Comparing Measures Of Functional Difficulty With Self-Identified Disability: Implications For Health Policy

Associations between disability status and stressors experienced due to the COVID-19 pandemic among women with a recent live birth, 2020

BACKGROUND

Women with disability face more stressors around the time of pregnancy than women without disability. Limited research exists on stressors experienced due to the COVID-19 pandemic among pregnant and postpartum women with and without disability.

OBJECTIVE

Examine the association between disability status and experiencing certain COVID-19 stressors among women with a recent live birth.

METHODS

We analyzed Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System data from 14 jurisdictions implementing the Disability and Maternal COVID-19 Experiences supplement surveys among women with a live birth from June-December 2020. We examined the prevalence of 12 individual stressors and seven stressor types (any stressor, economic, housing, childcare, food insecurity, mental health, and partner-related), by disability status. For each stressor type, we calculated adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) using logistic regression to determine if women with disability were more likely to experience particular stressor types, controlling for respondent age, education, race and ethnicity, marital status, and payment at delivery.

RESULTS

Among 5961 respondents, 6.3 % reported a disability. Compared with women without disability, those with disability were more likely to experience any stressor (aPR 1.19, 95 % CI 1.14-1.24), including economic (aPR 1.38, 95 % CI 1.23-1.56), housing (aPR 1.56, 95 % CI 1.09-2.24), childcare (aPR 1.32, 95 % CI 1.11-1.58), food insecurity (aPR 2.18, 95 % CI 1.72-2.78), mental health (aPR 1.49, 95 % CI 1.37-1.62), and partner-related stressors (aPR 2.00, 95 % CI 1.55-2.58).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings highlight the challenges experienced by pregnant and postpartum women with disability during public health emergencies and considerations for this population in preparedness planning.

Prevalence of Chronic Health Conditions Among People With Disabilities in the United States

OBJECTIVE

Report chronic health conditions are common among adults with disabilities to inform prevention and management efforts in public health.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This article reports on secondary analysis of 2022 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey.

PARTICIPANTS

Cases with a disability within the BRFSS 2022 dataset were identified by selecting any case that answered "yes" to any of the ACS-6. The BRFSS only includes non-institutionalized individuals 18 years or older.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Statistics reported include weighted unadjusted prevalence of any chronic health condition among adults with a disability by type of disability and other selected demographic characteristics, weighted unadjusted prevalence estimates for individuals with chronic health conditions by age group and disability type, and prevalence ratios across groups.

RESULTS

Review of the proportions between disability types within demographic strata revealed those with self-care and those with independent living disabilities consistently had the highest, and those with hearing and those with vision-related disabilities had the lowest prevalence of any chronic health condition. Across all age and disability groups, arthritis and depression were among the most common chronic health conditions. Prevalence differences among racial groups in younger age groups were not present among the 65+ age group.

CONCLUSION

These prevalence estimates can inform health education and chronic health management efforts to support targeted prevention and intervention programs.

Effects of Medicare Eligibility at Age 65 Among Individuals With and Without Functional Disability

BACKGROUND

Medicare coverage at age 65 improves access to and use of care and alleviates financial hardship for the general population. However, less is known whether the effects differ between individuals without and with functional disability.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of Medicare eligibility at age 65 on health insurance coverage, financial burden of care, and access to care among individuals without and with functional disability.

DESIGN

We used a regression discontinuity design, which exploits the discontinuity in eligibility for Medicare at age 65 and compares individuals just before and after age 65.

PARTICIPANTS

Our analysis included 19,876 individuals (aged 59-71) without functional disability and 8376 individuals with functional disability from the 2014-2021 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.

MAIN MEASURES

We assessed health insurance coverage, financial burden of care, and access to care.

RESULTS

Medicare eligibility led to increases in any and Medicare coverage for both groups, but those with functional disability had a decrease in Medicaid coverage by - 2.6 percentage points. Medicare eligibility resulted in lower financial burden of care for both groups, but the effects were greater among those with functional disability (- $578 vs. - $344 for out-of-pocket spending, - 3.7 vs. - 4.9 percentage points for cost-sharing, and - 2.5 vs. - 0.8 percentage points for paying medical bills over time). Although Medicare eligibility led to a decrease in delayed medical care among those without functional disability (- 2.1 percentage points), no change was observed among those with functional disability. Notably, access to care remained limited among those with functional disability after obtaining Medicare eligibility (8.6% and 3.9% for being unable to get medical care and experiencing delay in getting medical care).

CONCLUSION

Medicare coverage can reduce financial hardship, especially for individuals with functional disability. However, there is a need to develop policies that ensure equitable access to care for those with functional disability.

A year of disability health equity milestones: Why disability data is still needed

Three milestone disability health equity related decisions occurred between September 2023 and May 2024. Though each is to be celebrated in its own right, the continued failure to collect and/or limitations with disability data block the path to achieving disability health equity in the US.

