In 2023, it was estimated that around 14 percent of the population of the U.S. had some form of disability, such as a vision disability, hearing disability, or cognitive disability. This statistic presents the percentage of people in the U.S. who had a disability from 2008 to 2023.

The aim of this publication is to provide information about the key differences in healthcare between people with a learning disability and those without. It contains aggregated data on key health issues for people who are recorded by their GP as having a learning disability, and comparative data about a control group who are not recorded by their GP as having a learning disability. Eight new indicators were introduced in the 2023-24 reporting year for patients with and without a recorded learning disability. These relate to: • Patients treated with melatonin • Gender breakdown for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) • Anxiety prevalence Six indicators have been removed from the 2023-24 reporting year relating to: • Kidney disease • Epilepsy • Seizure frequency More information on these changes can be found in the Data Quality section of this publication. Data has been collected from participating practices using EMIS and Cegedim Healthcare Systems GP systems.

Differences in the number and proportion of persons with and without disabilities, aged 15 years and over, by census metropolitan areas.

The prevalence of disabilities in the United States shows a clear correlation with age, with nearly half of Americans aged 75 and older experiencing some form of disability. This stark contrast to younger age groups highlights the increasing challenges faced by the elderly population in maintaining their independence and quality of life. Disability rates across age groups According to 2023 data, only 0.7 percent of children under 5 years old have a disability, compared to 6.3 percent of those aged 5 to 15. The percentage rises steadily with age, reaching 11.2 percent for adults between 21 and 64 years old. A significant jump occurs in the 65 to 74 age group, where 23.9 percent have a disability. The most dramatic increase is seen in those 75 and older, with 45.3 percent experiencing some form of disability. These figures underscore the importance of accessible services and support systems for older Americans. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) The prevalence of disabilities among younger Americans has significant implications for the education system. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a law in the United States that guarantees the right to a free appropriate education for children with disabilities. In the 2021/22 academic year, 7.26 million disabled individuals aged 3 to 21 were covered by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This number includes approximately 25,000 children with traumatic brain injuries and 434,000 with intellectual disabilities.

Abstract

The 2007 Kenya National Survey for Persons with Disabilities (KNSPWD) was a national sample survey - the first of its kind to be conducted in Kenya - designed to provide up-to-date information for planning, monitoring and evaluating the various activities, programmes and projects intended to improve the wellbeing of persons with disabilities. The survey covered more than 14,000 households in a total of 600 clusters (436 rural and 164 urban).

The survey interviewed persons with disabilities of all ages in sampled areas to get estimates of their numbers; distribution; and demographic, socio-economic and cultural characteristics. The survey also sought to know the nature, types and causes of disabilities; coping mechanisms; nature of services available to them; and community perceptions and attitudes towards PWDs.

The survey was undertaken by the National Coordinating Agency for Population and Development (NCAPD) in collaboration with the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS); Ministry of Gender, Sports, Culture and Social Services (MGSCSS); Ministry of Health (MOH); and the Ministry of Education Science and Technology (MOEST). Other participants were United Disabled Persons of Kenya (UDPK); Kenya Programmes of Disabled Persons (KPDP); Association for the Physically Disabled of Kenya (ADPK); and Africa Mental Health Foundation (AMHF). Technical and financial support came from the Department for International Development (DFID), the World Bank and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under the Statistical Capacity Building Project (STATCAP) project. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) provided support for the design of survey instruments.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

Households and individuals

Universe

The survey covered all de jure household members (usual residents) and all women aged between 12-49 years.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

While the survey intended to estimate the number of PWDs, it was realized that a significant proportion of these individuals reside in institutions, which are not part of the household sampling frame. However, a comprehensive list of institutions that existed did not form sufficient sampling frame for estimation of numbers of institution-based PWDs for the entire country. A mechanism had to be devised for incorporating these persons into the survey to supplement the data derived from the household-based survey.

