Update on the harmonisation of disability data collection in UK surveys (part 1).

Chris White
{"title":"Update on the harmonisation of disability data collection in UK surveys (part 1).","authors":"Chris White","doi":"10.1057/hsq.2011.12","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This article reports progress to date in the development of new National Statistics harmonised questions: measuring disability in established national social survey sources using a face-to-face interviewing mode of data capture. The harmonisation of these questions across these survey sources will enhance the availability of consistent disability statistics to government and the wider user community.This work began in response to the recommendation of the Review of Equality Data published in 2007: to develop and apply a principled approach to data collection to meet future data needs, following the introduction of equality legislation in 2010. It also contributes to improving international comparability, by better meeting the definitions for measures of long-standing illness and disability derived from the European Union's Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC).Further work is currently being undertaken to adapt questions for use in surveys applying different methods of data capture, such as paper-based and on-line surveys.The project also developed questions which measure disability as a restriction in participation in key areas of life such as employment, and the self-perceived social barriers affecting participation (that is aspects of society and the physical environment, which do not take adequate account of the needs of people with impairments). However, at the time of writing, a finalised standard had not been agreed: these data inputs will be reported on in a future Health Statistics Quarterly article.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The National Statistics Harmonisation Group (NSHG) and its Health, Disability and Carers Sub-Group contain representation across government, related public sector bodies and academia. These groups agreed the following project objectives for disability data harmonisation:a) Establish a conceptual framework for disability definitionb) Develop question inputs to measure the definition for use in social surveys using a face-to-face interviewing method of data capturec) Test the performance of these questions for interpretability and consistency with established sources, and refine questions, where indicated, through the findings of testing and consultationd) Recommend harmonised standards for implementation across sourcesA process of question suite development included: user consultation, which gathered cross-sector views to clarify and prioritise data needs; cognitive testing, which guided question formats, content and terminology, and interviewer probes and instructions. The findings of these exercises were used in the construction of questions which were subsequently field tested for coherence with other data sources and described in an accompanying article in this issue of Health Statistics Quarterly.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The definition of disability developed to harmonise standard data inputs and outputs is founded on the Disablement Process (Verbrugge and Jette 1994), and the bio-psycho-social model of disability used in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICFDH) (WHO, 2001). This model presents disability as a process bringing together medical, societal and individual factors which affect daily activities and participation and disentangles concepts of illness, impairment and disability. Disability is defined as restriction in activities and participation related to the interaction between functional impairment and the provision of supports (personal, mechanical and environmental/societal).The results of cognitive testing found issues with the proposed question formats, interpretation of key terms such as 'disability' and sensitivities to the negative focus of questions; the researchers made a number of recommendations to improve the flow of questions and improve interpretation, including better signposting and use of interviewer probes and instructions, and changes to the terminology used in the body of questions and their response categories.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The extensive consultations undertaken, including government departments, other public sector bodies, academia and third sector organisations, demonstrates a clear commitment on the part of the Health, Disability and Carers Harmonisation Sub-Group to gather a wide range of views to identify the deficiencies in existing data inputs to social survey data sources; guide priorities as equitably as possible to meet the variety of needs expressed; and to lessen the sensitivities associated with existing question terminology when drafting question inputs.The application of respected conceptual frameworks and internationally recognised definitions and classifications to the data needs identified, and the modifications suggested following cognitive testing has given the draft questions for field testing a stronger relevance to the concept of disability advocated in the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit Report 'Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People' and championed in the Office for Disability Issues Equality 2025 agenda.</p>","PeriodicalId":87183,"journal":{"name":"Health statistics quarterly","volume":" 51","pages":"3-30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1057/hsq.2011.12","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health statistics quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/hsq.2011.12","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Background: This article reports progress to date in the development of new National Statistics harmonised questions: measuring disability in established national social survey sources using a face-to-face interviewing mode of data capture. The harmonisation of these questions across these survey sources will enhance the availability of consistent disability statistics to government and the wider user community.This work began in response to the recommendation of the Review of Equality Data published in 2007: to develop and apply a principled approach to data collection to meet future data needs, following the introduction of equality legislation in 2010. It also contributes to improving international comparability, by better meeting the definitions for measures of long-standing illness and disability derived from the European Union's Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC).Further work is currently being undertaken to adapt questions for use in surveys applying different methods of data capture, such as paper-based and on-line surveys.The project also developed questions which measure disability as a restriction in participation in key areas of life such as employment, and the self-perceived social barriers affecting participation (that is aspects of society and the physical environment, which do not take adequate account of the needs of people with impairments). However, at the time of writing, a finalised standard had not been agreed: these data inputs will be reported on in a future Health Statistics Quarterly article.

Methods: The National Statistics Harmonisation Group (NSHG) and its Health, Disability and Carers Sub-Group contain representation across government, related public sector bodies and academia. These groups agreed the following project objectives for disability data harmonisation:a) Establish a conceptual framework for disability definitionb) Develop question inputs to measure the definition for use in social surveys using a face-to-face interviewing method of data capturec) Test the performance of these questions for interpretability and consistency with established sources, and refine questions, where indicated, through the findings of testing and consultationd) Recommend harmonised standards for implementation across sourcesA process of question suite development included: user consultation, which gathered cross-sector views to clarify and prioritise data needs; cognitive testing, which guided question formats, content and terminology, and interviewer probes and instructions. The findings of these exercises were used in the construction of questions which were subsequently field tested for coherence with other data sources and described in an accompanying article in this issue of Health Statistics Quarterly.