Foot reflexology in autoimmune diseases: Effectiveness and mechanisms

Foot reflexology (FR) is a Chinese-originated and non-invasive complementary therapy increasingly used by functional, alternative and para-medical professionals. Enhance attempts are made to study FR in non-functional organic conditions. The present invited Editorial discusses the application of FR in autoimmune diseases (AD), highlighting a few successful studies demonstrating symptomatic relief and objective improvements. Despite promising results, the FR domain remains under-investigated and an urgent need to confirm and understand the effect of FR in chronic diseases, including AD, is highly recommended.

Pregnancy Intendedness by Presence and Extent of Disability in the USA, 2019-2020

CONTEXT

Over 40% of pregnancies in the United States are unintended. Women with unintended pregnancies may be less likely to receive timely prenatal care and engage in healthy behaviors immediately before and during pregnancy. Limited research suggests that women with disabilities are more likely to have an unintended pregnancy, but to date no studies have assessed whether intendedness varies by extent of disability.

METHODS

We analyzed 2019-2020 PRAMS data from 22 sites that included the Washington Group Short Set of Questions on Disability (n = 37,832). We examined associations of extent of disability (none, some difficulty, or a lot of difficulty) with pregnancy intendedness (classified as intended, mistimed, unwanted, or unsure). We used multinomial logistic regression to calculate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) while controlling for sociodemographic characteristics.

RESULTS

Overall, 60.1% of pregnancies were intended, 18.2% mistimed, 6.4% unwanted, and 15.3% unsure. Compared to respondents with no difficulty, respondents with some difficulty or a lot of difficulty were more likely to report a mistimed pregnancy (aOR = 1.55, 95%CI 1.40,1.71; aOR = 1.62, 95%CI 1.34,1.95), an unwanted pregnancy (aOR = 1.92, 95%CI 1.66,2.24; aOR = 2.20; 95%CI 1.72,2.82), and unsure intendedness (aOR = 1.61, 95%CI 1.45,1.79; aOR = 1.75, 95%CI 1.45,2.11), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

People with disabilities who give birth, regardless of extent of disability, had elevated odds of mistimed and unwanted pregnancy and of being unsure of their pregnancy intendedness. Our findings support the use of more inclusive measures of disability and emphasize the need for equitable reproductive healthcare that respects the childbearing potential and choices of individuals with disabilities.

Comparative performance of disability measures

Researchers and federal agencies are currently discussing the best way to measure disability in US federal surveys. One idea being discussed is expanding/supplementing the question sets commonly used to capture disability status in order to better capture a broader segment of the disabled population. We used data from the 2010-2018 National Health Interview Survey to examine the performance of questions commonly used to measure disability in the US-the ACS-6 and Washington Group Short Set questions-in capturing intellectual and developmental disabilities, mental health disabilities, and physical health disabilities. We found that neither set of disability questions was sufficient to fully capture these disability statuses. We contend that current disability questions used in US population surveys must be expanded/supplemented in order to increase the inclusiveness of disability measurement, and thereby, improve efforts to reduce disparities experienced by the disabled population.

Housing stability for households with LTSS needs in America: Contrasting pre-pandemic housing data from 2017 with data from 2021

BACKGROUND

Economically insecure people with disabilities are often forced to choose between health and housing. Housing instability in the form of mortgage, rent delinquency, or missing utility payments can adversely affect the health and well-being of people with disabilities and, specifically, people with LTSS needs.

OBJECTIVE

Our study investigates the disparity in housing stability for LTSS households and non-LTSS disability households in comparison to non-disability households. We also investigate the differences in housing stability indicators between 2017 and 2021 (during COVID-19) to assess the potential impact of the COVID-19 crisis on housing instability. Finally, we conducted a stratified analysis to investigate the intricate relationship between LTSS needs and aging.

METHODS

We used data from the American Housing Survey (AHS) from 2017 to 2021 to conduct a logistic regression analysis to examine housing instability for households with members with LTSS needs. We also conducted a stratified logistic regression analysis, with data stratified by age groups, to investigate whether this relationship varied across different age groups.

RESULTS

LTSS households faced housing instability in 2017 and 2021, with higher odds of missing mortgage, rent, and utility payments. Compared to 2017, LTSS households in 2021 face marginally lower odds of missing mortgage and utility payments but higher odds of missing rent.

CONCLUSION

We need sustained policy intervention to reduce housing instability for LTSS and non-LTSS households. Some policies employed during the COVID-19 crisis at both federal and state levels may have reduced housing instability for the LTSS and non-LTSS disability households.

Prevalence of Adverse Childhood Experience Exposure by Disability Status

This cross-sectional study uses a population-based dataset to examine the prevalence of adverse childhood experiences in people with many different types of disability.

Internal Medicine Program Directors' Perceptions About Accommodating Residents with Disabilities: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

While 26% of US adults are disabled, only 3.1 to 9.3% of practicing physicians report having a disability. Ableism within medical training and practice diminishes physician diversity and wellbeing and contributes to healthcare disparities.