The targeted survey population for the institutional based survey was defined as all people living in homes and occupying long-stay beds in public or private hospitals; or living in long-stay residential units for people with an intellectual, psychiatric/physical disability, vision or hearing impairments, or with multiple disabilities. The following types of institutions were covered: · Hospitals (acute care, chronic care hospitals, nursing homes) · Psychiatric institutions · Treatment centres for persons with physical disabilities · Residential special schools · Private and non-private group homes · Private and non-private children's homes · Orphanages · Private and non-private residences for senior citizens (Mji wa wazee) · Other residential institutions with people with disabilities

The sampling frame compiled for the institutional survey comprised all institutions indicated above. The frame included the name of the institution, type, number of individuals, location and type of disability. The frame was compiled from various sources, including MOH, MOEST, MSGSS and various organizations dealing with disabilities, among others.

In order to achieve representation, the institutions were first stratified according to location (provinces) and then by nature of disability. The institutions were further classified into two broad categories depending on nature and size (number of PWDs). All key institutions were sampled with certainty (that is, all selected in the sample). The remaining institutions within a province were arranged and serially listed by disability type and a systematic random sampling procedure used to select the sample.

A sample size of 102 institutions catering for different population sizes of PWDs was covered. Once the institutions were sampled, the next exercise involved selection of individuals for the survey. Five bands were created depending on the size of the sampled institution. The bands were: less than or equal to 30; 31-50; 51-100; 101-200; and above 200. A listing of all residents was compiled during the day of the interview and a systematic random sample drawn. Five respondents were selected from each of the sampled institutions with up to 30 PWDs, eight from those having 31-50, and ten from those having 51-100. For institutions having 100-200 PWDs, 15 were chosen, and from those having 201 and above, 20.

The KNSPWD household sample was constructed to allow for estimation of key indicators at the provincial level as well as of the urban and rural components separately. The survey utilized a multi-stage cluster sample design and was based on a master sample frame developed and maintained by KNBS. The master sampling frame is the National Sample Survey and Evaluation Programme (NASSEP) IV. It has 1,800 clusters (data collection area points) that were developed with probability proportional to size (PPS) from the enumeration areas (EAs) delineated during the 1999 Kenya Population and Housing Census. Of the 1,800 clusters, 1,260 are rural based and the other 540 are located in urban areas.

In the frame, the first stage involved selecting the census EAs using PPS and developing them into clusters. The process involved quick counting of the selected EA and dividing into segments depending on the measure of size (MOS). The MOS was defined as an average of 100 households, with lower and upper bounds of 50 and 149 households, respectively. The EAs that were segmented had only one segment selected randomly to form a cluster. The EAs that had fewer than 50 households were merged prior to the selection process. During the creation of NASSEP IV, other than each of the 69 districts being a stratum, the six major urban areas (Nairobi, Mombasa, Kisumu, Nakuru, Eldoret and Thika) were further stratified into five income classes: upper, lower upper, middle, lower middle and lower. The aim was to ensure that different social classes within these areas were well represented in any time sample that was drawn.

The second sampling stage involved selecting clusters for the KNSPWD from all the clusters in the NASSEP IV master sampling frame. A total of 600 clusters (436 rural and 164 urban) was sampled from all the districts in the country with boundaries as defined in the 1999 Kenya population and housing census. The third stage of selection involved systematically sampling 25 households from each cluster, hence producing 15,000 households in total.

Mt. Elgon district was excluded from the survey because of persistent insecurity in the area. The effect of exclusion of the district in the sample is minimal since it contributes 0.5% of the population according to 1999 census.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

Models of questionnaires and survey instruments developed by the World Health Organization (WHO), Washington Group Consortium and organizations in other countries were tailored to the Kenyan context. The purpose was not only to make the instruments responsive to the country situation, but also to ensure that the results would be comparable to those from other countries.

With input from a wide range of people who have worked in the area of disability, and who have conducted national surveys, a workshop was held to develop and adopt the following instruments for Kenya:

· Household questionnaire: Designed to collect background information at the household level for all the usual members as well as any visitors who slept in the household the night before the interview. This questionnaire was also used to screen PWDs by type to identify those who were eligible for the individual disability questionnaire. This instrument was administered to the most knowledgeable person in the household on the day of the visit. · Individual questionnaire: Administered to any PWDs who had been identified using the household questionnaire. The questionnaire included the following key sections: activity limitation; environmental factors; situation analysis; support services; education; employment and income; immediate surroundings; assistive devices; attitudes towards disability; and health and general well-being · Reproductive health questionnaire: Administered to all eligible females aged 12 to 49 who were living with any form of disability. It collected information on reproductive health. · Institutional questionnaire: Administered to the heads of the various categories of institutions serving PWDs. Randomly selected PWDs in these institutions were interviewed using the individual questionnaire. · Focus group discussion guide: Used to collect qualitative information from a group of 6-10 members within each of the sampled clusters. The groups comprised PWDs, community leaders, service providers, opinion leaders and teachers. The focus group discussions collected information on knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of community members about PWDs and the different services available for PWDs in the different communities. Likewise, focus group discussions were used to collect qualitative information about problems faced by PWDs, their coping mechanisms and their access to essential basic services, as well as an overview of community perceptions of PWDs and views on how best to