Results: The definition of disability developed to harmonise standard data inputs and outputs is founded on the Disablement Process (Verbrugge and Jette 1994), and the bio-psycho-social model of disability used in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICFDH) (WHO, 2001). This model presents disability as a process bringing together medical, societal and individual factors which affect daily activities and participation and disentangles concepts of illness, impairment and disability. Disability is defined as restriction in activities and participation related to the interaction between functional impairment and the provision of supports (personal, mechanical and environmental/societal).The results of cognitive testing found issues with the proposed question formats, interpretation of key terms such as 'disability' and sensitivities to the negative focus of questions; the researchers made a number of recommendations to improve the flow of questions and improve interpretation, including better signposting and use of interviewer probes and instructions, and changes to the terminology used in the body of questions and their response categories.

Conclusions: The extensive consultations undertaken, including government departments, other public sector bodies, academia and third sector organisations, demonstrates a clear commitment on the part of the Health, Disability and Carers Harmonisation Sub-Group to gather a wide range of views to identify the deficiencies in existing data inputs to social survey data sources; guide priorities as equitably as possible to meet the variety of needs expressed; and to lessen the sensitivities associated with existing question terminology when drafting question inputs.The application of respected conceptual frameworks and internationally recognised definitions and classifications to the data needs identified, and the modifications suggested following cognitive testing has given the draft questions for field testing a stronger relevance to the concept of disability advocated in the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit Report 'Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People' and championed in the Office for Disability Issues Equality 2025 agenda.

关于协调英国调查中残疾数据收集的最新情况(第1部分)。
背景:本文报告了迄今为止在发展新的国家统计协调问题方面的进展:使用面对面访谈模式的数据采集来衡量已建立的国家社会调查来源的残疾。在这些调查来源中统一这些问题,将加强向政府和更广泛的用户群体提供一致的残疾统计数据。这项工作是根据2007年发布的《平等数据审查》的建议开始的:在2010年引入平等立法之后,制定和应用一种有原则的数据收集方法,以满足未来的数据需求。它还有助于改善国际可比性,因为它更好地符合欧洲联盟收入和生活条件统计(EU-SILC)对长期疾病和残疾的衡量标准的定义。目前正在进行进一步的工作,使问题适用于采用不同数据获取方法的调查,例如纸本调查和联机调查。该项目还提出了一些问题,将残疾作为参与关键生活领域(如就业)的一种限制,以及自我认为影响参与的社会障碍(即没有充分考虑到残疾人需要的社会和物质环境方面)加以衡量。然而,在撰写本文时,尚未商定最终标准:这些数据输入将在未来的《卫生统计季刊》文章中报告。方法:国家统计协调小组(NSHG)及其健康、残疾和护理人员小组包括来自政府、相关公共部门机构和学术界的代表。这些小组同意残疾数据协调的以下项目目标:a)建立残疾定义的概念框架b)开发问题输入以测量定义,用于使用面对面的数据采集访谈方法进行社会调查c)测试这些问题的可解释性和与既定来源的一致性,并在指定的地方改进问题;通过测试和咨询的结果和)建议跨来源实施的统一标准问题集开发过程包括:用户咨询,收集跨部门的意见,以澄清和优先考虑数据需求;认知测试,引导问题的格式、内容和术语,以及面试官的提问和说明。这些练习的结果用于构建问题,随后对这些问题进行了与其他数据来源的一致性实地测试,并在本期《卫生统计季刊》的随附文章中加以说明。结果:为协调标准数据输入和输出而制定的残疾定义是基于《残疾进程》(Verbrugge和Jette, 1994年)和《国际功能、残疾和健康分类》(世卫组织,2001年)中使用的残疾生物-心理-社会模型。这一模式将残疾视为一个过程,汇集了影响日常活动和参与的医疗、社会和个人因素,并理清了疾病、损伤和残疾的概念。残疾被定义为与功能障碍和提供支持(个人、机械和环境/社会)之间的相互作用有关的活动和参与的限制。认知测试的结果发现,在建议的问题格式、对关键术语(如“残疾”)的解释以及对问题消极焦点的敏感性方面存在问题;研究人员提出了一些建议,以改善问题的流动和改善解释,包括更好地标示和使用采访者探针和指示,以及改变问题主体和回答类别中使用的术语。结论:包括政府部门、其他公共部门机构、学术界和第三部门组织在内的广泛磋商表明,健康、残疾和照顾者协调小组明确承诺收集广泛的意见,以确定社会调查数据来源的现有数据输入的缺陷;尽可能公平地指导优先事项,以满足所表达的各种需求;并在起草问题输入时减少与现有问题术语相关的敏感性。 将受尊重的概念框架和国际公认的定义和分类应用于确定的数据需求,以及在认知测试之后提出的修改建议,使现场测试的问题草案与总理战略单位报告“改善残疾人的生活机会”所倡导的残疾概念更加相关,并在2025年残疾人问题平等办公室议程中得到倡导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书