storage.googleapis.comstorage.googleapis.com/request-attachments...TERMS OF USE OF PSA PUBLICATIONS...

National Disability Prevalence Survey

(Model Functioning Survey) 2016

PSA Complex, East Avenue,

Quezon City, 1101 Philippines

San Lazaro Compound, Tayuman,

Sta. Cruz, Manila Philippines 1003

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

HIS EXCELLENCY

PRESIDENT RODRIGO ROA DUTERTE

PHILIPPINE STATISTICS AUTHORITY

CLAIRE DENNIS S. MAPA, Ph. D. Undersecretary

National Statistician and Civil Registrar General

Copyright © 2019 by Philippine Statistics Authority PSA Complex, East Avenue, Quezon City,

1101 Philippines

TERMS OF USE OF PSA PUBLICATIONS

The Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) reserves its exclusive right to reproduce all

its publications in whatever form. Any part of this publication should not be

reproduced, recopied, lent or repackaged for other parties for any commercial

purposes without written permission from PSA. Any part of this publication may only

be reproduced for internal use of the recipient/customer company. Should any portion

of the data in this publication are to be included in a report/article, the source of the

data, the title of the publication and PSA as publisher should always be cited. Any

information derived from the manipulation of data contained in the publication will no

longer be the responsibility of PSA.

Published by the

Philippine Statistics Authority, PSA Complex,

East Avenue, Quezon City, 1101 Philippines

October 2019

The 2016 National Disability Prevalence Survey, also called the Model Functioning

Survey (NDPS/MFS 2016) was carried out by PSA. Funding for the NDPS/MFS 2016 was

provided by the Government of the Philippines through the Department of Health (DOH). The

World Health Organization (WHO), the National Council on Disability Affairs (NCDA) and the

University of the Philippines-Manila provided technical assistance.

Additional information about the NDPS/MFS 2016 may be obtained from the

Philippine Statistics Authority, PSA Complex, East Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City;

telephone: (+632) 8462-6600; email: [email protected]; internet: psa.gov.ph.

Information about the MDS may be obtained from World Health Organization, Avenue

Appia 20, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland; telephone: +41 22 791 12 31.

For technical inquiries, please direct calls at (+632) 8376-1995.

Preface | vii

PREFACE

The Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) presents this final report on the 2016 National

Disability Prevalence Survey/Model Functioning Survey (NDPS/MFS 2016).

NDPS/MFS 2016 was implemented in consonance with the United Nations Convention on the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and adopts the Model Disability Survey (MDS)

which was grounded in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health

(ICF). It defines disability as the outcome of the interaction between a person’s health related

status and the physical, human-built, attitudinal and socio-political environment in which the

person lives. Therefore, disability is regarded as multi-dimensional and interactive.

NDPS/MFS 2016 is the first nationwide disability survey conducted in the Philippines aimed

at providing information on the different dimensions of disability– impairments, activity

limitations, participation restrictions, and environmental factors that either facilitate or hinder

full participation. These pieces of information are crucial in policy-making, program planning,

identification of the barriers that contribute to the problems people encounter, which, in turn,

help guide the development of policy, programs and services including those anchored on the

attainment of related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

PSA would like to express its deepest gratitude to the Department of Health (DOH), the

National Council on Disability Affairs (NCDA), and the University of the Philippines-Manila, for

their invaluable contributions during the preparation and finalization phases of the survey. We

also sincerely thank the technical assistance provided by the World Health Organization

(WHO). Great appreciation is also extended to the Survey Team of PSA for their hard work

and dedications, specifically the staff of the Demographic and Health Statistics Division

(DHSD), Social Sector Statistics Service (SSSS), who worked tirelessly throughout all stages

of the survey; the Information Technology and Dissemination Service (ITDS), the National

Censuses Service (NCS) for their support during the training process; the Finance and

Administrative Service (FAS) for its assistance in managing the logistics concerns in order to

support operations; the staff of the Regional Statistical Service Offices (RSSOs) and

Provincial Statistical Offices (POs) for overseeing the data collection activities; and all the

interviewing teams composed of team supervisors and interviewers. PSA is equally grateful

to the survey respondents who patiently shared their time and information during the

interviews.

CLAIRE DENNIS S. MAPA, Ph.D.

Undersecretary

National Statistician and Civil Registrar General

October 2019

Preface viii

Message - Department of Health | ix

MESSAGE - DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

Article 31 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (PWDs) highlights

the goal to improve disability data collection to provide better quality care for PWDs. The

importance of collecting, processing and using data in the campaign to improve health was

reiterated at the 2013 United Nations General Assembly on disability.

The Department of Health (DOH) in collaboration with the Philippine Statistics Authority

(PSA) and the World Health Organization (WHO), through the 2016National Disability

Prevalence Survey/Model Functioning Survey (NDPS/MFS 2016) reaffirms its commitment

to generate a more comprehensive, people-centered health information system that can be

utilized for sectoral policy development and planning under the Universal Health Care.

NDPS/MFS 2016, which was adopted from WHO Model Disability Survey is a general

population survey that allows for a direct comparison between the barriers faced by groups

with disability and those of people without disability. It is translated into succinct, evidence-

based guidelines to ensure better, healthier lives for PWDs.

We extend our heartfelt gratitude to PSA and WHO for their significant contribution in the

first successful conduct of the survey.

Through the DOH FOURmula One Plus for Health platform, other major players such as the

National Council on Disability Affairs, the University of the Philippines-Manila-College of

Allied Medical Professionals, and UP CAMP Community-Based Rehabilitation Program can

collaborate to accelerate and boost the implementation of the Universal Health Care.

With our collective efforts, we can provide Filipinos at different life stages the full spectrum of

health services from preventive, promotive, curative, rehabilitative, and palliative services.

As the primary steward of our nation’s health, DOH believes that our success can only be

measured by the well-being of our fellow Filipinos and how well the health system responds

to their needs.

Mabuhay… ToDOH Arangkada tungo sa UHC!

x | Message

Message - National Council on Disability Affairs | xi

MESSAGE - NATIONAL COUNCIL ON

DISABILITY AFFAIRS

The National Council on Disability Affairs congratulates the Philippine Statistics Authority

(PSA) and the Department of Health (DOH) for successfully completing the most awaited

National Disability Prevalence Survey/Model Functioning Survey (NDPS/MFS), with

technical support from the World Health Organization (WHO). It is indeed a breakthrough in

our quest to respond to the clamor of disability stakeholders for an evidence based,

comparable and reliable data which will serve as bases in the development of responsive

programs and services for persons with disabilities in our country.

NDPS/MFS, will be a great help to policy makers and program planners, as it provides

detailed and nuanced information about how people with and without disabilities conduct

their lives and the difficulties they encountered, regardless of any underlying health

conditions or impairment. It will surely help in bringing the persons with disabilities in

mainstream development and become partners in achieving AmBisyon Natin 2040.

As we know how PSA value its experience in conducting NDPS/MFS, we are assured that

the results of census to be conducted in 2020 will be more acceptable, useful and

comparable.

Through this official publication coming from the authority in data collection, interpretation

and management, persons with disabilities, their organizations and support groups will now

have a ready instrument to strengthen their advocacy for better policies, programs and

services addressed to national government agencies, local government units and

international development cooperation.

This is just a beginning and we are hoping that disability inclusion within PSA will strengthen

the commitment of the Philippine Government to value every person with disability counted

and accorded to them the rights and privileges they deserve to achieve equal opportunities.

