ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Undercounts of people with serious mental illness using the Washington Group Short Set questions.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mental Health in Regularly Collected Nationally Representative U.S. Surveys: What's Measured and What's Missing?Administration and policy in mental health · 2026Article
- The associations between maternal disability and perinatal outcomes among Black and/or Hispanic women in PRAMS.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Estimating the Intersecting Labor Market Disparities for Justice-Impacted Individuals with Disabilities: Evidence from Two United States National Data Sets.Research in social stratification and mobility · 2026Article
- Patterns and determinants of formal healthcare utilisation among individuals with and without proxy-identified mental health need in Tanzania: A cross-sectional analysis of the National Panel Survey.PLOS mental health · 2026Article
- Disability data: a case study in research limitation transparency.Health affairs scholar · 2025Article
- Does who responds matter?: exploring potential proxy response bias in the Washington Group Short Set disability estimates.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accurately counting Americans with mental health conditions is essential to support program development and appropriate resource allocations, which are often based on prevalence data. Multiple federal surveys use the Washington Group Short Set (WG-SS) questions to identify people with disabilities, including those with mental health conditions. However, the WG-SS questions miss many people with mental illnesses, under-representing this population in US federal survey data. Hence, we sought to explore the degree to which people with serious mental illness are missed. Methods: We used data from the 2020 National Survey on Health and Disability to assess the rates that respondents with self-reported serious mental illness (SMI) conditions, i.e., major depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and schizoaffective disorder (n=263), were missed as disabled by the WG-SS questions. Results: Using the three WG-SS questions suggested by the Washington Group to capture people with mental illnesses, 66.2%, 88.6%, and 96.6% of respondents with SMI were characterized as non-disabled; 58.2% were characterized as non-disabled across the three questions combined. Discussion: Previous research demonstrated that the WG-SS questions missed almost 60% of respondents with any mental illness. However, the Washington Group states that its question set better captures people with more severe disabilities, so this study focused only on respondents with serious mental illnesses and only on questions that the Washington Group suggests capture people with psychosocial disabilities. Conclusion: Results indicate that the WG-SS questions miss large percentages of even those with the most severe mental illnesses, who therefore may be substantially undercounted in US federal surveys using these questions. In turn, public mental health programs may be substantially underfunded.
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.