OBJECTIVE

Explore physician barriers to disability equity and inclusion by examining internal medicine (IM) program directors' (PD) perspectives about recruiting and accommodating residents with disabilities (RWD).

DESIGN

Qualitative study involving semi-structured virtual interviews (conducted December 2022-September 2023; analyzed through December 2023).

PARTICIPANTS

PDs were recruited via email. Purposive sampling captured program diversity in size, location, and affiliations. Convenience sampling ensured PD diversity by gender, race/ethnicity, and age.

APPROACH

Coders analyzed thematic and discursive content of interview transcripts to characterize PD perspectives about RWDs and accommodations.

KEY RESULTS

Of the 15 programs represented, 4 had ≤ 49 and 8 had ≥ 100 total residents. Three were community-based; the rest had academic affiliations. On average, PDs had 17 (SD 8.2) years in practice. Most (11/15) identified as White race; 8/15 as female; and none as disabled. PDs characterized disability as a source of grit and empathy but also as an intrinsic deficit. They worried RWDs could have unpredictable absences and clinical incompetencies. Perceived accommodation challenges included inexperience, workload distribution, information asymmetry about accommodation needs or options, barriers to disclosure (e.g., discrimination concerns), and insufficient accommodation advertising. Perceived facilitators included advanced planning; clear, publicized processes; and access to expertise (e.g., occupational health, ombudsmen).

CONCLUSIONS

PDs held contradictory views of RWDs. PD insights revealed opportunities to alleviate PD-RWD information asymmetry in recruitment/accommodation processes, which could help align needs and improve representation and inclusion.

The First Use of the Washington Group Short Set in a National Survey of Japan: Characteristics of the New Disability Measure in Comparison to an Existing Disability Measure

A Japanese national representative survey-the comprehensive survey of living conditions (CSLC)-included the Washington Group Short Set (WGSS) in 2022. This study aimed to characterize the WGSS in comparison to an existing disability measure (EDM), regarding the difference between disability prevalence defined by these two measures and the factors attributable to disagreements between them. A cross-sectional analysis using secondary data from the CSLC (n = 32,212) was conducted. The disability prevalences and their ratios (WGSS to EDM) were computed overall and by demographic sub-groups. Binomial logistic regression analyses were performed to explore factors relating to disagreements that functioned to relatively lower/increase the prevalence defined by the WGSS. Consequently, the prevalences defined by the WGSS and EDM were 10.7% (95% confidence interval (CI): 10.4-11.1) and 13.1% (95%CI: 12.7-13.5), respectively. The ratios by the sub-groups were around 0.80-0.90, with the exception of the age-defined sub-group, whose ratios were 0.63 (older sub-group) to 1.23 (child sub-group). Age was the only independent factor associated with two types of disagreements: older age (odds ratios: 1.23-1.80) was associated with disagreement functioning to relatively lower the prevalence defined by the WGSS, and similarly, younger age (ORs: 1.42-2.79) increased the figure. The WGSS may be characterized as being less susceptible to the influence of aging compared to the EDM.

Repeal of Subminimum Wages and Social Determinants of Health Among People With Disabilities

Importance

People with disabilities experience pervasive health disparities driven by adverse social determinants of health, such as unemployment. Section 14(c) of the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act has been a controversial policy that allows people with disabilities to be paid below the prevailing minimum wage, but its impact on employment remains unknown despite ongoing national debates about its repeal.

Objective

To estimate whether state-level repeal of Section 14(c) was associated with employment-related outcomes for people with cognitive disability.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This quasi-experimental, synthetic difference-in-differences study used individual-level data from the 2010-2019 American Community Surveys. Outcomes before and after subminimum wage law repeal in 2 states (New Hampshire and Maryland) that repealed Section 14(c) were compared with a synthetic group of control states that did not implement repeal. Individuals aged 18 to 45 years who reported having a cognitive disability were included. Data were analyzed from May 2023 to May 2024.

Exposure

Repeal of Section 14(c) in New Hampshire (2015) and Maryland (2016).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcomes were labor force participation and employment rates. Secondary outcomes were annual wages, annual hours worked, hourly wages, and proportion earning above state minimum wage among employed individuals.

Results

The sample included 450 838 individuals. Of these, 253 157 (55.7%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 31.3 (8.4) years. In state-specific analyses, New Hampshire's labor force participation and employment had a statistically significant increase by 5.2 percentage points (β = 0.05; 95% CI, 0-0.10; P = .04) and 7 percentage points (β = 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01-0.13; P = .03), respectively, following Section 14(c) repeal. Labor force participation and employment both increased in Maryland, although estimates were not statistically significant. Pooling both states, Section 14(c) repeal was associated with a statistically significant 4.7-percentage point (β = 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01-0.08; P = .01) increase in labor force participation and a nonsignificant 4.3-percentage point (β = 0.04; 95% CI, 0-0.09; P = .07) increase in employment.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, repeal of Section 14(c), a policy allowing subminimum wages for people with disabilities, led to increases in labor force participation, though with heterogeneity at the state level. These findings suggest the importance of state-level factors in shaping program effects, especially as national-level Section 14(c) repeal is being debated.