CARMEN REYES-ZUBIAGA

Officer-In-Charge

National Council on Disability Affairs

xii | Message

Table of Contents | xiii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TITLE PAGE i

COPYRIGHT PAGE iii

TERMS OF USE OF PSA PUBLICATIONS v

PREFACE vii

MESSAGE (Department of Health) ix

MESSAGE (National Council on Disability Affairs) xi

TABLE OF CONTENTS xiii

TABLES AND FIGURES xvii

ABBREVIATIONS xxi

MAP OF THE PHILIPPINES xxiii

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION AND SURVEY METHODOLOGY 1

1.1 Survey Methodology 1

1.1.1 Survey Objectives 2

1.1.2 Sample Design and Coverage 2

1.1.3 About the Questionnaire 3

1.1.4 Pretest 3

1.1.5 Training of Field Staff 4

1.1.6 Fieldwork 4

1.1.7 Data Processing 4

1.1.8 Response Rate 5

1.2 Method of Analysis 6

1.3 Limitations of the Data 7

Chapter 2 CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS AND RESPONDENTS 9

2.1 Characteristics of Household Population 10

2.1.1 Household Population by Age Group 10

2.1.2 Household Population by Highest Educational Attainment 10

2.2 Basic Demographic Characteristics of Respondents 11

2.3 Educational Attainment of Respondents 12

2.4 Work Status of Respondents 12

2.5 Reasons for Not Working 13

xiv | Table of contents

Page

Chapter 3 SURVEY RESULTS 23

3.1 Disability 23

3.1.1 Distribution of Disability Among 15 Years Old and Over 24

3.2 Severe Disability Prevalence 31

3.3 Most Affected Daily Life Areas 32

3.3.1 Mobility 32

3.3.2 Self-Care 33

3.3.3 Seeing and Hearing 34

3.3.4 Pain, Sleep, Energy and Drive 34

3.3.5 Breathing 35

3.3.6 Interpersonal Relationships 36

3.3.7 Stress and Affect or Emotional Functions 36

3.3.8 Communication and Cognition 37

3.3.9 Household Tasks 38

3.3.10 Community and Citizenship Participation 39

3.3.11 Education 39

3.3.12 Work 40

3.4 Health 41

3.4.1 Health Conditions and Impairments 41

3.4.2 Capacity 42

3.5 Environmental Factors 43

3.5.1 General Environment 43

3.5.2 Personal Assistance 43

3.5.3 Attitudes of Others 44

3.5.4 Access to Information 46

3.5.5 Regular Use of Medication 46

3.5.6 Assistive Products and Modifications 47

3.6 Health Care Responsiveness 48

3.7 Empowerment 49

3.8 Well-Being (Quality of Life) 52

Table of Contents | xv

Page

Chapter 4 REFERENCES 65

Chapter 5 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A. TECHNICAL NOTES 67

A.1 The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health

(ICF) Model of Functioning, Disability and Health 67

A.2 The National Disability Prevalence Survey/Model Functioning Survey

(NDPS/MFS) 68

A.3 Further Explanation of Score Calculation 69

A.4 Sampling Design and Implementation 72

A.5 Selection of Household Members to be Interviewed 73

APPENDIX B. ESTIMATES OF SAMPLING ERRORS 75

APPENDIX C. WASHINGTON GROUP SHORT SET OF 77

QUESTIONS TABLE

APPENDIX D. PERSONS INVOLVED IN NDPS/MFS 2016 79

APPENDIX E. HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE 91

APPENDIX F. INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONNAIRE 95

APPENDIX G. PRIMER AND INFOGRAPHIC MATERIALS 135

xvi | Table of contents

Tables and Figures | xvii

TABLES AND FIGURES

Page

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION AND SURVEY METHODOLOGY 1

Table 1.1 Results of the household and individual interviews 5

Chapter 2 Characteristics of Households and Respondents 9

Table 2.1 Household population 14

Table 2.2 Household population by highest educational attainment 14

Table 2.3 Background characteristics of respondents 15

Table 2.4 Marital status of respondents 15

Table 2.5a Educational attainment of respondents 16

Table 2.5b Educational attainment of respondents by sex and age group 17

Table 2.6 Work status and class of worker of respondents 18

Table 2.7 Reason for not working 21

Figure 2.1 Household population 10

Figure 2.2 Household population by highest educational attainment 10

Figure 2.3 Respondents by age group and sex 11

Figure 2.4 Marital status of respondents 11

Figure 2.5 Highest educational attainment of respondents 12

Figure 2.6 Work status of respondents 12

Chapter 3 Survey Results 23

Table 3.0 Cut-off used to identify persons with mild, moderate and severe

disability 24

Table 3.1 Disability levels 55

Table 3.2 Background characteristics 56

Table 3.3 Disability levels by sex 57

Table 3.4a Disability levels by age group 57

Table 3.4b Disability levels by (bigger) age group 57

Table 3.5a Disability levels by work status and class of worker 58

Table 3.5b Disability levels by reasons for having not ever worked 58

Table 3.5c Disability levels by reason for not currently working 59

Table 3.6 Capacity levels 59

Table 3.7a Persons with personal assistance 60

Table 3.7b Persons with and without personal assistance but need more 60

Table 3.8 Access to needed information 61

xviii | Tables and Figures

Page

Table 3.9 Assistive products and modifications 62

Table 3.10a Health Care Utilization 62

Table 3.10b Reason(s) explaining why health care was not received 63

Figure 3.1 Disability continuum 24

Figure 3.2 Disability levels 25

Figure 3.3 Disability levels by sex 25

Figure 3.4 Disability levels by age group 26

Figure 3.5 Disability levels by education 26

Figure 3.6 Disability levels by marital status 27

Figure 3.7a Disability levels by work experience 27

Figure 3.7b Disability levels by current work status and class of worker 28

Figure 3.7c Disability levels by reason for having not ever worked 29

Figure 3.7d Disability levels by reason for not currently working 30

Figure 3.8 Severe disability rate by sex 31

Figure 3.9 Severe disability rate by age group 31

Figure 3.10 Mobility domains as quite extremely problematic or extremely

problematic 32

Figure 3.11 Mobility of the arms and hands as very problematic 33

Figure 3.12 Self-care aspects as very problematic 33

Figure 3.13 Seeing and hearing as very problematic 34

Figure 3.14 Pain, sleep and feeling tired as very problematic 35

Figure 3.15 Breathing as very problematic 35

Figure 3.16 Areas of interpersonal relationship as very problematic 36

Figure 3.17 Handling stress and emotional functions as very problematic 37

Figure 3.18 Communication as very problematic 37

Figure 3.19 Cognition areas as very problematic 38

Figure 3.20 Household tasks, managing money and providing care areas as

very problematic 38

Figure 3.21 Participation areas as very problematic 39

Figure 3.22 Education areas as very problematic 39

Figure 3.23 Work areas as very problematic 40

Figure 3.24 Health conditions and impairments 41

Figure 3.25 Capacity continuum 42

Figure 3.26 Capacity levels by sex 42

Figure 3.27 Hindering or facilitating environment 43

Figure 3.28a Personal assistance by type of assistants 44

Figure 3.28b Personal assistance 44

Tables and Figures | xix

Page

Figure 3.29 Respondents perception on the attitude of others around

him/her (“Mostly” or “Completely”) 45

Figure 3.30 Respondents perception on the attitude of others around

him/her (“No” or “Not at all”) 45

Figure 3.31 Access to information 46

Figure 3.32 Regular use of medication 46

Figure 3.33 Regular use of medication by age group 47

Figure 3.34 Unmet needs of assistive products and modification 47

Figure 3.35 Health care responsiveness 48

Figure 3.36 Quality of health care 49

Figure 3.37 Self-efficacy 50

Figure 3.38 Positive gains 50

Figure 3.39 Impact of the disability experience on quality of life (“A little” or

“Not at all”) 51

Figure 3.40 Impact of the disability experience on quality of life (“Very much”

or “Completely”) 51

Figure 3.41 Quality of life 53

Figure 3.42 Average quality of life score 53

Figure 3.43 Average loneliness life score 54

Figure 3.44 Average positive affect, negative affect and discomfort scores 55

APPENDIX A Technical Notes 67

Table A1. Cut-off used to identify persons with mild, moderate and severe

disability 69

Table A2. Assumptions of the Rasch model and their associated statistical

tests 71

Table A3. Kish table 73

Figure A1. Model of functioning, disability and health 68

Figure A2. Score calculation process 70

APPENDIX B Estimate Sampling Errors 75

Table B1. Sampling error 75

xx | Tables and Figures

Page

APPENDIX D Washington Group Short Set of Questions Table 77

Washington Group (WG) Table 77

Abbreviations | xxi

ABBREVIATIONS

CO Central Office

CPH Census of Population and Housing

DHSD Demographic and Health Statistics Division

DOH Department of Health

FAS Finance and Administrative Service

HUCs Highly Urbanized Cities

ICF International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health

ITDS Information Technology and Dissemination Service

MDS Model Disability Survey

MSF Master Sample Frame

NCDA National Council on Disability Affairs

PCM Partial Credit Model

POPCEN Census of Population

PSA Philippine Statistics Authority

PO Provincial Statistical Office

PSU Primary Sampling Unit

RSSO Regional Statistical Service Office

SDG Sustainable Development Goal

SLT Second Level Training

SSSS Social Sector Statistics Service

TFT Task Force Training

UNCRPD United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

WB World Bank

WHO World Health Organization

WHOQOL WHO Quality of Life

Map of the Philippines | xxiii

MAP OF THE PHILIPPINES

CALABARZON

MIMAROPA REGION

SOCCSKSARGEN

National Capital Region

xxiv | Map of the Philippines

Introduction and Survey Methodology | 1

INTRODUCTION AND

SURVEY METHODOLOGY 1

The 2016 National Disability Prevalence Survey which is also called the Model Functioning

Survey (NDPS/MFS 2016) is implemented by the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) in

collaboration with the Department of Health (DOH) and the National Council on Disability

Affairs (NCDA), and with technical assistance provided by the World Health Organization

(WHO). The University of the Philippines-Manila also provided significant inputs during the

development and the report writing stages. NDPS/MFS 2016 is anchored on the attainment

of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and is implemented in consonance with the

United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).