Income of individuals by disability status, age group, sex and income source, Canada, annual.

Local, state, tribal, and federal agencies use disability data to plan and fund programs for people with disabilities. Disability data helps communities enroll eligible households in programs designed to assist them such as health care programs and affordable housing programs. Disability data also helps local jurisdictions provide services that:Enable older adults to remain living safely in their homes and communities (Older Americans Act).Provide services and assistance to people with a disability, such as financial assistance with utilities (Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program)Disability data helps communities qualify for grants such as the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, the HOME Investment Partnership Program, the Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) Program, the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) Program, and other local and federal programs.Disability data are also used to evaluate other government programs and policies to ensure that they fairly and equitably serve the needs of all groups, as well as enforce laws, regulations, and policies against discrimination.This map shows the count and prevalence of people with a disability. This includes people with a hearing difficulty, a vision difficulty, an ambulatory difficulty, a cognitive difficulty, a self-care difficulty, and an independent-living difficulty. The features in web map are symbolized using color and size to depict total population with a disability count (size of symbol) and prevalence (color of symbol). Web map is multi-scaled, and opens displaying data for counties and tracts. This map uses these hosted feature layers containing the most recent American Community Survey data. These layers are part of the ArcGIS Living Atlas, and are updated every year when the American Community Survey releases new estimates, so values in the map always reflect the newest data available.

In 2023, the U.S. states with the highest share of the population that had a disability were West Virginia, Arkansas, and Kentucky. At that time, around 19.7 percent of the population of West Virginia had some form of disability. The states with the lowest rates of disability were New Jersey, Utah, and Minnesota. Disability in the United States A disability is any condition, either physical or mental, that impairs one’s ability to do certain activities. Some examples of disabilities are those that affect one’s vision, hearing, movement, or learning. It is estimated that around 14 percent of the population in the United States suffers from some form of disability. The prevalence of disability increases with age, with 46 percent of those aged 75 years and older with a disability, compared to just six percent of those aged 5 to 15 years. Vision impairment One common form of disability comes from vision impairment. In 2023, around 3.6 percent of the population of West Virginia had a vision disability, meaning they were blind or had serious difficulty seeing even when wearing glasses. The leading causes of visual disability are age-related and include diseases such as cataracts, glaucoma, and age-related macular degeneration. This is clear when viewing the prevalence of vision disability by age. It is estimated that 8.3 percent of those aged 75 years and older in the United States have a vision disability, compared to 4.3 percent of those aged 65 to 74 and only 0.9 percent of those aged 5 to 15 years.

Access Living is a service and advocacy center in Chicago, led and run by disabled people. They believe in driving positive change to create a more inclusive world for all people with disabilities, and they are committed to being their own best advocates. With a focus on creating a more accessible and just society, Access Living offers various services, resources, and opportunities for people with disabilities to get involved and take action.

As a leading organization in the disability rights movement, Access Living is dedicated to defending the rights of people with disabilities and promoting systemic change. Through their advocacy efforts, they work to address the unique challenges facing disabled people, including barriers to healthcare, education, employment, and transportation. With a strong presence in the Chicago community, Access Living continues to push for greater accessibility, inclusion, and opportunity for all individuals, regardless of disability.

This is a three-year rolling mortality indicator presented as a standardised mortality ratio. It is aimed at measuring the national and local standardised mortality ratio of the learning disabilities population compared to the general population. People with learning disabilities often have a shorter life expectancy than that of the general population. Some of the causes of mortality amongst this population are thought to be premature and preventable, this indicator therefore presents a useful contribution to monitoring improvements in the rates of mortality in the learning disabilities population. Additional to the data files, there is supporting information and a data quality statement, to illustrate any issues with the underlying data and outlining the methodology used in the calculation of the indicator. This information can all be found on the Supporting Information page. This indicator cannot be used to directly compare mortality outcomes between localities and it is inappropriate to rank them by their indicator score.