The hidden crisis: Long COVID's association with housing stability and home accessibility among people with disabilities

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has given rise to the emerging phenomenon known as Long COVID, characterized by persistent symptoms long after the acute infection has passed. However, the relationship of Long COVID on housing stability and home accessibility remains underexplored.

OBJECTIVE

This manuscript aims to comprehensively examine the association of Long COVID on housing stability and accessibility, identifying challenges faced by people with Long COVID and potential strategies to address them.

METHODS

The study employs a cross-sectional mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative methods. It analyzes data from 1533 people with disabilities, 514 with Long COVID and 1019 without Long COVID, to compare demographics, housing stability, financial concerns, housing problems, and home accessibility. Qualitative analysis extracts thematic insights from 13 participant narratives.

RESULTS

Individuals with Long COVID exhibit significantly higher rates of housing instability (21.1 % v. 8.1 %, p < 0.001) and financial concerns, such as worries about high rent or mortgage (50.4 % v. 40.0 %, p < 0.001), compared to those without Long COVID. They also report more frequent issues with pests (30.0 % v. 23.5 %, p < 0.01) and mold (22.0 % v. 12.7 %, p < 0.001) in their homes. Qualitative analysis reveals financial setbacks, difficulties in obtaining support, and the challenges of home accessibility.

CONCLUSIONS

Associations between Long COVID and challenges related to housing stability and home accessibility highlight the need for systemic changes, financial support, and advocacy. This research contributes to understanding Long COVID's challenges, informing policy development, and promoting compassionate responses, ensuring the well-being of people with Long COVID.

Experiences of Discrimination Among Women and Gender Diverse Veterans Using Veterans Health Administration Health Care

Introduction

Women Veterans are diverse in terms of racial, ethnic, and gender identities and sexual orientation and may experience a variety of forms of discrimination and stigma in health care settings. Our objective was to understand discrimination experienced by women Veterans in the context of Veterans Health Administration (VA) care.

Methods

We analyzed data from a series of semistructured telephone interviews with Veterans identified as females in the VA medical record who received VA health care in the past 12 months, purposively sampled by race/ethnicity and age (N = 28). The interview guide elicited experiences with VA health care, including discrimination. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using inductive and deductive content analysis.

Results

We identified themes regarding structural discrimination, interpersonal discrimination, and strategies employed in response to discrimination. Veterans described structural discrimination, including challenges with spaces not designed to accommodate disabilities or safety needs and care not sensitive to their gender, trauma histories, or sexual orientation. Interpersonal discrimination included harassment from other Veterans and biased treatment from VA providers and staff based on gender, appearance, and sexual orientation. Gender-based discrimination compounded across additional axes of marginalization including body size and stigma regarding mental illness. Experiences of discrimination undermined Veterans' sense of belonging and trust in VA and created barriers to accessing care. Veterans engaged in various strategies to protect themselves from discrimination and get needed care.

Discussion

Quality improvement efforts that address the experience of women Veterans using VA health care must consider multiple forms and sources of discrimination and the intersection of gender-based discrimination with other forms of marginalization.

Counting everyone: evidence for inclusive measures of disability in federal surveys

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.

Disability inclusion in national surveys

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.

Disability Mortality Disparity: Risk Of Mortality For Disabled Adults Nearly Twice That For Nondisabled Adults, 2008-19

After years of advocacy by the disability community and allied organizations, on September 26, 2023, the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) designated disabled people as a health disparities population in the US. During its deliberations, the NIMHD emphasized that there was not sufficient empirical evidence on health disparities between disabled and nondisabled adults. My study addressed this gap by examining 2008-19 data from the National Health Interview Survey Linked Mortality Files on people ages eighteen and older to identify, categorize, and quantify disparities in mortality risk among disabled and nondisabled adults. The risk of mortality during the study period was 1.9 times higher overall for disabled compared with nondisabled adults. The risk increased with the number of reported disabilities and varied by disability category. These findings underscore the need to improve access to high-quality, evidence-based health care among disabled people. To gain a full understanding of the scope of disparity and the interventions needed to mitigate it, it is critical to develop more equitable and inclusive measures of disability and ableism for use in population health surveys.

Unmet needs for long-term services and supports and associations with health outcomes

BACKGROUND

The availability of population-level data on unmet needs for long-term services and supports (LTSS) is limited at state and national levels. Data on unmet LTSS needs can improve our understanding of disparities and relationships with health outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

1) Explore differences in unmet LTSS needs by socio-demographic characteristics, including age, sex, race/ethnicity, metropolitan status, sexual orientation, and socio-economic status; and 2) Examine associations between unmet LTSS needs and health/preventative healthcare outcomes.