NDPS/MFS 2016 is a general population survey that allows for a direct comparison of the

needs and barriers faced by groups with differing levels of disability, including people without

disability/disabilities. It adopts the Model Disability Survey (MDS), which was grounded in

the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), and defines

disability as the outcome of the interaction between a person’s health-related status and the

physical, human-built, attitudinal and socio-political environment in which the person lives.

Disability is, therefore, not solely the result of an internal attribute of the person due to

impairments (e.g., lack of a limb) or specific health conditions (e.g., down syndrome).

In MDS, disability is also defined as a continuum, ranging from no disability to very high

levels of disability. Disability is, therefore, a matter of degree, and the experience of

disability is diverse and universal.

For instance, a person who suffered a stroke might experience impairments in muscle power

(problem with body function) and paralysis of arms and legs (problem with body structure),

limitations in walking and restrictions at work (problem with activities and participation).

If an environment is facilitating– for example, treatment is timely, appropriate and high

quality and the family is supportive– then there is a positive impact on the level of disability

experienced by the individual. Otherwise, environment is hindering and there is negative

impact on the level of functioning of the individual.

NDPS/MFS 2016 was carried out in the Philippines to provide information among

policymakers and program managers for evidence-based decisions in formulating policies

and in designing programs.

1.1 Survey Methodology

This section presents the objectives of the survey, the sample design used and the

coverage. It also presents the questionnaires utilized and its different modules, and the

information collected in each module. The section also discusses the stages in the

2 | Introduction and Survey Methodology

formulation of the questionnaire, the trainings of personnel involved in the survey, and the

field operation activities, namely, data collection and data processing.

1.1.1 Survey Objectives

NDPS/MFS 2016 seeks to provide detailed and nuanced information about how people

conduct their lives and the difficulties they encounter regardless of any underlying health

condition or impairment. The study helps the country identify the barriers that contribute to

the problems that people encounter, which, in turn, help guide policy and service

development; as well as contribute in monitoring SDGs.

The objectives for the implementation of NDPS/MFS 2016 in the Philippines are:

1. to estimate the prevalence of disability in the country;

2. to determine the current disability distribution of the population;

3. to identify the needs, barriers and inequalities faced by persons with different level

of disability; and

4. to provide the information necessary for the development of future policy priorities

to improve the lives of the population with disability.

1.1.2 Sample Design and Coverage

NDPS/MFS 2016 utilized the 2013 Master Sample (2013 MS) for household-based surveys

of PSA (see Appendix A.4). The 2013 MS was designed to produce reliable quarterly

estimates of selected indicators both at the national and regional levels.

The sample selection methodology for NDPS/MFS 2016 is based on a two-stage stratified

sample design using the 2013 MS Frame. The 2013 MS Frame is constructed based on the

results of the 2010 Census of Population and Housing (2010 CPH) and updated based on

the 2015 Census of Population (2015 POPCEN).

The first stage sampling involved a systematic selection of 1,250 Primary Sampling Units

(PSUs) distributed by province or Highly Urbanized Cities (HUCs). A PSU can be a

barangay, a portion of a large barangay, or two or more adjacent small barangays.

In the second stage, an equal take of either 12 or 16 sample housing units were selected

from each sampled PSU using systematic random sampling. In situations where a housing

unit contained one to three households, all households were interviewed. In the rare

situation where a housing unit contained more than three households, no more than three

households were interviewed.

NDPS/MFS 2016 covered around 11,000 housing units or one replicate or one-fourth of the

quarterly sample of 2013 MS, deemed sufficient to provide reliable estimates at the national

level only. For each sample household, one household member age 15 and over was

randomly selected using the Kish method (see Appendix A.5) as an eligible respondent or

about 10,240 individuals.


1.1.3 About the Questionnaire

NDPS/MFS 2016 questionnaire adopts MDS questionnaire developed by WHO and the

World Bank. MDS questionnaires were modified to suit the Philippine setting and to conform

with the questionnaire design being used for household-based surveys of PSA.

There were two types of questionnaires used in the survey: the Household Questionnaire

(NDPS/MFS FORM 1) and the Individual Questionnaire (NDPS/MFS FORM 2).

NDPS/MFS FORM 1 was administered to all sample households and was used to collect

information on the following topics:

▪ Household membership

▪ Background characteristics of household members

▪ Financial, physical and emotional needs

▪ Household assets

NDPS/MFS FORM 2 was administered to one randomly selected individual age 15 and over

for each household and was used to gather information on the following topics:

▪ Socio-demographic characteristics (Module 1000)

▪ Work history and benefits (Module 2000)

▪ Environmental factors (Module 3000A)

▪ Functioning (Module 4000)

▪ Health condition (Module 5000)

▪ Personal assistance, assistive devices and facilitators (Module 3000B)

▪ Health care utilization (Module 6000)

▪ Well-being (Module 7000)

▪ Empowerment (Module 8000)

There were consultations carried-out with stakeholders during the formulation of questions

and there were pretests conducted prior to the finalization of questionnaires.

1.1.4 Pretest

Two formal pretests were conducted prior to finalizing the survey instruments. These

pretests were aimed at checking the flow and clarity of the questions and the sustainability of

respondents’ attitudes and motivation in answering the questions. The first pretest was held

from 09 to 11 August 2016 in Antipolo City, Rizal while the second pretest was conducted

from 06 to 09 September 2016 in Batangas City, Batangas. Prior to each pretest, a briefing

that focused on the discussion of the concepts used in the survey, data collection,

supervision procedures, and specific instructions in filling out the questionnaires was carried-

out. In the pretests, team approach was adopted with the purpose that interviewers could

easily communicate and could resolve any problems encountered during the pretest data

collection. Each interviewer was required to interview two households with an eligible

respondent age 15 and over.


A debriefing after each pretest was also conducted to discuss the experiences in the

administration of the questionnaires including problems encountered in the field and

recommendations which were identified as resolution to the identified problems.

The survey instruments were finalized and were approved by the Statistical Survey Review

and Clearance System (SSRCS) of the Standards Service (SS) of PSA.

1.1.5 Training of Field Staff

Training of the field staff was conducted in two levels. The first level was the Task Force

Training (TFT) for regional trainers, and the second level or the regional training for field

supervisors and interviewers.

TFT was conducted from 07 to 11 November 2016 in Tagaytay City, Cavite. The training

was focused on the discussion of concepts, operational definitions used in the survey,

specific instructions in filling out the questionnaires, and data collection and supervision

procedures. All the participants in the TFT were regional Statistical Operations and

Coordination Division (SOCD) staff, designated NDPS/MFS 2016 regional supervisors and

selected staff of the DHSD of SSSS.

The Second Level Training (SLT) was carried out from 14 to 19 November 2016 in

the 18 training centers spread throughout the regions. The second level trainers were

members of TFT who completed the first level training.

1.1.6 Fieldwork

NDPS/MFS 2016 data collection was implemented for 20 days from 21 November to

13 December 2016. A total of 190 field interviewers and 95 field supervisors were

responsible for the data collection.

Each interview lasted for one hour and thirty minutes, on the average, but it took longer

depending on respondents' comprehension and literacy level. The respondents with

language difficulties, with limited education, and with poor health condition took longer time

to complete the interview.

1.1.7 Data Processing

The processing of NDPS/MFS 2016 data was implemented to check the consistency and

reasonableness of entries in each of the filled-out questionnaires. There were two main

activities involved in the data processing: (1) the manual data processing; and (2) machine

data processing.


The personnel who were involved in these activities have undergone training. Prior to the

manual processing activity, a TFT training on manual processing was conducted

10 to 12 January 2017 and was participated by PSA regional staff and selected personnel

from DHSD.

A SLT on manual data processing was conducted from 16 to 18 January 2017 and was

participated by the manual processors. NDPS/MFS 2016 manual data processing was

implemented for 20 days from 09 January to 10 February 2017 at PSA Provincial Offices.

All inconsistent, unreasonable, or vague entries observed during manual data processing

were verified and rectified.

The data entry and machine processing at PSA RSSOs were conducted from 09 February to

10 March 2017. Further processing- was also done at PSA Central Office (CO) to ensure

that inconsistent, unreasonable, or vague entries are verified and rectified. After the

machine processing at PSA CO, the data files were provided to WHO for final data validation

and data generation of statistical tables.

