World Rural Health Conference
Home Print this page Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size
Users Online: 33
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents 
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 7  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 1177-1184  

Prevalence of disability and its association with sociodemographic factors and quality of life in India: A systematic review


1 Centre for Community Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
2 Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
3 Department of Psychiatry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
4 Department of Biostatistics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

Date of Web Publication30-Nov-2018

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Sanjay K Rai
Centre for Community Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_10_18

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Disability is complex, dynamic in nature, multidimensional, and most contested. Quality of life is an abstract concept that is related to the level of disability in the population. Approaches to measuring disability vary across different regions, and purpose and application of the findings. We systematically reviewed the studies that have been undertaken to study the prevalence of disability and its association with sociodemographic factors and quality of life among the general population in India, between January 2000 and June 2018. The prevalence of impairment ranged from 1.6% to 43.3%. In major surveys, males had higher impairment than females. Studies that used the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health concept for measuring disability reported prevalence ranging from 70.0% to 93.2%. Most studies used semi-structured questionnaires for measurement of disability. Some studies have used Barthel Index for Activity of Daily Living, Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, Indian Disability Evaluation and Assessment Schedule, Rapid Assessment of Disability scale, and Standard Health Assessment Questionnaire. The quality of life was low among females. This review brings out the heterogeneity in the concepts for measuring disability and quality of life. Lack of standardization in the measurement of disability restrains any comparison between these studies.

Keywords: Disability, disability in India, prevalence of disability, quality of life


How to cite this article:
Ramadass S, Rai SK, Gupta SK, Kant S, Wadhwa S, Sood M, Sreenivas V. Prevalence of disability and its association with sociodemographic factors and quality of life in India: A systematic review. J Family Med Prim Care 2018;7:1177-84

How to cite this URL:
Ramadass S, Rai SK, Gupta SK, Kant S, Wadhwa S, Sood M, Sreenivas V. Prevalence of disability and its association with sociodemographic factors and quality of life in India: A systematic review. J Family Med Prim Care [serial online] 2018 [cited 2018 Dec 11];7:1177-84. Available from: http://www.jfmpc.com/text.asp?2018/7/6/1177/246441




  Introduction Top


Worldwide, rates of disability are increasing due to population aging and increases in chronic health conditions, among other causes.[1],[2] Health is defined as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”[3] Though this broad definition of health was framed half a century ago, health is still measured narrowly in terms of morbidity and mortality. To overcome this, the World Health Organization (WHO) developed a framework for measuring health and disability at both individual and population levels called International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF).[4] In the Fifty-Fourth World Health Assembly, the ICF was officially endorsed by all 191 WHO Member States as the international standard to describe and measure health and disability.[5]

In September 2015, the United Nations General Assembly adopted 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) on the principle of “leaving no one behind.”[6] Disability was referenced in five goals related to education, growth and employment, inequality, accessibility of human settlements, as well as data collection and monitoring of SDGs.

ICF defines disability as an umbrella term for impairments, activity limitations, and participation restrictions, referring to the negative aspects of the interaction between an individual (with a health condition) and that individual's contextual factors (environmental and personal factors).[7] In India, Census 2001 and 2011 measured disability using the medical model of disability.[8],[9] Even though ICF was ratified by India in 2001, its usage is not wide spread. Various scales and questionnaires are used in surveys and studies which measure different aspects of disability. Due to these variations in measurements, comparison of these studies is difficult.

Quality of life is a broad multidimensional concept that usually includes subjective evaluations of both positive and negative aspects of life. WHO defines quality of life as an individual's perception of their position in life in context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards, and concerns.[10] The concept of health-related quality of life and its determinants has evolved since the 1980s to encompass those aspects of overall quality of life that can be clearly shown to affect health.[11] These wide-ranging concepts are influenced by physical health, psychological state, levels of independence, social relationships and environmental factors. Disability per se will not decrease the disabled individual's quality of life.[12]

Due to these wide-ranging concepts of disability and quality of life, their measurement was always contested and nonuniform. The aim of this study was to systematically review the available literature on the prevalence of disability and its association with sociodemographic factors and quality of life among the general population in India.


  Methods Top


Electronic databases such as PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Government of India websites were searched to retrieve studies published during the period of January 2000–June 2018.

The following keywords were selected from MeSH heading and terms and texts (titles and abstracts): disabled persons, persons with disabilities, people with disabilities, physically challenged, physically disabled, physically handicapped, persons with hearing impairments, visually impaired persons, mentally disabled persons, quality of life, and health related quality of life.