METHODS

We used the 2021 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) core survey and state-added LTSS questions to analyze a sample of adults with LTSS needs in Texas (N = 1232). We compared socio-demographic characteristics between adults with and without unmet LTSS needs. We conducted modified-Poisson regressions to estimate unadjusted and adjusted risk ratios (with 95 % confidence intervals) for each health/preventative healthcare outcome among adults with unmet LTSS needs. Health outcomes included health status, healthy days-physical health, healthy days-mental health, suicide ideation, and multiple chronic conditions. Preventative healthcare outcomes included routine check-up and flu vaccine.

RESULTS

Among adults with LTSS needs, those with unmet LTSS needs were statistically significantly more likely to be younger (age<65), female, higher educational attainment, and non-straight sexual orientation. After controlling for socio-demographic variables, having unmet needs for LTSS was significantly associated with poorer physical and mental health outcomes and suicide ideation.

CONCLUSIONS

Improved data collection on unmet needs LTSS can assist policymakers, particularly at the state level in guiding reforms to reduce disparities in access to home and community-based services (HCBS) and improve health outcomes.

Association of Disability Status and Type With Binge Drinking and Prescription Opioid Misuse Among Adults From a 3-State Sample

BACKGROUND

Research examining at-risk substance use by disability status is limited, with little investigation into differences by disability type. We investigated binge drinking and prescription opioid misuse among adults with and without disabilities, and by type of disability, to inform need for assessment and intervention within these populations.

METHODS

Secondary analyses of adults who completed the disability, alcohol, and prescription opioid misuse items in the 2018 Ohio, Florida, or Nebraska Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys (n = 28 341), the only states that included prescription opioid misuse in 2018. Self-reported disability status (yes/no) relied on 6 standardized questions assessing difficulties with: vision, hearing, mobility, cognition, self-care, and independent living (dichotomous, nonmutually exclusive, for each disability). Logistic regression models estimated the association of disability status and type with (1) past 30-day binge drinking and (2) past-year prescription opioid misuse. Additional models were restricted to separate subsamples of adults who: (a) currently drink, (b) received a past-year prescription opioid, and (c) did not receive a past-year prescription opioid.

RESULTS

One-third reported at least one disability, with mobility (19.5%), cognitive (11.5%), and hearing (10.2%) disability being the most common. Disability status was associated with lower odds of binge drinking (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.80, P ≤ .01). However, among adults who currently drink, people with disabilities had higher odds of binge drinking (AOR = 1.11, 95% CI 1.01-1.22, P ≤ .05]. Disability was associated with higher odds of past-year prescription opioid misuse (AOR = 2.51, 95% CI 2.17-2.91, P ≤ .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Adults with disabilities had higher odds of prescription opioid misuse, and among adults who currently drink, higher odds for binge drinking were observed. The magnitude of the association between disability status and prescription opioid misuse was particularly concerning. Providers should be trained to screen and treat for substance use problems for people with disabilities.

Measuring disability among U.S. adolescents and young adults: A survey measurement experiment

Objective

Disability is identified in surveys using various question sets, with little understanding of reliability across these measures, nor how these estimates may vary across age groups, including adolescents and young adults (AYA). The purpose of this study was to assess AYA prevalence of disability using two disability question sets and reliability of these measures.

Methods

AYA participants in the Policy and Communication Evaluation (PACE) Vermont Study completed a single-item disability question used in the National Survey on Health and Disability (NSHD) and Urban Institute's Health Reform Monitoring Survey (HRMS) and a six-item set on functioning (Washington Group-Short Set, WG-SS) from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) in 2021. Prevalence was estimated for any disability and each disability domain in adolescents (ages 12-17) and young adults (ages 18-25) and compared with U.S. national estimates in NHIS and NSDUH.

Results

Using the WG-SS, the prevalence of any disability was 17.0 % in PACE Vermont adolescents and 22.0 % in young adults, consistent with the national prevalence of adolescents in NSDUH (17.9 %) but higher than estimates of young adults in NHIS (3.9 %) and NSDUH (12.9 %). The single-item question provided lower estimates of disability (adolescents: 6.9 %; young adults: 18.5 %) than the WG-SS, with low positive agreement between measures.

Discussion

The prevalence of disability in AYAs varies depending on measures used. To improve disability surveillance, it may be necessary to validate new disability questions, including among AYAs, to capture a broader range of disability domains.

More than a mask: Possible relationships between lifting of COVID-19 mask requirements and depression symptoms experienced by US adults with disabilities

BACKGROUND

Lifting of masking restrictions at key periods during the COVID-19 pandemic may have disproportionately negatively impacted the mental health of individuals with disabilities.

OBJECTIVE

This study examines the prevalence of depression-related symptoms in individuals with and without disabilities preceding and following the US rollback of COVID-19 masking mandates.

METHODS

Pandemic-era data on reported symptoms of depression from the federal Household Pulse Survey from dates surrounding two major announcements on masking relaxations were analyzed. Possible interactions between disability status and type, age grouping, educational attainment, race/Hispanic ethnicity, and sex variables were considered.