1.1.8 Response Rates

Out of the 10,471 sample households, 10,464 household interviews were successfully

completed which translated to 99.9 percent household response rate.

Among individuals age 15 and over who were identified for individual interviews, about

10,240 were successfully interviewed out of the 10,480 samples which translated to

99.6 percent response rate.

Table 1.1 Results of the household and individual interviews

Number of household interviews, number of individual interviews, and

response rates (unweighted), Philippines NDPS/MFS 2016

Results Total

Household interviews

Households selected 10,480

Households occupied 10,471

Households interviewed 10,464

Household response rate¹ 99.9

Interviews with individuals 15 years old and over

Number of el igible respondents ² 10,280

Number of el igible respondents interviewed 10,240

Individual response rate 99.6

¹ Households interviewed/Household occupied

² Respondents interviewed/eligible respondents


1.2 Method of Analysis

NDPS/MFS 2016 is a survey for individuals age 15 and over, aimed to measure different

levels of disability at the population level, i.e., both persons with significant or severe levels

of disability and persons with moderate or low levels. The distribution of the general

population by level of disability is hereby presented in a continuum, ranging from

zero (no disability) to 100 (severe disability).

The NDPS/MFS adapted the MDS developed by WHO and WB. The Individual

Questionnaire (NDPS/MFS Form 2) contains four core modules from the MDS namely;

▪ Environmental Factors (Module 3000A);

▪ Functioning (Module 4000);

▪ Health Conditions (Module 5000); and

▪ Personal Assistance, Assistive Devices, and Facilitators (Module 3000B)

These modules are essential in measuring both the “capacity” (Module 5000) and

“performance” (Module 4000) of an individual using a metric scale ranging from zero

(no problem or difficulty) to 100 (extreme problem or difficulty).

Some details on the concepts and on the collection of information on capacity, performance,

environmental factors and health conditions are briefly given below:

1. Environmental factors are measured in two sections.

Module 3000A - Environmental Factors encompasses nine questions about:

▪ Hindering or facilitating aspects of the environment;

▪ Family and social support; and

▪ Attitudes of others.

Module 3000B - Personal Assistance and Assistive Devices, and Facilitators

includes specific questions that are generally relevant only to the part of a sample

experiencing higher levels of disability. It encompasses questions about use and need

of personal assistance and assistive products.

2. Performance is measured in the Module 4000 - Functioning using 48 questions

asking how much of a problem the person experiences in the following domains:

▪ Mobility (walking a kilometer, getting where you want to go and using public

or private transportation);

▪ Self-Care (being clean and dressed, toileting and looking after your health);

▪ Energy and drive (feeling tired and not having enough energy);

▪ Dealing with stress (coping with all the things one must do);

▪ Cognition (remembering important things in day-to-day life);

▪ Household tasks (getting household tasks done);

▪ Community participation (joining community activities); and

▪ Work and education (getting things done as required at work or school).


3. Capacity is measured in Module 5000 - Health Conditions using 17 questions asking

how much difficulty the person has because of his/her health conditions regarding:

▪ Seeing (at a distance);

▪ Hearing;

▪ Mobility (walking or climbing steps);

▪ Cognition (remembering or concentrating);

▪ Self-care (washing or dressing);

▪ Energy and drive (sleeping);

▪ Household tasks;

▪ Community participation (joining community activities);

▪ Affect (feeling sad, low, worried or anxious);

▪ Interpersonal relationships (getting along with people who are close); and

▪ Pain.

This section starts with the question “How would you rate your health today?” to

support respondents focusing their attention on health. The last question of this module

asks about the presence of a health condition.

The above definition requires the use of metric scales to assess performance problems and

difficulty in capacity. As recommended by the World Report on Disability, two scales with

metric properties are built: (i) a capacity scale, based on the capacity questions; and (ii) a

performance scale, based on performance questions.

The partial credit model (PCM) or the polytomous Rasch model is used to develop the

capacity and performance scales with metrical properties.

Further details can be found on the Technical Notes at Appendix A.

1.3 Limitations of the Data

NDPS/MFS 2016 covered around 11,000 households which were deemed sufficient to

provide reliable estimates at the national level only. Hence, the tabulations and cross-

tabulations of variables at lower geographic levels were not generated since these may not

be statistically reliable.

Data gathered from NDPS/MFS 2016 are results of a sample survey and are therefore

subject to sampling variations, that is, sampling errors are expected since the data are not

obtained through complete enumeration or census.

Characteristics of Households and Respondents | 9

CHARACTERISTICS OF

HOUSEHOLDS AND RESPONDENTS 2

Key Findings

▪ Household composition: On the average, households

have 4.5 members; there is an even distribution between

male (50%) and female (50%) in the household population.

▪ Household members’ age: Majority (64%) of household

members are in the working age (15 to 64) while 36% are

dependents (0 to 14 and 65 and over).

▪ Household members’ educational attainment:

Six percent of household members have no education, 34%

have at least some elementary education, 36% have at

least some high school education, and 24% have at least

some college education.

▪ Respondent’s age: Almost all (90%) of the respondents

are in the working age.

▪ Respondent’s marital status: Sixty percent of

respondents are either married or living together with a

partner, 31% are never married, and 9% are either

separated/annulled/ divorced or widowed.

▪ Respondent’s educational attainment: Forty-four

percent of respondents have at least some high school

education, 29% have at least some college education, 26%

have at least some elementary education and two percent

have no education.

▪ Respondent’s work status: Three out of five respondents

(62%) are currently working with most are working in private

establishments or are self-employed without any paid

employee.

This chapter presents information on household composition and basic demographic

characteristics of the population such as age, sex, and marital status. Demographics of the

individual respondents are likewise presented in this chapter. In addition, information on

respondents’ level of education, work status, and reason for not working are also provided.

These information of the household population and of the respondents were collected in

NDPS/MFS 2016 to provide background in interpreting disability-related indicators.

10 | Characteristics of Households and Respondents

2.1 Characteristics of Household Population

A Household is a social unit consisting of a person living alone or a group of persons who

sleep in the same housing unit and have a common arrangement in the preparation and

consumption of food.

2.1.1 Household Population by Age Group

The total household population in NDPS/MFS 2016 which comprised of all persons that are

considered usual members of the sample households is around 47,000.

Figure 2.1 shows that a great majority (64%) of the

household population are age 15 to 64 years

(working age group) 31 percent are under age

15 years (young dependents), and five percent are

65 years or older (old dependents).

2.1.2 Household Population by Highest Educational Attainment

Figure 2.2 presents that six percent of the household attained no education, 34 percent

attained either Some elementary or Completed elementary education, 36 percent either

attained Some high school or Completed high school education or grade 10, and 24 percent

either attained Some college or Completed college education or higher.

FIGURE 2.2 Household population by highest educational attainment

Percent distribution of household population according to highest educational attainment

_____________________________

Dependency ratio is an age-population ratio of those typically not in the labor force (the dependent part ages 0 to 14 and 65+) and those in the productive ages 15 to 64.

The dependency ratio is the number of dependents in a population divided by the number of working age population. Dependents are defined as those ages zero to 14 and

those ages 65 and older. It is used to measure the pressure on productive population. According to Republic Act No. 9994 (Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2010) senior

citizen or elderly refers to any Filipino citizen who is a resident of the Philippines and who is 60 years old or above.

6

23

11

15

21

9

15

No education¹ Someelementary

Completedelementary²

Some highschool

Completedhigh schoolor grade 10³

Somecollege

Completedcollege & up

Notes: 1 Pre-school was added to no education 2 SPED undergraduate/graduate was added to elementary graduate 3 Post secondary undergraduate/graduate was added to completed high school or Grade 10

FIGURE 2.1 Household population

Percent distribution of household population

according to age dependency group

31

64

5

0-14 15-64 65 and over


2.2 Basic Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

Figure 2.3 shows that almost three in five (57%) respondents are in age group 15 to 39.

The males outnumbered their female counterpart in the age group 15 to 59 (88% vs. 83%,

respectively) while the females show higher proportion than males in the age group 60 and

over (12% vs. 17%, respectively).

FIGURE 2.3 Respondents by age group and sex

Percent distribution of individuals age 15 and over by age group according to sex

Three in every five (60%) respondents are either Married or Living together with a partner,

three in ten are Single or Never married (31%), nine percent are either Widowed or

Separated/annulled/ divorced (Figure 2.4).

FIGURE 2.4 Marital status of respondents

Percent distribution of individuals age 15 and over according to marital status

31

49

11

27

Nevermarried

Married Livingtogether

Separated/Annulled/Divorced

Widowed

Male Female Total

59

29

12

15-39 40-59 60 and over

54

29

17

15-39 40-59 60 and over

57

29

14

15-39 40-59 60 and over


2.3 Educational Attainment of Respondents

Figure 2.5 illustrates that among the respondents, those who have studied Some high school

and Completed high school (old curriculum) or grade 10 in the K to 12 (new curriculum) has

the highest percentage (total of 43%).