Abstract: "Number of people with disabilities who are living in households in core housing need. Organized by geographic region, Sex and living arrangement. This table summarizes the percentage of men and women with disabilities living in housing need in each province and territory. Source: CMHC (Census-based housing indicators and data)". Contents: Population with Disability in Core Housing Need by Sex and Living Arrangement -- Population without Disability in Core Housing Need: Sex and Living Arrangement -- Population with Disabilities in Core Housing Need by Income and Sex -- Population without Disabilities in Core Housing Need by Income and Sex -- Population with Disabilities in Core Housing Need by Age and Sex -- Population without Disabilities in Core Housing Need by Age and Sex -- Population with Disabilities in Core Housing Need by Sex and Tenure -- Population without Disabilities in Core Housing Need by Sex and Tenure -- Persons with Disabilities in Core Housing Need by Age and Sex -- Persons with Mobility Disability in Core Housing Need by Age and Sex -- Persons with Seeing Disability in Core Housing Need by Age and Sex -- Persons with Hearing Disability in Core Housing Need by Age and Sex -- Persons with Learning Disability in Housing Need by Age and Sex -- Persons with a Speech Disability in Housing Need by Age and Sex -- Persons with Development Disability in Housing Need by Age and Sex -- Persons with Psychological Disability in Housing Need: Age and Sex

According to information by the Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Affairs , 118 651 persons with disabilities are registered as recipients of state social assistance by 1 March, 2015 in Georgia that constitutes 3 percent of total population resided in Georgia.

This dataset provides a breakdown of the number of persons with disabilities by first administrative level (region), and a detailed breakdown for the districts belonging to the capital city of Tbilisi.

The provided information depicts the number of disabled persons receiving state social pension/allowance (beneficiaries) across the country. In light of this, state policy determines the total number of disabled persons by the sum of beneficiaries, which directly is connected to the actual number of disabled people living in Georgia. The actual number of disabled persons in Georgia is likely to be higher.

This dataset contains the data of people living with disabilities. Also, the geographical distribution of the hospitals is provided.

Local, state, tribal, and federal agencies use disability data to plan and fund programs for people with disabilities. Disability data helps communities enroll eligible households in programs designed to assist them such as health care programs and affordable housing programs. Disability data also helps local jurisdictions provide services that:Enable older adults to remain living safely in their homes and communities (Older Americans Act).Provide services and assistance to people with a disability, such as financial assistance with utilities (Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program)Disability data helps communities qualify for grants such as the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, the HOME Investment Partnership Program, the Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) Program, the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) Program, and other local and federal programs.Disability data are also used to evaluate other government programs and policies to ensure that they fairly and equitably serve the needs of all groups, as well as enforce laws, regulations, and policies against discrimination.This map shows the count and prevalence of people with a disability. This includes people with a hearing difficulty, a vision difficulty, an ambulatory difficulty, a cognitive difficulty, a self-care difficulty, and an independent-living difficulty. The features in web map are symbolized using color and size to depict total population with a disability count (size of symbol) and prevalence (color of symbol). Web map is multi-scaled, and opens displaying counties. Zoom in to see tracts, zoom out to see states.This map uses these hosted feature layers containing the most recent American Community Survey data. These layers are part of the ArcGIS Living Atlas, and are updated every year when the American Community Survey releases new estimates, so values in the map always reflect the newest data available.

