets on functioning were completed for all participants alongside clinical impairment assessments/questionnaires. Using the WG "some/worse difficulty" cut-off identified people with mild/worse impairments with variable sensitivity (44-79%) and specificity (73-92%) in three of the domains. At least 64% and 60% of people with mild/worse impairments who required referral for surgical/medical and rehabilitation/AP services, respectively, self-reported "some/worse difficulty", and much fewer reported "a lot/worse difficulty." For moderate/worse impairment, both screening cut-offs improved identification of service/AP need, but a smaller proportion of people with need were identified. In conclusion, WG questions could be used as a first-stage screening option to identify people with impairment and referral needs, but only with moderate sensitivity and specificity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.