Scrutiny of abstracts led to a selection of studies dealing with prevalence of disability and quality of life. These two categories of studies were analyzed considering the scales and components of disability that have been used to measure disability and its association with sociodemographic factors and quality of life. Age group and place of study were also analyzed.


  Results Top


For a period of 19 years covered by literature research, 564 studies were retrieved [Figure 1]. After removal of duplicates and screening of the title and abstract, 32 full-text studies were used for review. The studies have been classified with respect to the components of disability, and finally with quality of life.
Figure 1: Flow of studies in the systematic review

Click here to view


Impairment component of disability

Impairment component of disability was used in five studies and three surveys [Table 1]. In Census 2001 and 2011, a single question of self-reported impairment was used.[8],[9] The question was “Is this person mentally/physically disabled?” If the response was “Yes,” then type of disability was coded. In Census 2001, information on five types of impairment and in Census 2011 eight types of impairment data were collected. The National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) in its 58th round in 2001 included a survey on disability.[19] In this survey, disability was defined as “a person with restrictions or lack of abilities to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human being.” Five types of impairments were assessed. This survey had included 4,637 rural villages and 3,354 urban blocks as samples. All the four studies had used a semi-structured questionnaire. The study by Ganesh et al. used the Indian Disability Evaluation and Assessment Schedule (IDEAS) for measuring mental disability in addition to a semi-structured interview schedule for other physical disability.[17] This study also used a separate semi-structured interview schedule for measuring impairment in children less than 5 years developed by Action Aid India.[20] All these studies were done as cross-sectional community-based studies. The prevalence of impairment ranged from 1.6% to 43.3%.[13],[15] In studies that included all age groups, the prevalence of impairment ranged from 1.6% to 6.3%.[13],[17] In studies that included age group ≥60 years, the prevalence of impairment was higher.[14],[15] In major surveys, males had higher prevalence of impairment than women.[8],[9],[19] Locomotor impairment was the most common in Census 2011 and NSSO 2002. Visual impairment was the most common in Census 2001. Women had higher prevalence of disability in individual studies.[14],[15],[16],[18]
Table 1: Studies that used impairment as a major component of disability measurement

Click here to view


Activity limitation component of disability

Activity limitation component of disability was used in 13 studies [Table 2]. Four of these studies defined functional disability.[21],[22],[23],[26],[29],[30] Five of them had used Barthel Index for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) scale for measuring activity limitation.[21],[22],[23],[29],[30],[32] It measured difficulty in feeding, bathing, grooming, dressing, bowels, bladder, toilet use, transfers (bed to chair and back), mobility (on level surfaces), and stairs.[34] Two studies had used Instrumental Activities of Daily Living for measuring activity limitation.[28],[32],[35] Another study had used a Rapid Assessment of Disability scale among adults ≥18 years of age.[24] A prospective longitudinal study done among ≥60 years used Pune-Functional Ability Assessment Test which was validated by Nagarkar and Kashikar.[36] It measured activity limitation on 14 items covering lifting, walking, climbing, arising from bed/chair, dressing, and so on. The prevalence of activity limitation ranged from 4.8% to 87.5%.[31],[33] For studies that included age group ≥60 years, the prevalence ranged from 16.2% to 87.5%.[30],[33] Inclusion of younger age group in the studies decreased the prevalence of activity limitation.[24],[25],[28],[31] Seven of these studies were conducted in rural areas.[22],[23],[29],[30],[32],[33],[38]
Table 2: Studies that used activity limitation as a major component of disability measurement

Click here to view


Participation restriction component of disability

Only one study had measured the participation restriction component of disability [Table 3]. It had used a semi-structured interview schedule, which was prepared based on the participation section of the ICF Checklist Version 2.1a.[38] The prevalence of participation restriction among study population age ≥65 years was 57%.[37]
Table 3: Studies that used participation restriction as a major component of disability measurement

Click here to view


All three components of disability

Two studies had used the ICF concept of disability measuring Impairment, Activity Limitation, and Participation Restriction [Table 4]. The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) was used in both these studies.[41] In the study by Biritwum et al., disability threshold was set at above 10th percentile in the summary score of WHODAS 2.0.[39] It had used WHODAS 2.0 (12-item version) among adults age ≥60 years. Sinalkar et al. considered summary score >4 as disabled. The prevalence of disability was 70.0% and 93.2% in studies by Sinalkar et al. and Biritwum et al., respectively.[39],[40] The lower prevalence of disability reported by Sinalkar et al. could have been due to inclusion of 32-item version of WHODAS 2.0.[40]
Table 4: Studies that used three components (impairment, activity limitation, participation restriction) for measurement of disability