RESULTS

Following relaxation of major masking restrictions, people with disabilities experienced elevation in depression symptom presence while people without disabilities experienced lessening in these symptoms. Differences between people with and without disabilities were significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct causation between masking mandate relaxations and changes in symptoms of depression cannot be drawn from the available data. However, when considered with greater vulnerabilities to COVID-19 experienced by many individuals with disabilities and dismissive rhetoric surrounding masking decisions, negative feelings arising from mandate changes may have led to elevations in symptoms of depression in people with disabilities in sharp contrast to people without disabilities who may have felt relief. Findings indicate future public health decision making, even in times of crisis, should be undertaken with as much caution as possible regarding and in partnership with populations already at risk.

Counting disability in the National Health Interview Survey and its consequence: Comparing the American Community Survey to the Washington Group disability measures

BACKGROUND

The objective of the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) is to provide data that can be used to monitor the health of the US population.

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we evaluate whether the disability questions currently used in the NHIS - the Washington Group questions - threaten the ability of this survey to fulfil its stated objective for disabled people.

METHODS

Data were from the 2011-2012 NHIS with linkage to mortality status through 2019. We examined whether people who reported a disability in the American Community Survey disability questions had their disability counted in the Washington Group questions. We then examined the consequence of use of the Washington Group as opposed to the American Community Survey questions, on estimates of disability prevalence and comparative mortality risk.

RESULTS

We find that when compared to their predecessor, the American Community Survey disability questions, the Washington Group questions accounted for less than half of disabled people, primarily counting disabled people with more than one disability status, but not counting many disabled people with only one disability status. As a result of this undercount, disability prevalence rates based on the Washington Group questions underestimate the size of the disabled population in the US, and overestimate the comparatively higher mortality risk associated with disability status.

CONCLUSIONS

These results underscore the need to re-evaluate the disability questions used in the NHIS, and invest in the development of improved and expanded disability questionnaires for use in national surveys.

Variation in identifying children and adolescents with disability and developmental disability in population-based public health surveys

BACKGROUND

The term "developmental disability" (DD) is inconsistently defined and applied depending on purpose and across sources, including in legislation.

OBJECTIVE

This project aimed to identify existing definitions of disability and DD and to determine the extent to which each definition could be operationalized to produce prevalence estimates using data from U.S. national surveys.

METHODS

Using data among children <18 years from the 2016-2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH), we estimated the prevalence of two definitions of disability (Washington Group Short Set on Functioning, American Community Survey) and seven definitions of DD [Health and Human Services (ever/current), Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (1+, 2+, or 3+ components), and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed (ever/current)]. Complex sample design variables and weights were used to calculate nationally representative prevalence.

RESULTS

Disability (NHIS: 5.2-6.3%; NSCH: 9.2-11.9%) and DD prevalence (NHIS: 0.6-18.0% and NSCH: 0.2-22.2%) varied depending on the definition and data source. For the same definition, NSCH prevalence estimates tended to be higher than NHIS estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

The substantial variability in estimated prevalence of disability and DD among children in the United States may be in part due to the surveys not representing all components of each definition. Different or additional questions in national surveys may better capture existing definitions of disability and DD. Considering the data collection goals may help determine the optimal definition to provide useful information for public health action.

Pre-Pregnancy Health Risks by Presence and Extent of Disability, 2019-2020

INTRODUCTION

Prior studies have shown that, compared to non-disabled women, women with disabilities have a higher burden of preconception mental and physical health risks that are associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. This cross-sectional study assesses how the extent of disability relates to pre-pregnancy health risks.

METHODS

This study used 2019-2020 PRAMS data from 22 sites that included the Washington Group Short Set of Questions on Disability (n=37,006). In 2023, associations between extent of disability (none [reference group], some difficulty, or a lot of difficulty) and preconception health risks were examined using multivariable Poisson regression with robust standard errors to calculate adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) and 95% CIs while controlling for sociodemographic characteristics. Preconception health risks included smoking, heavy drinking, high blood pressure, diabetes, no multivitamin use, and experiencing physical abuse, depression, or obesity. Individual risks were analyzed, as well as the total number of risks experienced.

RESULTS

Of respondents, 33.6% had some difficulty and 6.3% had a lot of difficulty. The likelihood of experiencing preconception health risks increased with extent of disability. Compared to respondents with no difficulty, those with some or a lot of difficulty had a higher prevalence of experiencing 1-2 health risks (aPR=1.13, 95% CI 1.09, 1.18; aPR=1.20; 95% CI 1.53, 2.25) and 3+ health risks (aPR=1.86, 95% CI 1.53, 2.25; aPR=2.42, 95% CI 1.98, 2.97), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Disabled women, especially those with more difficulty, are vulnerable to preconception health risks that could potentially be mitigated before conception. These findings highlight the need for enhanced efforts to support preconception health of disabled women.