Around twenty-nine percent of respondents have reached tertiary education, of which, 17

percent have Completed college or higher. About 26 percent have either Some or Completed

elementary education while only two percent of the respondents have No education.

FIGURE 2.5 Highest educational attainment of respondents Percent distribution of individuals age 15 and over according to highest educational attainment

2.4 Work Status of Respondents

In NDPS/MFS 2016, work refers to formal and informal economic activities or employment in

the formal and informal sectors. Some people take jobs for which they are paid in cash or in

kind while others sell things, have a small business, or work on the family farm or family

business.

When asked about their work status, more than three in every five (62%) respondents are

currently working, with more male respondents (73%) than female respondents (50%) who

are currently working (Figure 2.6).

FIGURE 2.6 Work status of respondents Percentage of individuals age 15 years old and over who are currently working by sex

2

14 12

17

26

12

17

No education¹ Someelementary

Completedelementary²

Some highschool

Completedhigh schoolor grade 10³

Somecollege

Completedcollege & up

73

5062

Male Female Total

Notes: 1 Pre-school was added to no education 2 SPED undergraduate/graduate was added to elementary graduate 3 Post secondary undergraduate/graduate was added to completed high school or Grade 10


More than half of the respondents are either working in private establishments (26%) or are

self-employed (19%). Highest proportion of females are either working in private estab-

lishments or are self-employed, both at 16 percent. While most of the males are either working

in private establishment (36%) or are self-employed (21%) (See Table 2.6).

2.5 Reasons for Not Currently Working

More than four in every ten respondents (43%) are not Currently working due to Personal

family responsibilities; almost two in every ten (19%) attributed it to Health condition or

disability. Among the 15 to 39 age group, most are not working due to Personal family

responsibilities (56%) and Schooling (19%); among the 40 to 59 age group, most are due to

Personal family responsibilities (60%); and among the older age group (60 and over), most

are either Retired due to age (48%) or are Suffering a health condition or disability (34%).

Among the males in working ages (15 to 59), the top reason cited for not working is Health

condition or disability (32%). Among the females in the same age group, the top reason is

Personal family responsibilities (58%).

As age increases, reasons such as health condition and disability and retirement for both male

and female respondents also increase (See Table 2.7).

List of tables:

For more information on survey results, see the following tables:

▪ Table 2.1 Household population

▪ Table 2.2 Household population by highest educational attainment

▪ Table 2.3 Background characteristics of respondents

▪ Table 2.4 Marital status of respondents

▪ Table 2.5a Educational attainment of respondents

▪ Table 2.5b Educational attainment of respondents by sex and age group

▪ Table 2.6 Work status and class of worker of respondents

▪ Table 2.7 Reason for not currently working


Table 2.1 Household population

Percent distribution of household population by age group according to

sex, Philippines NDPS/MFS 2016

Age group Male Female Tota l

0-4 11.1 10.6 10.9

5-9 10.5 10.2 10.4

10-14 10.1 9.7 9.9

15-19 9.9 9.5 9.7

20-24 9.5 9.2 9.3

25-29 8.4 8.3 8.4

30-34 7.3 7.3 7.3

35-39 6.6 6.6 6.6

40-44 5.9 5.9 5.9

45-49 5.3 5.3 5.3

50-54 4.5 4.6 4.6

55-59 3.7 3.8 3.8

60-64 2.8 3.0 2.9

65-69 1.9 2.2 2.1

70-74 1.2 1.5 1.3

75-79 0.7 1.0 0.9

80+ 0.6 1.0 0.8

Tota l 100.0 100.0 100.0

Dependency age groups

0-14 31.7 30.6 31.2

15-64 63.9 63.5 63.7

65+ 4.3 5.9 5.1

Tota l 100.0 100.0 100.0

Household population 23,552 23,410 46,962

Sex

Table 2.2 Household population by highest educational attainment

Percent distribution of household population age 5 and over by highest grade completed

according to sex, Philippines NDPS/MFS 2016

Highest educational attainment Male Female Total

No education¹ 6.7 6.2 6.4

Some elementary 24.7 20.4 22.6

Completed elementary² 11.4 10.6 11.0

Some high school 14.9 14.3 14.6

Completed high school or grade 10³ 20.5 22.4 21.5

Some col lege 9.1 9.8 9.4

Completed col lege and up 12.7 16.3 14.5

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Household population 21,158 21,185 42,343

¹ Pre-school was added to no education

² SPED undergraduate/graduate was added to elementary graduate

³ Post secondary undergraduate/graduate was added to completed high school or Grade 10

Sex


Table 2.3 Background characteristics of respondents

Percent distribution of individuals age 15 and over by age group according

to sex, Philippines NDPS/MFS 2016

Age group Male Female Tota l

15-19 15.5 13.3 14.4

20-24 12.3 11.6 11.9

25-29 11.8 9.8 10.8

30-34 10.2 9.5 9.9

35-39 9.6 9.5 9.5

40-44 9.0 7.9 8.5

45-49 6.5 7.5 7.0

50-54 6.9 7.0 6.9

55-59 6.6 6.6 6.6

60-64 4.7 5.2 4.9

65-69 3.1 4.6 3.8

70-74 2.0 3.3 2.7

75-79 0.7 1.9 1.3

80+ 1.0 2.3 1.6

Tota l 100.0 100.0 100.0

Dependency age groups

15-64 93.1 87.9 90.5

65+ 6.9 12.1 9.5

Tota l 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note: Totals may not add up to 100% due to rounding

Sex

Table 2.4 Marital status of respondents

Percent distribution of individuals age 15 and over by marital status according to

sex, Philippines NDPS/MFS 2016

Marital status Male Female Tota l

Never married 34.8 27.1 31.0

Married 49.7 49.0 49.3

Living together 11.7 10.3 11.0

Separated/Annul led/Divorced 1.6 2.8 2.2

Widowed 2.3 10.8 6.5

Tota l 100.0 100.0 100.0

Number of respondents 5,168 5,072 10,240

Sex


Table 2.5a Educational attainment of respondents

Percent distribution of individuals age 15 and over by highest educational attainment

according to sex, Philippines NDPS/MFS 2016

Highest educational attainment Male Female Total

No education¹ 1.7 1.8 1.8

Some elementary 14.6 12.6 13.6

Completed elementary² 11.7 12.1 11.9

Some high school 18.7 14.9 16.8

Completed high school or grade 10³ 26.8 26.9 26.9

Some col lege 11.5 11.8 11.7

Completed col lege and up 15.0 19.9 17.4

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Number of respondents 5,168 5,072 10,240





Sex


Table 2.5b Educational attainment of respondents by sex and age group

Percent distribution of individuals age 15 and over by highest educational attainment according to sex and age group, Philippines NDPS/MFS 2016

Completed Completed

No Some Completed Some high school Some college No. of

Sex and age group education elementary¹ elementary high school or grade 10² college and up Total respondents