Click here to view


Quality of life

The Quality of Life indicator was used in seven studies.[42],[43],[44],[45],[46],[47],[48] All these referred to the term “quality of life” [Table 5]. Only four studies defined it based on the WHO concept of quality of life.[43],[46],[47],[48] For measuring quality of life, all these studies had used the World Health Organization Quality of Life – Brief Version (WHOQOL-BREF)[49] except the study by Lahariya et al.[50] This had used the Short Form – 36 (SF 36) Version 2.[51] SF 36 measured the self-appraisal of health. In all these studies, low summary scores meant low quality of life, and vice versa. Six studies showed a decreased mean summary scores among women.[42],[44],[45],[46],[47],[48] Two of the studies showed a significant association of quality of life with sex – women had lower mean scores than males.[42],[46] All these studies showed that as age increased, the quality of life mean scores decreased. Except the study by Kuvalekar et al., all studies showed a significant association with age. Three of the studies had lowest mean scores in psychological domain.[43],[45],[47] Kuvalekar et al. studied quality of life among permanently disabled persons and found that the mean score of psychological domain was low across all types of disabilities.[45] Rajasi et al. studied quality of life among elderly women age ≥60 years. The authors divided the WHOQOL-BREF summary scores as very good – scoring above 75th percentile, moderately good – scoring between 75th and 50th percentile, moderately poor scoring between 50th and 25th percentile, and very poor scoring <25th percentile. Poor QOL was maximum with 43.1%.[43]
Table 5: Quality of life and its association with disability

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


The prevalence of the components of disability differed considerably across studies. This variability may reflect an actual difference in the prevalence of impairments, activity limitation, and participation restriction, or may be caused by factors such as those discussed below.

Age

Studies that included older age group had higher prevalence of impairments and activity limitation, whereas studies with younger age groups yielded lower prevalence.

Type of survey

Nationwide surveys had lower prevalence for impairment component of disability than studies conducted on a local or regional scale.

Type of scale used

Studies that used a semi-structured interview schedule showed a lower prevalence of impairment and activity limitation than studies that used validated scales like IDEAS, Barthel Index for ADL, Rapid Assessment of Disability scale, and Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire. Two studies that used the ICF concept of disability measuring all three components showed the highest prevalence of disability.

Consistency and accuracy of measuring impairment

Impairments refer to problems in body function or alterations in body structure – for example, paralysis or blindness. A systemic disease may be made up of multiple impairments, depending on its clinical form. A standard procedure for identifying these impairments was not followed in these studies. Interobserver variation in the studies may have led to the variation in the prevalence of impairment.

Sociodemographic factors

Studies conducted in rural areas showed a higher prevalence of impairment and activity limitation than in urban areas. Literate population had lower prevalence of all three components of disability. Economic dependence was associated with higher prevalence of impairment, activity limitation, and participation restriction.

Prevalence of disability

The concept of disability was used in several classifications. However, the variety of ways in which it was defined has led to confusion about its meaning. This may explain the variability in its prevalence.

Association with quality of life

For assessing quality of life, subjective well-being, happiness, life satisfaction, and good life were used synonymously. Every age group, sex, socioeconomic status, and culture have different factors affecting quality of life. The nonuniformity in the concept of quality of life in different studies precludes any comparison between the studies.


  Conclusion Top


This review highlights the heterogeneity in the concepts for measuring disability and quality of life. Heterogeneity can also be observed in the age group included and the sociodemographic factor studied. There is no standardization in the measurement of disability or quality of life, and this largely impedes any comparison between these studies.

