ArticleDie Rehabilitation2024
[Measuring Disability in Participation Survey and Social Reporting].
Article in Die Rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Large-scale surveys on the work situation of people with health impairments and disabilities in Germany-expanding the potential for analysis].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The "Representative Survey on the Participation of People with Disabilities" (Participation Survey), commissioned by the German Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, aims to work in conjunction with participation reporting to assess the social participation of people with disabilities. Both the participation reporting and the Participation Survey claim to operationalize impairment and disability in accordance with the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) of the World Health Organization (WHO). A critical analysis of the measurement concept reveals methodological problems: 1) The measurement concept is not consistently ICF-oriented because it does not clearly conceptualize impairments, does not adequately take into consideration environmental factors in the determination of disability and sees impairment as causal for disability. 2) Distinction made between impairment and disability is mainly pragmatic, without any coherent conceptual justification. 3) The chosen operationalization cannot ensure the desired international comparability. In order to achieve a stronger ICF orientation and better international comparability, it is proposed in this study to integrate the "Model Disability Survey", developed by the WHO and the World Bank, into the German Participation Survey's data collection tools. An alternative measurement proposal, which can be implemented with the available data, is to categorize groups solely according to the severity of impairment, forgoing the a priori distinction between impairment and disability. This approach embraces the fundamental idea of the ICF, which views disability as a situational rather than a personal characteristic.
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.