15-19 1.1 8.4 5.4 43.5 25.1 16.1 0.3 100.0 1,031

20-24 0.5 6.9 4.7 12.9 28.4 20.8 25.8 100.0 974

25-29 0.9 8.6 8.5 13.0 31.6 13.1 24.3 100.0 1,140

30-34 2.1 10.4 9.7 12.6 32.3 12.8 20.1 100.0 1,178

35-39 1.5 11.8 10.8 12.7 30.1 10.8 22.4 100.0 1,155

40-44 2.0 13.4 10.0 10.5 32.1 8.8 23.3 100.0 905

45-49 1.7 13.3 18.5 10.3 28.2 8.6 19.4 100.0 761

50-54 2.3 17.1 18.1 12.2 25.7 7.1 17.5 100.0 725

55-59 0.9 19.2 16.4 17.2 26.5 7.8 11.9 100.0 682

60-64 2.3 22.1 23.2 10.8 18.6 5.8 17.2 100.0 571

65-69 3.3 27.7 19.0 10.1 19.1 5.5 15.4 100.0 436

70-74 6.1 25.9 25.2 10.5 11.8 5.6 14.9 100.0 290

75-79 9.0 41.3 26.8 8.2 3.8 2.7 8.1 100.0 180

80+ 6.4 34.3 15.4 15.4 7.1 6.4 15.0 100.0 212

Total 1.8 13.6 11.9 16.8 26.9 11.7 17.4 100.0 10,240

15-19 1.8 11.4 6.7 45.0 20.3 14.5 0.3 100.0 533

20-24 0.4 8.9 4.5 16.1 27.1 19.9 23.1 100.0 503

25-29 0.8 10.6 10.9 14.8 30.3 13.5 19.1 100.0 614

30-34 1.7 14.1 11.9 13.7 32.9 9.3 16.4 100.0 643

35-39 1.7 13.9 11.3 15.3 29.3 8.6 20.0 100.0 608

40-44 1.8 15.9 13.3 11.0 32.9 7.8 17.3 100.0 497

45-49 1.7 17.3 16.7 12.2 26.6 11.7 13.8 100.0 375

50-54 2.8 16.2 15.8 11.3 26.2 9.1 18.6 100.0 358

55-59 0.4 19.7 16.6 16.6 29.1 6.7 10.8 100.0 340

60-64 3.6 22.0 20.1 9.6 20.0 7.2 17.6 100.0 271

65-69 3.6 27.0 13.2 14.9 24.6 6.1 10.6 100.0 192

70-74 5.1 18.4 18.1 16.9 14.3 10.3 16.8 100.0 114

75-79 4.9 25.6 24.4 14.3 10.3 2.9 17.6 100.0 58

80+ 7.6 30.4 16.8 6.3 5.0 15.9 18.1 100.0 62

Total 1.7 14.6 11.7 18.7 26.8 11.5 15.0 100.0 5,168

15-19 0.2 4.9 3.8 41.7 30.9 18.1 0.4 100.0 498

20-24 0.5 4.7 5.0 9.4 29.8 21.8 28.7 100.0 471

25-29 1.0 6.1 5.6 10.6 33.2 12.5 30.9 100.0 526

30-34 2.6 6.2 7.2 11.4 31.6 16.7 24.2 100.0 535

35-39 1.2 9.7 10.3 9.9 30.9 13.0 24.9 100.0 547

40-44 2.3 10.4 6.1 9.8 31.1 10.1 30.4 100.0 408

45-49 1.7 9.7 20.0 8.7 29.7 5.9 24.4 100.0 386

50-54 1.7 18.1 20.5 13.1 25.2 5.0 16.4 100.0 367

55-59 1.5 18.8 16.1 17.7 23.8 9.0 13.1 100.0 342

60-64 1.0 22.2 26.1 11.9 17.4 4.5 16.9 100.0 300

65-69 3.0 28.2 23.0 6.7 15.2 5.1 18.8 100.0 244

70-74 6.8 30.7 29.8 6.4 10.2 2.5 13.7 100.0 176

75-79 10.6 47.7 27.9 5.8 1.1 2.7 4.3 100.0 122

80+ 5.9 35.9 14.8 19.4 8.0 2.3 13.6 100.0 150

Total 1.8 12.6 12.1 14.9 26.9 11.8 19.9 100.0 5,072





FEMALE

BOTH SEXES

Highest educational atta inment

MALE


Ta

ble

2.6

Wo

rk s

tatu

s a

nd

cla

ss o

f w

ork

er

of

resp

on

de

nts

Pe

rce

nt

dis

trib

uti

on

of

ind

ivid

ua

ls a

ge

15

an

d o

ve

r b

y w

ork

sta

tus a

nd

cla

ss o

f w

ork

er

acco

rdin

g t

o s

ex a

nd

ag

e g

rou

p, P

hil

ipp

ine

s N

DP

S/M

FS

20

16

Em

plo

ye

rW

ork

ed

wit

hW

ork

ed

wit

ho

ut

Wo

rke

d f

or

Se

lf-

in o

wn

pa

y in

ow

n

pa

y in

ow

n

Wo

rke

d f

or

Wo

rke

d f

or

go

ve

rnm

en

t/e

mp

loy

ed

fam

ily

fa

rm/

fam

ily

fa

rm/

fam

ily

fa

rm/

No

. o

f

Se

x a

nd

p

riva

tep

riva

teg

ove

rnm

en

tw

ith

ou

t a

no

pe

rate

do

pe

rate

do

pe

rate

dN

ot

ag

e g

rou

ph

ou

se

ho

lde

sta

blish

me

nt

co

rpo

rati

on

em

plo

ye

eb

usin

ess

bu

sin

ess

bu

sin

ess

Oth

er

wo

rkin

g¹

To

tal

resp

on

de

nts

15

-19

3.7

8.7

0.1

2.0

-0

.52

.3-

82

.61

00

.01

,03

1

20

-24

4.0

39

.42

.67

.60

.40

.73

.70

.14

1.6

10

0.0

97

4

25

-29

4.5

46

.03

.81

5.5

2.6

0.2

2.8

-2

4.7

10

0.0

1,1

40

30

-34

5.7

35

.95

.52

2.5

2.9

1.1

3.3

-2

3.1

10

0.0

1,1

78

35

-39

7.7

36

.36

.92

3.2

2.6

0.7

2.6

-2

0.1

10

0.0

1,1

55

40

-44

7.8

32

.08

.92

4.3

3.3

0.9

3.8

-1

9.1

10

0.0

90

5

45

-49

8.4

26

.71

0.7

30

.73

.30

.61

.9-

17

.61

00

.07

61

50

-54

6.5

19

.99

.73

3.9

3.2

0.6

5.7

0.3

20

.21

00

.07

25

55

-59

6.9

19

.98

.22

7.7

4.4

0.8

3.7

-2

8.4

10

0.0

68

2

60

-64

7.3

9.8

3.6

25

.75

.20

.34

.9-

43

.21

00

.05

71

65

-69

3.3

6.1

3.6

24

.24

.70

.74

.2-

53

.21

00

.04

36

70

-74

0.7

5.2

2.4

19

.05

.50

.74

.1-

62

.41

00

.02

90

75

-79

0.8

3.6

1.7

17

.55

.30

.82

.8-

67

.51

00

.01

80

80

+2

.00

.8-

6.6

0.1

-0

.1-

90

.31

00

.02

12

To

tal

5.5

26

.15

.01

8.8

2.5

0.6

3.3

*3

8.1

10

0.0

10

,24

0

No

te: T

ota

ls m

ay

no

t a

dd

up

to

10

0%

du

e t

o r

ou

nd

ing

¹ In

clu

de

s t

ho

se

wh

o n

eve

r w

ork

ed

.

"*"

ind

ica

tes t

ha

t th

e f

igu

re is le

ss t

ha

n 0

.1 w

eig

hte

d c

ase

s a

nd

ha

s b

ee

n s

up

pre

sse

d.

"-"

de

no

tes z

ero

ca

se

s.

BO

TH

SE

XE

S

Wo

rk s

tatu

s a

nd

cla

ss

of

wo

rke

r

tab

le c

on

tin

ue

d


Ta

ble

2.6

Wo

rk s

tatu

s a

nd

cla

ss o

f w

ork

er

of

resp

on

de

nts

Pe

rce

nt

dis

trib

uti

on

of

ind

ivid

ua

ls a

ge

15

an

d o

ve

r b

y w

ork

sta

tus a

nd

cla

ss o

f w

ork

er

acco

rdin

g t

o s

ex a

nd

ag

e g

rou

p, P

hil

ipp

ine

s N

DP

S/M

FS

20

16

Em

plo

ye

rW

ork

ed

wit

hW

ork

ed

wit

ho

ut

Wo

rke

d f

or

Se

lf-

in o

wn

pa

y in

ow

n

pa

y in

ow

n

Wo

rke

d f

or

Wo

rke

d f

or

go

ve

rnm

en

t/e

mp

loy

ed

fam

ily

fa

rm/

fam

ily

fa

rm/

fam

ily

fa

rm/

No

. o

f

Se

x a

nd

p

riva

tep

riva

teg

ove

rnm

en

tw

ith

ou

t a

no

pe

rate

do

pe

rate

do

pe

rate

dN

ot

ag

e g

rou

ph

ou

se

ho

lde

sta

blish

me

nt

co

rpo

rati

on

em

plo

ye

eb

usin

ess

bu

sin

ess

bu

sin

ess

Oth

er

wo

rkin

g¹

To

tal

resp

on

de

nts

15

-19

3.3

12

.30

.22

.4-

1.0

3.6

-7

7.1

10

0.0

53

3

20

-24

3.7

48

.32

.29

.70

.50

.73

.9-

31

.01

00

.05

03

25

-29

3.1

57

.03

.81

8.7

4.6

0.2

2.2

-1

0.4

10

0.0

61

4

30

-34

4.6

51

.44

.52

6.0

4.3

0.3

1.7

-7

.21

00

.06

43

35

-39

5.8

49

.84

.22

9.4

4.0

0.6

0.9

-5

.41

00

.06

08

40

-44

4.2

43

.37

.02

6.3

6.0

0.7

2.2

-1

0.4

10

0.0

49

7

45

-49

5.7

39

.08

.43

5.1

4.4

0.3

1.8

-5

.21

00

.03

75

50

-54

5.8

29

.71

1.2

37

.04

.20

.41

.90

.69

.11

00

.03

58

55

-59

4.8

30

.09

.12

9.9

3.9

0.6

2.2

-1

9.5

10

0.0

34

0

60

-64

4.8

13

.63

.43

0.7

8.0

0.2

3.6

-3

5.6

10

0.0

27

1

65

-69

2.9

13

.31

.63

0.2

8.2

1.1

0.3

-4

2.3

10

0.0

19

2

70

-74

-8

.34

.71

4.0

9.9

0.2

2.6

-6

0.3

10

0.0

11

4

75

-79

2.2

1.4

6.0

23

.01

1.1

-4

.8-

51

.71

00

.05

8

80

+6

.21

.4-

11

.5-

-0

.1-

80

.91

00

.06

2

To

tal

4.2

36

.34

.52

1.4

3.7

0.5

2.4

*2

6.8

10

0.0

5,1

68

No

te: T

ota

ls m

ay

no

t a

dd

up

to

10

0%

du

e t

o r

ou

nd

ing

¹ In

clu

de

s t

ho

se

wh

o n

eve

r w

ork

ed

.