Estimating the prevalence of disability and its association with sociodemographic and quality of life may provide valuable information for optimizing the way in which health and social welfare organization deal with morbidities. To ensure the reliability of comparisons over time and between different geographic contexts requires greater homogeneity in the measurement of disability and quality of life and in their data collection methods. WHODAS 2.0 and WHOQOL-BREF may help in the standardization of these measurements.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
World Health Organization, World Bank, editors. World report on disability. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2011. p. 325.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Hosseinpoor AR, Stewart Williams JA, Gautam J, Posarac A, Officer A, Verdes E, et al. Socioeconomic inequality in disability among adults: A multicountry study using the world health survey. Am J Public Health 2013;103:1278-86.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
World Health Organization. Constitution of the World Health Organization. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1948.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
World Health Organization. Towards a common language for functioning, disability and health: ICF. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2002.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
World Health Organisation. International Classification of Fuctioning, Disability and Health, 54th World Health Assembly; 2001. Available from: http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/wha-en.pdf. [Last accessed on 2018 Jun 19].  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Disability United Nations Enable. Available from: https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/about-us/sustainable-development-goals-sdgs-and-disability.html. [Last accessed on 2018 Jun 19].  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
World Health Organization. How to use the ICF: A practical manual for using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Exposure Draft for Comment. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Census of India : Disabled Population by type of Disability, Age and Sex – C20 Table. Available from: http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/C-series/c-20.html. [Last accessed on 2018 Jun 19].  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Census Data. Office of the Registrar General of India, Ministry of Home affairs; 2001. Available from: http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011-common/census_data_2001.html. [Last accessed on 2018 Jun 19].  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Development of the world health organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. The WHOQOL group. Psychol Med 1998;28:551-8.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Quality of Life Instruments, Design and Purpose – Quality of Life Measurement Among Persons with Chronic Mental Illness : A Critique of Measures and Methods - Mental Health – Public Health Agency of Canada. Available from: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/mh-sm/pubs/quality_of_life-qualite_de_vie/chapter 2-eng.php. [Last accessed on 2018 Jun 19].  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Albrecht GL, Devlieger PJ. The disability paradox: High quality of life against all odds. Soc Sci Med 1999;48:977-88.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Velayutham B, Kangusamy B, Mehendale S. Prevalence of disability in Tamil Nadu, India. Natl Med J India 2017;30:125-30.  Back to cited text no. 13
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
14.
Velayutham B, Kangusamy B, Joshua V, Mehendale S. The prevalence of disability in elderly in India-analysis of 2011 census data. Disabil Health J 2016;9:584-92.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Sulania A, Khandekar J, Nagesh S. Burden and correlates of disability and functional impairment in an Urban community. Int J Med Public Health 2015;5:82-7.  Back to cited text no. 15
  [Full text]  
16.
Borker S, Motghare DD, Venugopalan PP, Kulkarni MS. Study of prevalence and types of disabilities at rural health centre Mandur – A community based cross sectional house to house study in rural Goa. Int J Pharm Med Res 2008;19:56-60.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Ganesh KS, Das A, Shashi JS. Epidemiology of disability in a rural community of Karnataka. Indian J Public Health 2008;52:125-9.  Back to cited text no. 17
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
18.
Pati RR. Prevalence and pattern of disability in a rural community in Karnataka. Indian J Community Med 2004;29:186-91.  Back to cited text no. 18
  [Full text]  
19.
National Sample Survey Organisation. Disabled Persons in India. Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. New Delhi, India: National Sample Survey Organisation; 2003.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Thomas M, Pruthvish S. Identification and needs assessment of beneficiaries in community based rehabilitation initiatives. India, Bangalore: Action Aid; 1993.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Keshari P, Shankar H. Prevalence and spectrum of functional disability of urban elderly subjects: A community-based study from central India. J Family Community Med 2017;24:86-90.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Gupta S, Yadav R, Malhotra AK. Assessment of physical disability using barthel index among elderly of rural areas of district Jhansi (U.P), India. J Family Med Prim Care 2016;5:853-7.  Back to cited text no. 22
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
23.
Paul SS, Abraham VJ. How healthy is our geriatric population? A community-based cross-sectional study. J Family Med Prim Care 2015;4:221-5.  Back to cited text no. 23
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
24.
