ArticleHealth affairs scholar2025
The disability mismatch: the case for a comprehensive disability status measure.
Article in Health affairs scholar, 2025. 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.
- Pregnancy occurrence, intendedness, and outcomes among U.S. females with and without disability, 2011-2019.Disability and health journal · 2026Article
- Tracing the Historical Roots of Health Inequity Among People With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities in the United States: Impact of Models, Advocacy, Legislation, and International Context.American journal of public health · 2026Article
- Disability Diagnoses Identified by the American Community Survey 6-Question Sequence.JAMA health forum · 2026Article
- Reply to the Letter to the Editor by Mitra on Disability data: a case study in research limitation transparency.Health affairs scholar · 2025Article
- Disability data: a case study in research limitation transparency.Health affairs scholar · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Current disability questions used in many US federal surveys exclusively measure disability as having 1 or more of 6 functional limitations. This strategy is at odds with who is disabled as some disabled people do not experience these limitations. Methods: Using data from a nationally representative survey of 2169 adults, this study describes the potential of a comprehensive disability status question to improve the measurement of disability. Results: Results from this study demonstrate that a comprehensive disability status question successfully identifies disabled people who both do, and do not, experience limitations. Conclusion: These findings suggest that a single comprehensive disability status question may provide a viable and more inclusive alternative to identifying the disabled population in US federal surveys.
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.