In 2023, it was estimated that around ** percent of people in the United States living with a disability were in poverty. In comparison, the poverty rate among people in the U.S. without a disability was **** percent. A disability is any physical or mental condition that significantly impacts a person's ability to carry out daily tasks or life activities. How many people in the United States are disabled? In 2023, around ** percent of people in the United States were thought to be living with a disability. Types of disabilities include those that affect hearing, cognition, self-care, mobility, and vision. The most common type of disability in the United States is ambulatory disabilities, which impairs a person’s ability to walk. In 2023, almost ** percent of those aged 75 years and older in the U.S. had an ambulatory disability. However, disabilities are far less common among younger people, with less than **** percent of those aged 21 to 64 suffering from an ambulatory disability. Employment among the disabled The most obvious reason why the poverty rate among those with a disability is higher than those without a disability is because disabilities affect a person’s ability to work and be employed. In 2023, the employment rate for those with a disability was **** percent, compared to an employment rate of **** percent among those without a disability. Those with hearing disabilities are the most likely to be employed, with a rate of around ** percent, compared to an employment rate of ** percent among those with an ambulatory disability. Still, those with disabilities who do work have lower annual median earnings than those without disabilities. In 2023, the annual median earnings for U.S. adults without a disability were ****** U.S. dollars, compared to ****** U.S. dollars for those with a disability.

Differences in the number and proportion of persons with disabilities with either mild, moderate, severe, or very severe disabilities, by age group and gender, Canada, provinces and territories.

Abstract

Disability and society: The last 20–30 years have seen an important change in our understanding of disability. From a previous individual perspective on causes and interventions, a social and civil rights approach has taken over. Much of the focus is now on the human and physical environment and how this might reduce or enhance an individual’s level of activity and social participation.

National policy development aimed at improving living conditions in general and among people with disabilities in particular is dependent on the availability of quality data. In many countries these have been lacking, and both the United Nations and National authorities have emphasised the need for this information in order to further develop disability policies.

Information about people with disabilities and their living conditions has the potential for contributing to an improvement of the situation faced by this group in many low-income countries, as has been demonstrated in high-income countries. The Studies on Living Conditions Among People with Activity Limitations in Developing Countries have been applied to inform policy development, for capacity building, awareness creation, and in specific advocacy processes to influence service delivery.

The studies have demonstrated that level of living conditions among disabled people is systematically lower than among non-disabled people. This implies that people with disabilities are denied the equal opportunities to participate and contribute to their society. It is in this context that people with disabilities are denied their human rights.

Zambia: As in other countries (namely Zimbabwe, Namibia and Malawi) where the survey has been conducted, the overall objective of the Survey was to contribute to the improvement of the living conditions among people with activity limitations in Zambia. In addition, the survey was intended to provide a basis on which to: a) Develop a strategy for the collection of comprehensive, reliable and culturally adapted statistical data on living conditions among people with disabilities b) Initiate a discussion on the concepts and understanding of “disability” c) Include and involve people with disabilities in every step of the research process d) Monitor the impact of government policies, programmes and donor support on the well being of the population with activity limitations. e) Identify various forms of activity limitations that people living with disabilities face f) Provide various users with a set of reliable indicators against which to monitor development. g) Identify appropriate assistive devises required for specific forms of disabilities h) Identify vulnerable groups in society and enhance targeting in policy implementation. i) Establish appropriate skills training package for various forms of disability

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Households
• Individuals

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

A two-stage cluster sampling procedure was applied using the National sampling frame in each country, in close collaboration with the National statistical offices who also did sample size calculations to ensure representativity at regional/provincial level. A required number of geographical units (often called Enumeration Areas, EAs) are thus sampled, with all households in these areas included in the first stage of the sampling. Then follows screening where all households in the selected areas are interviewed (normally the head of the household) using the WG 6 screening instrument.

Sampling in Zambia: Using a sampling frame provided by the Central Statistical Office covering all provinces in the country, a total of 2885 households with at least one disabled family member and 2866 households without disabled members were sampled; altogether 5751 households. The study design allows for the following types of comparisons: between individuals with and without disabilities, and between households with and without disabled family members.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

Questionnaires
The questionnaires applied in the studies were originally based on two previously applied instruments: A study on living conditions in the general population in Namibia (NPC 2000) and a national disability survey carried out in South Africa (Schneider et. al., 1999). Over the years, and in particular in the first couple of studies in Namibia and Zimbabwe, a lengthy process involving all stakeholders was carried out to align the content of the questionnaires with the context and priorities of particularly the disability movement. A disability-screening instrument was included, in the early phases drawing on the discourse preceding ICF, in later phases using the WG 6 screening instruments directly. The "ICF matrix" on activity limitations, participation restrictions and environmental barriers was also included

