ArticleHealth affairs scholar2024
Disability inclusion in national 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. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The disability mismatch: the case for a comprehensive disability status measure.Health affairs scholar · 2025Article
- "No data, no problem"? Potential inequities in psychosis among immigrants in the United States.SSM. Mental health · 2025Article
- Disability and Employment Inclusion in a Transforming Economy: Epidemiological Evidence from National Survey Data.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
National surveys are important for understanding the disparities that disabled people experience across social determinants of health; however, limited research has examined the methods used to include disabled people in these surveys. This study reviewed nationally representative surveys administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the US Census Bureau that collected data in the past 5 years and sampled adults ≥18 years. Data from both publicly available online survey documents and a questionnaire emailed to survey administrators were used to determine whether surveys (1) oversampled disabled people, (2) had a data-accessibility protocol to support data collection, and (3) provided multiple data-collection modalities (eg, phone, paper). Of the 201 surveys identified, 30 met the inclusion criteria for the study. Of these 30 surveys, 1 oversampled disabled people, none had a data-collection accessibility protocol, and 21 provided multiple data-collection modalities. This study highlights barriers and opportunities to including disabled people in national surveys, which is essential for ensuring survey data are generalizable to the US population.
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.