Trends in past-month cannabis use among US adults across a range of disabilities and health conditions, 2015-2019

INTRODUCTION

While there is increasing interest in the use of cannabis to manage a range of health-related symptoms, little is known about trends in recent cannabis use with respect to various health conditions.

METHODS

We examined data from a US representative sample of noninstitutionalized adults age ≥ 18 from the 2015-2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (N = 214,505). We estimated the pooled prevalences followed by linear time trends, overall, and by disability (i.e., difficulty hearing, seeing, thinking, walking, dressing, doing errands) and lifetime (i.e., bronchitis, cancer, diabetes, hepatitis, kidney disease) and current (i.e., asthma, depression, heart disease, hypertension) health condition status using logistic regression. Models with year-by-condition status interaction terms were used to assess differential time trends, adjusting for demographic characteristics.

RESULTS

From 2015 to 2019, cannabis use increased significantly among adults with and without each disability and health condition examined. However, the increase was more rapid among those with (versus without) difficulty hearing (89.8% increase [4.9% to 9.3%] vs. 37.9% increase [8.7% to 12.0%], p = 0.015), difficulty walking (84.1% increase [6.3% to 11.6%] vs. 36.8% increase [8.7% to 11.9%], p < 0.001), 2-3 impairments (75.3% increase [9.3% to 16.3%] vs. 36.6% increase [8.2% to 11.2%], p = 0.041), and kidney disease (135.3% increase [3.4% to 8.0%] vs. 38.4% increase [8.6% to 11.9%], p = 0.045).

CONCLUSION

Given the potential adverse effects of cannabis, prevention and harm reduction efforts should focus on groups at increasingly higher risk for use, including those with disabilities and kidney disease.

Access to Reproductive Health Services Among People With Disabilities

Importance

People with disabilities face inequitable access to reproductive health (RH) services, yet the national prevalence of barriers to access experienced across disability types and statuses is unknown.

Objective

To assess the national prevalence of barriers to RH access experienced by people with disabilities.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study analyzed results of an online probability-based national survey of RH experiences that was conducted from December 2021 to January 2022. The national sample consisted of English- and Spanish-speaking panel members of a market research firm. Panelists were invited to participate in a survey on their RH experiences and opinions. These participants were aged 15 to 49 years and assigned female at birth (AFAB). Weighted proportions were estimated, and bivariable and multivariable regression analyses were performed to assess associations between disability status and barriers to accessing RH services.

Exposure

Using 5 of the 6 Washington Group Short Set on Functioning items, 8 dichotomous disability indicators were created: (1) vision, (2) hearing, (3) mobility, (4) activities of daily living, (5) communication, (6) overall disability status (a lot or more difficulty functioning in ≥1 domain), (7) some difficulty functioning (below the disability threshold; some or more difficulty functioning in ≥1 domain), and (8) multiple disabilities (a lot or more difficulty functioning in ≥2 domains).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Number and types of barriers (logistical, access, cost, privacy, and interpersonal relationship) to accessing RH services in the past 3 years.

Results

After exclusion, the final sample included 6956 people AFAB, with a mean (SD) age of 36.0 (8.3) years. Of these participants, 8.5% (95% CI, 7.6%-9.5%) met the disability threshold. Participants with disabilities compared with those without disabilities were disproportionately more likely to be non-Hispanic Black (18.8% [95% CI, 14.4%-24.1%] vs 13.2% [95% CI, 11.9%-14.5%]) or Hispanic or Latinx (completed survey in English: 18.1% [95% CI, 14.0%-23.0%] vs 14.6% [95% CI, 13.3%-16.0%]; completed survey in Spanish: 8.9% [95% CI, 6.2%-12.8%] vs 6.2% [95% CI, 5.4%-7.1%]) individuals, to identify as LGBTQAI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer [or questioning], asexual [or allied], intersex; 16.4% [95% CI, 12.3%-21.6%] vs 11.8% [95% CI, 10.6%-13.1%]), to live below the federal poverty level (27.3% [95% CI, 22.3%-32.8%] vs 10.7% [95% CI, 9.7%-11.9%]), and to ever experienced medical mistreatment (49.6% [95% CI, 43.7%-55.5%] vs 36.5% [95% CI, 34.8%-38.2%]). Among those who had ever tried to access RH services (n = 6027), people with disabilities vs without disabilities were more likely to experience barriers (69.0% [95% CI, 62.9%-74.5%] vs 43.0% [95% CI, 41.2%-44.9%]), which were most often logistical (50.7%; 95% CI, 44.2%-57.2%) and access (49.9%; 95% CI, 43.4%-56.4%) barriers. The disability domains with the highest proportion of people who experienced 3 or more barriers in the past 3 years included activities of daily living (75.3%; 95% CI, 61.1%-85.6%), communication (65.1%; 95% CI, 49.5%-78.1%), and multiple (59.9%; 95% CI, 45.6%-72.7%) disabilities.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cross-sectional study found large disparities in access to RH services among people AFAB with disabilities. Findings indicated a need to alleviate barriers to RH care, including improving the transportation infrastructure and reinforcing patient-centered approaches that engender inclusivity in health care settings.

