ArticleHealth affairs scholar2024
Counting everyone: evidence for inclusive measures of disability in federal surveys.
Article in Health affairs scholar, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparative analysis of self-identification and functional measures of disability.Disability and health journal · 2026Article
- Disability data: a case study in research limitation transparency.Health affairs scholar · 2025Article
- The disability mismatch: the case for a comprehensive disability status measure.Health affairs scholar · 2025Article
- Limitations of the Washington Group Short Set in capturing moderate and severe mobility disabilities.Health affairs scholar · 2025Article
- Comparative performance of disability measures.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The US Census Bureau has used the American Community Survey six-question set (ACS-6) to identify disabled people since 2008. In late 2023, the Census Bureau proposed changes to these questions that would have reduced disability prevalence estimates by 42%. Because these estimates inform funding and programs that support the health and independence of people with disabilities, many disability researchers and advocates feared this change in data collection would lead to reductions in funding and services. While the Census has paused-but not ruled out-the proposed changes, it is critical that alternate, more inclusive disability questions be identified and tested. We used data from the 2023/2024 National Survey on Health and Disability to explore alternative questions to identify disabled people in national surveys. A single broad question about conditions identified 11.2% more people with disabilities, and missed significantly fewer people with psychiatric disabilities compared to the current ACS-6 questions. A combination of a broad question and the existing ACS-6 questions may be necessary to more accurately and inclusively identify people with disabilities.
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.