"*"

ind

ica

tes t

ha

t th

e f

igu

re is le

ss t

ha

n 0

.1 w

eig

hte

d c

ase

s a

nd

ha

s b

ee

n s

up

pre

sse

d.

"-"

de

no

tes z

ero

ca

se

s.

MA

LE

Wo

rk s

tatu

s a

nd

cla

ss

of

wo

rke

r

tab

le c

on

tin

ue

d


Ta

ble

2.6

Wo

rk s

tatu

s a

nd

cla

ss o

f w

ork

er

of

resp

on

de

nts

- c

on

clu

de

d

Pe

rce

nt

dis

trib

uti

on

of

ind

ivid

ua

ls a

ge

15

an

d o

ve

r b

y w

ork

sta

tus a

nd

cla

ss o

f w

ork

er

acco

rdin

g t

o s

ex a

nd

ag

e g

rou

p, P

hil

ipp

ine

s N

DP

S/M

FS

20

16

Em

plo

ye

rW

ork

ed

wit

hW

ork

ed

wit

ho

ut

Wo

rke

d f

or

Se

lf-

in o

wn

pa

y in

ow

n

pa

y in

ow

n

Wo

rke

d f

or

Wo

rke

d f

or

go

ve

rnm

en

t/e

mp

loy

ed

fam

ily

fa

rm/

fam

ily

fa

rm/

fam

ily

fa

rm/

No

. o

f

Se

x a

nd

p

riva

tep

riva

teg

ove

rnm

en

tw

ith

ou

t a

no

pe

rate

do

pe

rate

do

pe

rate

dN

ot

ag

e g

rou

ph

ou

se

ho

lde

sta

blish

me

nt

co

rpo

rati

on

em

plo

ye

eb

usin

ess

bu

sin

ess

bu

sin

ess

Oth

er

wo

rkin

g¹

To

tal

resp

on

de

nts

15

-19

4.1

4.4

-1

.6-

-0

.8-

89

.21

00

.04

98

20

-24

4.5

29

.52

.95

.40

.30

.73

.40

.15

3.3

10

0.0

47

1

25

-29

6.1

32

.23

.81

1.5

0.1

0.3

3.5

-4

2.5

10

0.0

52

6

30

-34

6.8

18

.76

.61

8.5

1.4

1.9

5.1

-4

0.9

10

0.0

53

5

35

-39

9.7

22

.29

.61

6.8

1.1

0.8

4.4

-3

5.3

10

0.0

54

7

40

-44

12

.21

8.7

11

.12

1.8

0.1

1.1

5.6

-2

9.4

10

0.0

40

8

45

-49

10

.91

5.6

12

.92

6.8

2.4

0.8

2.0

-2

8.8

10

0.0

38

6

50

-54

7.2

9.9

8.2

30

.82

.10

.89

.5-

31

.31

00

.03

67

55

-59

9.1

9.3

7.4

25

.44

.90

.95

.3-

37

.71

00

.03

42

60

-64

9.7

6.2

3.7

21

.02

.50

.36

.2-

50

.41

00

.03

00

65

-69

3.5

1.1

4.9

19

.92

.30

.56

.9-

60

.91

00

.02

44

70

-74

1.1

3.2

0.8

22

.22

.71

.15

.2-

63

.61

00

.01

76

75

-79

0.3

4.5

-1

5.2

3.0

1.2

2.0

-7

3.9

10

0.0

12

2

80

+0

.10

.6-

4.5

0.1

-0

.1-

94

.51

00

.01

50

To

tal

6.8

15

.65

.61

6.0

1.3

0.7

4.2

*4

9.7

10

0.0

5,0

72

No

te: T

ota

ls m

ay

no

t a

dd

up

to

10

0%

du

e t

o r

ou

nd

ing

¹ In

clu

de

s t

ho

se

wh

o n

eve

r w

ork

ed

.

"*"

ind

ica

tes t

ha

t th

e f

igu

re is le

ss t

ha

n 0

.1 w

eig

hte

d c

ase

s a

nd

ha

s b

ee

n s

up

pre

sse

d.

"-"

de

no

tes z

ero

ca

se

s.

FE

MA

LE

Wo

rk s

tatu

s a

nd

cla

ss

of

wo

rke

r


Ta

ble

2.7

Re

aso

n f

or

no

t cu

ren

tly

wo

rkin

g

Pe

rce

nt

dis

trib

uti

on

of i

nd

ivid

ua

ls a

ge 1

5 a

nd

ove

r b

y re

aso

n fo

r n

ot

wo

rkin

g a

cco

rdin

g to

se

x a

nd

age

gro

up

, Ph

ilip

pin

es

ND

PS/

MFS

20

16

Co

uld

Do

no

tD

o n

ot

Pa

ren

ts

He

alt

hSt

ill

Pe

rso

na

ln

ot

fin

dkn

ow

ho

w

ha

ve t

he

or

spo

use

Re

tire

d

Sex

and

co

nd

itio

n o

re

nga

ged

fam

ily

suit

ab

leo

r w

he

re t

o

eco

no

mic

did

no

td

ue

to

N

o r

ea

son

No

. of

age

gro

up

dis

ab

ilit

yin

tra

inin

gre

sp

on

sib

ilities

wo

rkse

ek

wo

rkn

ee

dle

t m

ea

geSc

ho

oli

ng

give

nO

the

rTo

tal

resp

on

de

nts

15

-39

3.1

1.5

55

.54

.61

.20

.13

.5*

18

.62

.19

.81

00

.09

04

40

-59

26

.80

.65

9.2

4.1

0.5

0.7

1.2

2.4

0.9

0.9

2.8

10

0.0

49

2

60

an

d o

ver

34

.3-

13

.70

.60

.10

.11

.34

7.7

-0

.12

.21

00

.07

68

Tota

l1

8.9

0.8

42

.63

.20

.70

.22

.21

6.2

8.4

1.2

5.7

10

0.0

2,1

64

15

-39

6.5

2.4

13

.11

0.9

3.7

0.1

0.5

0.1

42

.14

.81

6.0

10

0.0

20

5

40

-59

56

.61

.81

0.3

11

.61

.32

.4-

6.4

3.2

2.1

4.2

10

0.0

11

7

60

an

d o

ver

46

.0-

1.4

0.8

0.2

0.1

0.8

48

.5-

0.4

1.9

10

0.0

26

6

Tota

l3

2.6

1.3

7.9

7.1

1.8

0.6

0.5

20

.51

7.3

2.5

7.9

10

0.0

58

8

15

-39

1.8

1.1

71

.72

.30

.20

.14

.6-

9.6

1.1

7.5

10

0.0

69

9

40

-59

15

.30

.17

8.0

1.2

0.2

-1

.60

.8*

0.4

2.3

10

0.0

37

5

60

an

d o

ver

27

.5-

20

.80

.4-

0.1

1.6

47

.2-

-2

.31

00

.05

02

Tota

l1

2.8

0.5

58

.01

.50

.10

.13

.01

4.4

4.4

0.6

4.7

10

0.0

1,5

76

No

te: T

ota

ls m

ay

no

t a

dd

up

to

10

0%

du

e t

o r

ou

nd

ing

"*"

ind

ica

tes

tha

t th

e fi

gure

is le

ss t

ha

n 0

.1 w

eig

hte

d c

ase

s a

nd

ha

s b

ee

n s

up

pre

sse

d.

"-"

de

no

tes

zero

ca

ses.