Four separate questionnaires are applied: i) Household study on living conditions - a set of core indicators of living conditions for all permanent members of the household (including control households) ii) Screening for disability; WG 6 iii) Detailed Questionnaire for people with disabilities including the Activity and Participation Matrix drawn from ICF iv) Detailed questionnaire to individuals without disability (controls)

The questionnaires are all developed in English language and translated into local language(es)

The generic household questionnaire covered the following topics: - Demography and Disease burden - Education and Literacy - Economic activities of household members - Reproductive Health of Females aged 12 to 49 years - Household amenities and housing conditions - Household access to facilities - Household asset ownership including land - Household Income and its main source - Household food production - Household monthly Expenditure and rankings - Death in the households

The detailed Disability Questionnaire covered the following topics: - Activity Limitations and Participation restrictions - Environmental factors - Health - Awareness, need and receipt of services - Education and employment / income - Assistive devices and technology - Accessibility in the home and surroundings - Inclusion in family and social life - Health and general well-being - Knowledge of HIV/AIDS, Malaria, TB and Diabetes.

The Control questionnaire for individuals without disabilities is a reduced version of the questionnaire applied to individuals with disability.

Cleaning operations

The research team is responsible for organizing data entry, cleaning and submission of the data file for analyses, which is carried out by SINTEF in collaboration with the local/national research group. A final report is then produced, followed by a dissemination workshop with high-level representation and press coverage.

Abstract

Disability and society: The last 20–30 years have seen an important change in our understanding of disability. From a previous individual perspective on causes and interventions, a social and civil rights approach has taken over. Much of the focus is now on the human and physical environment and how this might reduce or enhance an individual’s level of activity and social participation.

National policy development aimed at improving living conditions in general and among people with disabilities in particular is dependent on the availability of quality data. In many countries these have been lacking, and both the United Nations and National authorities have emphasised the need for this information in order to further develop disability policies.

Information about people with disabilities and their living conditions has the potential for contributing to an improvement of the situation faced by this group in many low-income countries, as has been demonstrated in high-income countries. The Studies on Living Conditions Among People with Activity Limitations in Developing Countries have been applied to inform policy development, for capacity building, awareness creation, and in specific advocacy processes to influence service delivery.

The studies have demonstrated that level of living conditions among disabled people is systematically lower than among non-disabled people. This implies that people with disabilities are denied the equal opportunities to participate and contribute to their society. It is in this context that people with disabilities are denied their human rights.

In Malawi, specific objectives were: - To develop a strategy and methodology for the collection of comprehensive, reliable and culturally adapted statistical data on living conditions among people with disabilities (with particular reference to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health - ICF) - To carry out a representative National survey on the living conditions among persons with disabilities in Malawi so as to provide the much needed data for policy influence and planning - To lay the groundwork for future and long-term data collection among persons with disabilities in Malawi - To develop a collaboration in order to improve and strengthen research on the situation of people with disabilities in Southern Africa, and - To assist in capacity building among Disabled Persons Organisations (DPOs) in Malawi and among government ministries and other disability stakeholders to utilise the research findings.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Households
• Individuals

Universe

The target population for sampling was all private households in Malawi excluding institutionalised and homeless people.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

A two-stage cluster sampling procedure was applied using the National sampling frame in each country, in close collaboration with the National statistical offices who also did sample size calculations to ensure representativity at regional/provincial level. A required number of geographical units (often called Enumeration Areas, EAs) are thus sampled, with all households in these areas included in the first stage of the sampling. Then follows screening where all households in the selected areas are interviewed (normally the head of the household) using the WG 6 screening instrument.

Sampling in Malawi: The sample size was worked out noting that in a survey of living conditions of people with disabilities, the data user would want to know the estimates of proportions of respondents sharing respective views on issues relating to disability. The characteristics requiring respondents' views in this study are many and each characteristic would have its own proportion of respondents responding in a particular manner. In this regard, the proportion would vary from characteristic to characteristic. Determination of sample number of respondents that would give a national estimate of the proportion at a given level of precision depends on the variance of the proportion and the sample design adopted. A characteristic with a proportion having a large variance would require a larger sample to arrive at an estimate of the proportion at national level at a given acceptable level of precision than that with a smaller variance. In order to avoid having varying sample sizes for given characteristics of people with disabilities under the study, the largest possible sample number of people with disabilities based on the largest possible variance that a proportion can have at a given level of precision under given sample design was calculated. The variance of a proportion being highest when the proportion equals 50%, the required sample number of disabled persons was calculated based on the assumption that the estimated proportion would take that value with a margin of error equal to plus or minus 3.5 percent at the 95 percent level of confidence. Since the sample, as will be illustrated later, was to be drawn in stages, the design effect was assumed to be equal to 2. The design effect is the effect on the variance of adopting a sampling procedure other than Simple Random Sampling (Bradley and South, 1981).The national sample size derived was made up of 1570 respondents.