Impairment and Disability Identity and Perceptions of Trust, Respect, and Fairness

Importance

Most studies use impaired functioning alone to specify populations with disabilities. However, some people with functional impairments do not identify as disabled. With functional status-based definitions, studies have shown disparate care quality for people with disabilities.

Objective

To examine whether impairment and disability identity have different associations with perceived health care experiences and explore factors associated with disability identification.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study used a nationally representative survey of US adults conducted from April 20 through May 31, 2021, and analyzed between June 1 and August 31, 2022. Survey participants were 1822 English- or Spanish-speaking adults responding either online or via telephone.

Exposures

Using 8 survey questions, participants were grouped according to presence of impairment and disability identity.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Likert scale measures of trust, respect, and fairness (henceforth, procedural justice measures) were dichotomized. Sociodemographic characteristics and rates of procedural justice responses were compared across groups. Multivariable logistic regressions adjusting for baseline characteristics were performed to (1) estimate associations of impairment and disability identity with perceptions of procedural justice and (2) explore factors associated with disability identification. Analyses applied survey weights.

Results

Of 6126 individuals invited to participate, 1854 (30.3%) completed the survey. Thirty-two were excluded due to unreportable gender, for a final analytic sample of 1822 participants. Participants with impairments (n = 816; mean [SD] age, 48.1 [17.0] years; 51.2% women, 48.8% men) had worse perceptions on 7 of 10 procedural justice measures (crude) compared with those without impairments (n = 1006; mean [SD] age, 49.6 [18.1] years, 55.1% female, 44.9% male). Among respondents with impairments, those who did (n = 340) vs did not (n = 476) identify as disabled gave better ratings for clinician communication efforts (a lot of effort, 38.8% vs 31.0%) and having health goals understood (understood very or fairly well, 77.2% vs 70.1%) but gave worse ratings for respect (almost never felt inferior or talked down to, 66.1% vs 59.1%). Disability identification was associated with more reports of unfair treatment (31.0% vs 22.4%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.12-2.42) and of being unafraid to ask questions or disagree (50.5% vs 40.1%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.04-20.19). Income and employment were associated with disability identification.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional survey study of US adults, health care perceptions differed between groups defined by impairment status and disability identity. These findings suggest that, alongside functional measures, health systems should capture disability identity to better address disparities for people with impairments.

It’s time for the NIH to formally designate people with disabilities as a US health disparity population

This commentary discusses the implications of the report and recommendations of the Working Group on Diversity's Subgroup on Individuals with Disabilities, recently endorsed by the full Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). We suggest that one of these recommendations, the formal designation of people with disabilities as a US health disparity population, can be enacted immediately, which would spur new federal investment in disability-based disparities research.

Prevalence and sociodemographic characteristics of US community-dwelling older adults with communication disabilities, using the national health and aging trends survey

INTRODUCTION

Identifying the population-level prevalence of a disability group is a prerequisite to monitoring their inclusion in society. The prevalence and sociodemographic characteristics of older adults with communication disabilities (CDs) are not well established in the literature. In this study we sought to describe the prevalence and sociodemographic characteristics of community-dwelling older adults experiencing difficulties with understanding others or being understand when communicating in their usual language.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the National Health and Aging Trends Survey (2015), a nationally representative survey of Medicare beneficiaries ages ≥ 65 years old (N = 7,029). We calculated survey weight-adjusted prevalence estimates by mutually exclusive subgroups of no, hearing only, expressive-only, cognitive only, multiple CDs, and an aggregate any-CD prevalence. We described race/ethnicity, age, gender, education, marital status, social network size, federal poverty status, and supplemental insurance for all groups. Pearson's chi-squared statistic was used to compare sociodemographic characteristics between the any-CD and no-CD groups.

RESULTS

An estimated 25.3% (10.7 million) of community-dwelling older adults in the US experienced any-CDs in 2015; approximately 19.9% (8.4 million) experienced only one CD while 5.6% (2.4 million) had multiple. Older adults with CDs were more likely to be of Black race or Hispanic ethnicity as compared to older adults without CDs (Black 10.1 vs. 7.6%; Hispanic: 12.5 vs. 5.4%; P < 0.001). They also had lower educational attainment (Less than high school: 31.0 vs 12.4%; P < 0.001), lower poverty levels (<100% Federal poverty level: 23.5% vs. 11.1%; P < 0.001) and less social supports (Married: 51.3 vs. 61.0%; P < 0.001; Social network ≤ 1 person: 45.3 vs 36.0%; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of the older adult population experiencing any-CDs is large and disproportionately represented by underserved sociodemographic groups. These findings support greater inclusion of any-CDs into population-level efforts like national surveys, public health goals, health services, and community research aimed at understanding and addressing the access needs of older adults who have disabilities in communication.