1 / 48

Examining the health and wellbeing of persons with disabilities in Liberia

Examining the health and wellbeing of persons with disabilities in Liberia. Dr Maria Kett , Ellie Cole, Mark Carew Leonard Cheshire Disability and Inclusive Development Centre UCL Dr Tim Colbourn Institute for Global Health, UCL. Presentation outline. Introduction and background

tmarvin
Télécharger la présentation

Examining the health and wellbeing of persons with disabilities in Liberia

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Examining the health and wellbeing of persons with disabilities in Liberia Dr Maria Kett, Ellie Cole, Mark Carew Leonard Cheshire Disability and Inclusive Development Centre UCL Dr Tim Colbourn Institute for Global Health, UCL

  2. Presentation outline • Introduction and background • Subjective and objective wellbeing • Initial analysis • Health • Education • Empolyment and Income • Transport • Participation • Crime and Safety • Next steps

  3. Background

  4. The project • DFID/ESRC Poverty Alleviation funding • Persons with disabilities and their households • Objectives • Multidimensional poverty • Subjective and objective wellbeing • Effects of poverty reduction policies

  5. Global disability • 15% of the world’s population live with a disability • Disproportionately represented in low- and middle-income countries • Disability and multidimensional poverty • Education • Un- and underemployment • Individual and household level

  6. Wellbeing • Move away from solely economic indicators • Objective • ‘Material’ • Externally observable and measurable • Subjective • ‘Perceived’ • Values and standards of individuals

  7. Liberia • Civil conflict ended in 2003 • Profound effect on population and country development • 63% are under 25 • 3.0 million (70%) in multi-dimensional poverty • HDI: 177/188 (2015) • Signed UNCRPD 2007; ratified 2012 • Disability data • 2008 Census • Core Welfare Indicators Survey 2010 • Ebola outbreak (2014/2015)

  8. National Human Rights Action Plan, 2013-2018 • Persons with disabilities specifically highlighted as a target group • Not yet ratified or implemented – lack of budgetary allocation • Range of human rights domains, including • Civil and political rights • Right to participate • Right to education • Right to employment • Right to an adequate standard of living • Right to social security • Right to health • Women’s rights • Persons with disabilities’ rights

  9. Survey domains • Household details and asset index • Health and health services • Ebola questions • Education and literacy/numeracy • Work and employment • Transport • Social and community interactions • Crime and safety • Political engagement

  10. Research design • Quality of life ‘snapshot’ • Quantitative wellbeing survey • Cummins - Personal Well-being Index • Washington Group short set questions • Core set of questions with additional tailored items for disabled respondents and heads of household • Qualitative research • Focus group discussions • Policy maker key informant interviews

  11. Qualitative research • Five Districts: • The total of thirty-four (34) Individual Interviews, including County Development Superintendents • Twenty two (22) focus group discussions (FGDs) – men and women with disabilities; EVD survivors

  12. Sampling • Non-disabled household • Disabled household Head of household Head of household Match Person with disabilities Other

  13. Research activities • Background activities – April 2014-December 2015 • Review of ‘quality of life’ indicators • Analysis of existing national data • Review of social policies • Ebola (2014/2015) • Data collector/supervisor training – January 2016 • Data collection/entry – February-July 2016 • Data analysis – August 2016-

  14. Respondent Characterisics

  15. Poverty

  16. How would you compare your standard of living to other households in your community?

  17. Education data

  18. Impairments and assistive devices • 379 respondents (~70% of disabled) reported needing assistive devices – walking stick (24%); crutches (16%); glasses (15%) • 129 respondents reported needing support from others to move around • Half (49%) ‘only occasionally’ or never had access to the needed support • The main reason given was cost (70%)

  19. Demographic information • Total sample = 2,020 (46.8% male; 53.2% female) total number of HH = 992 • Mean age 44.1 years (s.d 16.5; range 17-97) • Mean household size 5.2 people (s.d. 2.1; range 1-16)

  20. Six respondent types

  21. Respondents: Education

  22. Respondents: Wealth quintile

  23. Wellbeing

  24. Wellbeing (overall life satisfaction)

  25. Wellbeing (overall life satisfaction)

  26. Wellbeing (overall life satisfaction)

  27. Health

  28. Health – overall satisfaction

  29. Health – access to services

  30. Health – satisfaction with health care received

  31. Health – getting needed healthcare

  32. Employment and Income

  33. Work - satisfaction

  34. Work - income

  35. Transport

  36. Transport - satisfaction

  37. Transport – getting access when needed

  38. Participation

  39. Social relationships – Satisfaction with relationships with Friends, Household, Partner

  40. Voting *1=Yes (sometimes or always); 0=No; the two respondents who refused the question were coded as missing

  41. FGD Respondents • Contradictory evidence around responses, e.g. Participation/decision making processes: • “well, in my community, I am highly respected even in community meetings, they send my citation and I make some impact” (Male with disabilities, Mont. Bonardfarm) • “for me, the community I live in, disabled people are not respected by the community members...people with disability are not taken care of in this county and I say so, we are not respected in this county” (Male with disabilities, Grand Cape Mount) • Why do some people feel more empowered than others?

  42. Crime and Safety

  43. Crime – Satisfaction with Personal, Household and Community safety

  44. Crime – personal experience or witnessing of crime *1=Yes (once, or more than once for personally experienced crime, or household member witnessed a crime); 0=No (not experienced crime in the past year); 'don't know' (88; 7%) and 'refused answer' (99; 3%) to question H1_3 recoded as missing

  45. Next steps • Further data analysis • Washington group functional disability • Floor and ceiling of satisfaction questions • Clustering of disadvantages across sectors • Gender analysis • Qualitative research • More detail on interesting findings • Linking to political and institutional factors

  46. Delete and add picture Thank you! • Questions? • m.kett@ucl.ac.uk • ellie.cole@ucl.ac.uk • t.colbourn@ucl.ac.uk

More Related