The sampling frame that was utilized in this survey was obtained from the National Statistical Office (NSO). This frame was developed by NSO through the operations of the most recent population Census in Malawi conducted in 1998. Through a mapping exercise prior to the census, a total of 9206 Enumeration Areas were demarcated covering the whole country. The boundaries of these areas followed physical features such as rivers/streams, roads/paths, galleys, etc. and these enumeration areas were demarcated in such a way that during the census an enumerator would enumerate all the persons in a given enumeration area within maximum of 21 days. Each enumeration area is estimated to have approximately 300 households or an estimated 1,000 individuals. During the operations of the census, the number of persons as well as the number of households found to exist in each one of the enumeration areas was recorded. However, no list of names and location of the households within the respective enumeration areas were made. This was due to the problems which are inherent in Malawi as well as most developing countries in giving information leading to the location of a household especially in the rural areas. Malawi has a total of 28 Districts divided into Traditional Authorities (TAs). In rural areas, the Traditional Authority is the lowest units for which maps showing boundaries of the enumeration areas are available while in the cities areas called Wards are the lowest unit for which enumeration area maps are available.

Iit was calculated that a sample of 1570 persons with disabilities would be adequate to provide estimates of acceptable precision at the national level and the terms of reference dictated that there should be complete enumeration of all the people with disabilities in the sampled enumeration areas. The lowest level for which the available frame had information, as discussed above, was the enumeration area and the information comprised of only totals of persons and households. In addition, there was no information on the prevalence of persons with disabilities at the enumeration area level.

The study conducted by SINTEF Health Research and the University of Zimbabwe using the ICF definition of disability (Eide, Nhiwatiwa, Muderezi & Loeb, 2004) estimated the proportion of those disabled to be 1.9%; while the one conducted in Namibia (Eide, van Rooy & Loeb, 2003) estimated proportion of disabled in that country to be 1.6%. Lessons learnt from Namibia and Zimbabwe indicate, therefore, that utilizing the ICF definition, the prevalence of disabled persons in Malawi may be closer to the 2.9% estimate of 1983 (NSO, 1987). In the absence of information on the prevalence of disabled persons in Malawi at enumeration area level, it was assumed that the prevalence of disabled persons in each enumeration area would be 3%. Hence, in order to be able to sample and budget for the study, it was assumed that an enumeration area would contain on average 3% of its total number of households having at least a member with a disability. Based on this assumption and considering an average of approximately 300 households per enumeration area, it was calculated that the household with at least one disabled person would on average equal to 10 in an enumeration area. Considering the coverage of 1570 disabled persons, and that an enumeration area would contain on average 10 households with at least one disabled member, a sample of 157 enumeration areas were planned to be covered in the study within which all persons identified to have a disability were to be interviewed.

Each one of the districts (Likoma Island was excluded for logistical reasons) as well as each of the three cities in Malawi formed a stratum. The total sample of 157 enumeration areas was allocated to the respective strata in proportion to the population of the stratum and the distribution thereof. The selection of the allocated number of enumeration areas within each stratum was done with probability proportional to size prior to the commencement of the data collection exercise. The size measure was the human population of the enumeration areas as found in the 1998 population census.

Apart from enumerating all households having at least a person with a disability in a selected enumeration area (Cases) a similar number of households (designated as minimum 10 per enumeration area) without any disabled persons (Controls) should also be

Disability status, global disability severity class and labour force status by First Nations people living off reserve, Métis and Inuit, age group and gender, population aged 15 years and over, Canada, provinces and territories.

Percentage of Disabled Persons Living Alone in Private Households by Disability Type, Province County or City, CensusYear, Statistic, Sex and Age Group

View data using web pages

Download .px file (Software required)