Ramachandra SS, Allagh KP, Kumar H, Grills N, Marella M, Pant H, et al. Prevalence of disability among adults using rapid assessment of disability tool in a rural district of South India. Disabil Health J 2016;9:624-31.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Mactaggart I, Kuper H, Murthy GV, Oye J, Polack S. Measuring disability in population based surveys: The interrelationship between clinical impairments and reported functional limitations in Cameroon and India. PLoS One 2016;11:e0164470.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Nagarkar A, Kashikar Y. Predictors of functional disability with focus on activities of daily living: A community based follow-up study in older adults in India. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2017;69:151-5.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Singh A, Bairwa M, Goel S, Bypareddy R, Mithra P. Prevalence and predictors of unmet needs among the elderly residents of the rural field practice area of a tertiary care centre from Northern India. Malays J Med Sci 2016;23:44-50.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Padhyegurjar Manashi S, Padhyegurjar Shekhar B. Study of factors affecting progress of locomotor disability in a Slum in Mumbai. Int J Pharm Med Res 2012;23:62-7.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Gupta S, Gupta P, Mani K, Rai S, Nongkynrih B. Functional disability among elderly persons in a rural area of Haryana. Indian J Public Health 2014;58:11-9.  Back to cited text no. 29
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
30.
Chakrabarty D, Mandal PK, Manna N, Mallik S, Ghosh P, Chatterjee C, et al. Functional disability and associated chronic conditions among geriatric populations in a rural community of India. Ghana Med J 2010;44:150-4.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Singh A. Burden of disability in a Chandigarh village. Indian J Community Med 2008;33:113-5.  Back to cited text no. 31
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
32.
Venkatorao T, Ezhil R, Jabbar S, Ramakrishnan R. Prevalence of disability and handicaps in geriatric population in rural south India. Indian J Public Health 2005;49:11-7.  Back to cited text no. 32
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
33.
Joshi K, Kumar R, Avasthi A. Morbidity profile and its relationship with disability and psychological distress among elderly people in northern India. Int J Epidemiol 2003;32:978-87.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Barthel activities of daily living (ADL) index. Occas Pap R Coll Gen Pract 1993;59:24.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Instrumental activities of daily living (ADL) scale. Occas Pap R Coll Gen Pract 1993;59:25.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Nagarkar A, Gadhave S, Kulkarni S. Development and preliminary validation of a new scale to assess functional ability of older population in India. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2014;58:263-8.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Srinivasan K, Vaz M, Thomas T. Prevalence of health related disability among community dwelling urban elderly from middle socioeconomic strata in Bangaluru, India. Indian J Med Res 2010;131:515-21.  Back to cited text no. 37
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
38.
ICF Browser. Available from: http://www.apps.who.int/classifications/icfbrowser/. [Last accessed on 2018 Jun 19].  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Sinalkar D, Kunwar R, Kunte R, Balte M. A cross-sectional study of gender differentials in disability assessed on World Health Organization disability assessment schedule 2.0 among rural elderly of Maharashtra. Med J Dr Patil Univ 2015;8:594.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Biritwum RB, Minicuci N, Yawson AE, Theou O, Mensah GP, Naidoo N, et al. Prevalence of and factors associated with frailty and disability in older adults from China, Ghana, India, Mexico, Russia and South Africa. Maturitas 2016;91:8-18.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Üstün TB. Measuring health and disability: Manual for WHO Disability Assessment Schedule WHODAS 2.0. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010. p. 90.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Lahariya C, Khandekar J, Pradhan SK. Effect of impairment and disability on health-related quality of life of elderly: A community-based study from urban India. Indian J Community Med 2012;37:223-6.  Back to cited text no. 42
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
43.
Rajasi RS, Mathew T, Nujum ZT, Anish TS, Ramachandran R, Lawrence T, et al. Quality of life and sociodemographic factors associated with poor quality of life in elderly women in Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala. Indian J Public Health 2016;60:210-5.  Back to cited text no. 43
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
44.
Kumar SG, Majumdar A, Pavithra G. Quality of life (QOL) and its associated factors using WHOQOL-BREF among elderly in urban Puducherry, India. J Clin Diagn Res 2014;8:54-7.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Kuvalekar K, Kamath R, Ashok L, Shetty B, Mayya S, Chandrasekaran V, et al. Quality of life among persons with physical disability in Udupi Taluk: A Cross sectional study. J Family Med Prim Care 2015;4:69-73.  Back to cited text no. 45
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
46.
Saxena S, Misra PJ, Vishwanath NS, Varma RP, Soman B. Quality of life and its correlates in Central India. Int J Res Dev Health 2013;1:85-96.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Ghosh S, Bandyopadhyay S, Bhattacharya S, Misra R, Das S. Quality of life of older people in an urban slum of India. Psychogeriatrics 2014;14:241-6.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Shah VR, Christian DS, Prajapati AC, Patel MM, Sonaliya KN. Quality of life among elderly population residing in urban field practice area of a tertiary care institute of Ahmedabad city, Gujarat. J Family Med Prim Care 2017;6:101-5.  Back to cited text no. 48
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
49.
World Health Organization Quality of Life Instruments (WHOQOL-BREF) – Seattle Quality of Life Group – Measure and Improve Health Disparities in Children, Adolescents, Adults from Stigmatized Populations. Available from: http://www.depts.washington.edu/seaqol/WHOQOL-BREF. [Last accessed on 2018 Jun 19].  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
World Health Organisation. WHOQOL-BREF : Introduction, Administration, Scoring and Generic Version of the Assessment : Field Trial Version; December 1996. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 1996. p. 16.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
Ware JE Jr., Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473-83.  Back to cited text no. 51
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5]



 

Top
   
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
   Abstract
  Introduction
  Methods
  Results
  Discussion
  Conclusion
   References
   Article Figures
   Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed68    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded24    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal