Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 51-10 | Page 87

Prevalence of disability in Morocco
Questions on Disability. The aim of this approach was to remove
any confusion or approximation related to the first statements.
Total disabilities were not covered by additional questions.
The participants were then considered as facing disability in
each specific domain, if their answers to the additional questions
confirmed their difficulty. For example, a person who had stated
they had some difficulty seeing, were asked 2 additional questions:
1 – Do you have difficulty clearly seeing someone’s face across
a room?
2 – Do you have difficulty clearly seeing a small object at arm’s
length?
The person was confirmed as having disability in seeing, only
if he/she answered “Yes” to at least one of the complementary
questions.
Subjects with confirmed disability were classified into 4 levels
of severity, as follows:
• Mild disability: if disability confirmed in at least one of the 6
domains of the WG Short Set of Questions on Disability, with
a response category corresponding to no worse than (2 – Yes,
some difficulty) in all domains.
• Moderate disability: if disability confirmed in at least one of
the 6 domains of the WG Short Set of Questions on Disability,
with a response category corresponding to (3 – Yes, a lot of
difficulty), in one domain.
• Severe disability: if disability confirmed in at least one of the
6 domains of the WG Short Set of Questions on Disability,
with a response category corresponding to (3 – Yes, a lot of
difficulty), in 2 domains or more.
• Extreme disability: if disability is confirmed in at least one of
the 6 domains of the WG Short Set of Questions on Disability,
with a response category corresponding to (4 – Cannot do at
all), in one or more domains.
Statistical analysis
From the data obtained, a descriptive study was made in which
the quantitative variables were expressed as mean with standard
deviation (SD), and the qualitative variables as percentages. To
study the associations between disability and the socio-demo-
graphic characteristics of the population, a manual descending
binary logistic regression model was used. All factors associated
16,044 households targeted
14,724 households investigated
47,275 adults screened for disability
using th WG short set of questions
38,913 persons reported no
difficulties, in any domain
8,362 persons reported having
difficulties in at least one domain
294 persons reported having
extreme difficulty in at least
one domain (cannot do at all)
8,068 persons reported having some or a lot of
difficulty in at least one domain > Were asked
to answer the additional questions
3,877 without disability
4,191 with confirmed disability
294 very severe
disability
266 severe
disability
682 moderate
disability
Fig. 1. Flow chart of survey participants.
3,243 mild
disability
807
with a p-value < 25% in bivariate analyses were included in the
initial multivariate logistic model. Adjusted odds ratios (OR)
and 95% CI were reported for each explaining variable.
Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS v. 21.0. The
level of significance was established for p-values < 0.05.
RESULTS
The survey investigated 14,725 households, represen-
ting a response rate of 97.4%. The population sample
comprised 47,275 individuals aged 18 years and over
(cf. Fig. 1).
Population sample characteristics
Socio-demographic characteristics of the population
sample are summarized in Table I. The mean age of the
studied population was 39.96 years (SD 16.05), with
a median of 38 years, and a maximum of 115 years.
Regarding sex, men slightly predominated over women
(50.9%). Of the studied population, 60.4% lived in an
urban area. 59.9% were married, 32.8% single, and 5.2%
widow/widower. Regarding occupation, only 38.1%
were economically productive (full-time or part-time
employed), whereas 15.3% were unemployed, 35.2%
housewives, and 7.4% students. As for education, 43.2%
were illiterate, and only 9.5% had gone to university.
Prevalence of disability
Table II presents the results regarding the prevalence of
disability according to the type and number of concerned
domains, and according to severity levels. The overall
prevalence rate of disability in the investigated popula-
tion was 9.5%, corresponding to 4,485 persons. Regar-
ding the levels of disability severity, the prevalence was
6.9% for mild disability, 1.4% for moderate disability, 0.6
% for severe disability, and 0.6% for extreme disability.
As for the domains of disability, “vision difficulties”
were the most common, with a prevalence of 6%, fol-
lowed by “mobility difficulties” (4.8%), then “hearing
difficulties” (1.9%), “personal care difficulties” (1.3%),
then “memory and communication difficulties” with
a prevalence of 1%.
The prevalence of persons experiencing disability in
only 1 domain was 6.6%. The co-existence of disability
in 2 domains achieved a prevalence of 2.1% and the
co-existence of disability in 3 or more domains had a
prevalence of 0.8%.
Prevalence of disability, according to socio-
demographic characteristics and geographical
distribution
As shown in Table III, bivariate analysis revealed a
significantly higher prevalence of disability in persons
J Rehabil Med 51, 2019