Re

aso

n f

or

no

t cu

rre

ntl

y w

ork

ing

BO

TH S

EXES

MA

LE

FEM

ALE

Survey Results | 23

SURVEY RESULTS 3

Key Findings

▪ Disability levels: In the Philippines, the prevalence of

severe disability among 15 years and older is 12%; moderate

disability. 47%; mild disability, 22%; and no disability 19%.

▪ Severe disability by sex: More women (60%) than men

(40%) experienced severe disability.

▪ Severe disability by age group: Prevalence of severe

disability is highest among individuals in the oldest age group

(60 and older) at 32% and least among age 15 to 39 at 6%.

▪ Access to education and work: Access to education and

work pose problem to some 25% and 34% of persons with

severe disability.

▪ Vision problem, back pain, arthritis, hypertension, and sleep

problem are the most prevalent health conditions for those

with severe disability. The prevalence for each of these

health conditions is over 30%.

▪ Persons with moderate to severe disability report

considerable levels of unmet needs: of those who already

have personal assistance, one percent to eight percent

report needing additional assistance, respectively.

This chapter presents information on disability levels, severe disability prevalence, and

disability-related factors which include most affected daily life areas, health, education, work,

environmental factors, health care responsiveness, empowerment, and well-being/quality of

life.

3.1 Disability

Disability is the outcome of the interaction between health conditions or impairments and

features of the physical, human-built, attitudinal and socio-political environment in which the

person lives. These features might be access and use of personal assistance and assistive

products, social support, attitudes of others, access to health care or the physical environment

in which a person lives.

24 | Survey Results

In MDS the disability estimate is a composite score of problems in 17 functioning domains

measured through 48 questions in Module 4000 (functioning): mobility, hand and arm use,

self-care, seeing, hearing, pain, sleep and energy, breathing, affect, interpersonal

relationships, handling stress, communication, cognition, household tasks, community and

citizenship participation, caring for others and work and schooling.

The scores are estimated in a scale that ranges from zero (no disability) to 100 (high levels of

disability) using Item Response Theory. Appendix A3 contains further details about this

calculation. Using the composite scores estimated for each individual, a distribution of

disability is estimated for the country and cut-offs are used to identify persons experiencing

mild, moderate, severe and no disability. The cut-off criteria used in this survey are shown in

Table 3.0. All MDS results will be presented disaggregated by level of disability.

TABLE 3.0 Cut-off criteria used to identify persons with mild, moderate and severe disability

“Mean” refers to sample mean of the given score.

“1SD” refers to one standard deviation of the given score.

Target level Cut-off criteria

No Score < Mean – 1SD or Score = 0

Mild Mean – 1SD < Score < Mean

Moderate Mean < Score < Mean + 1SD

Severe Score ≥ Mean + 1SD

3.1.1 Distribution of Disability Among 15 Years Old and Over

Figure 3.1 shows the continuum of disability in the Philippines that ranges from a low level of

disability (0) to a very high level (100). This continuum is divided into four categories—

no disability, mild disability, moderate disability, and severe disability, based on the cut-off

criteria (Table 3.0).

FIGURE 3.1 Disability continuum

Frequency distribution of individuals age 15 and over by disability score according to disability level

Fre

qu

en

cy

Disability Score

Survey Results | 25

The people in each disability level are diverse— they could experience very different

underlying health conditions like spinal cord injury and depression, and encounter very

different barriers in the environment (like public transportation without ramps or discriminatory

attitudes of others. But people within the same level have a similar experience of disability

when all of the health and environmental factors are weighed together.

Almost half (47%) of individuals age 15 and over have moderate level of disability. About

one-fifth each belong to mild disability category (22%) and to no disability category (19%).

Those who experienced severe disability are about 12 percent (Figure 3.2).

FIGURE 3.2: Disability levels

Percent distribution of individuals age 15 and over according to levels of disability

Figure 3.3 shows that females are more likely than males to experience moderate disability

(51% vs. 49%) and severe disability (60% vs. 40%). Complementarily, higher percentage of

males than females are in the no disability category (56% vs. 44%) and in the mild level

disability category (57% vs. 43%).

FIGURE 3.3: Disability levels by sex

Percent distribution of individuals age 15 and over by sex according to levels of disability

1922

47

12

No Mild Moderate Severe

44 4351

60

56 5749

40


Male

Female

26 | Survey Results

Figure 3.4 illustrates that prevalence of moderate to severe disability increases with age.

Those who are age 15 to 39 had the lowest (6%) severe disability prevalence followed by

those who are age 40 to 59 (14%). Those who are age 60 and older had the highest (32%)

severe disability. Prevalence of moderate disability among age 15 to 39 was 42 percent

vis-à-vis the 53 percent and 54 percent prevalence among older ages 40 to 59 and 60 and

over age groups, respectively.

FIGURE 3.4: Disability levels by age group

Percent distribution of individuals age 15 and over by levels of disability according to age group

With regard to highest educational attainment, most persons with severe disability reached

Elementary level (23%), Completed high school (21%), and Completed elementary (19%). In

contrast, those who have no disability and those with lower levels of disability (mild and

moderate), have attained higher level of education by Graduating in high school (30%, 30%

and 26%, respectively) (Figure 3.5).

FIGURE 3.5: Disability levels by education

Percentage of individuals 15 and over by highest educational attainment according to levels of disability

28

9

3

24 24

11

42

53 54

6

14

32

15-39 40-59 60 and over

1

7 7

18

30

17

20

1

811

15

30

14

21

2

17

13

18

26

10

16

6

23

19

15

21

6

10

Noeducation

Someelementary

Elementarygraduate

Somehigh school

High schoolgraduate

Somecollege

Collegegraduate



Survey Results | 27

Severe disability is experienced by some respondents who are either Married or Living

together with a partner (62%); likewise, by those who are Never married (17%),

Separated/divorced/annulled (3%), and Widowed (18%) (Figure 3.6).

FIGURE 3.6: Disability levels by marital status

Percentage of individuals age 15 and over by marital status according to levels of disability

Figure 3.7a shows that 12 percent of respondents who Ever worked experienced severe

disability. On the other hand, for those who Never worked, ten percent experienced severe

disability.

FIGURE 3.7a: Disability levels by work experience

Percentage of individuals age 15 and over by levels of disability according to work experience

51

37

10

2 1

30

52

13

2 3

27

52

11

28

17

54

83

18

Nevermarried

Married Livingtogether

Separated/Divorced/Annulled

Widowed

16

32

24

18

48

40

1210

Ever worked Never worked



28 | Survey Results

Figure 3.7b demonstrates that 13 percent of respondents with severe disability have Never

worked, 38 percent are not working. Those who are currently working are mostly Self-

employed without an employee (18%) or Work for a private establishment (15%). On the other

hand, those with lower levels of disability also mostly Work for private establishment- no

disability (32%), mild (33%), and moderate disability (23%) (Table 3.5a).

FIGURE 3.7b: Disability levels by work status and class of worker

Percentage of individuals age 15 and over by work status and class of worker according to levels of disability

5

32

4

11

1

Survey Results | 29

Figure 3.7c presents the reasons cited for having not ever worked for pay. For individuals with

severe disability, more than two in every five reported that they have never worked due to their

Health condition or disability (43%). Personal family responsibilities (21%) and Still engaged

in training or studying (19%) were the other top reasons cited for never have worked

(Table 3.5b).

FIGURE 3.7c: Disability levels by reason for having not ever worked

Percentage of individuals age 15 and over by reason why never work at all according to levels of disability

2

3

30 | Survey Results

Figure 3.7d reports the reasons why individuals, who have worked before, are currently not

working. More than half (54%) of those with severe disability reported that they are currently

not working due to their Health condition or disability, some (21%) attributed it to Personal

family responsibilities while another 20 percent has already Retired due to old age. Dealing

with Personal family responsibilities was the top reason cited by individuals with moderate

(44%), mild (58%) and no disability (52%).

FIGURE 3.7d: Disability levels by reason for not currently working

Percentage of individuals age 15 and over by reason why not currently working

according to levels of disability

8

4

17

3

7

Survey Results | 31

3.2 Severe Disability Prevalence

Results of NDPS/MFS show that 12 percent of the Filipinos age 15 and older experienced

severe disability with differences found between males and females (9% and 15%,

respectively) (Figure 3.8).

FIGURE 3.8: Severe disability rate by sex

Severe disability rate of individuals age 15 and over according to sex

Figure 3.9 shows that severe disability rate generally increases with age: individuals

age 15 to 19 posted prevalence at five percent, then generally increases reaching oldest age

group of 65 and over at 38 percent.

FIGURE 3.9: Severe disability rate by age group

Severe disability rate of individuals age 15 and over according to age group

9

15

12

Male Female Total

53

68 7

109

18 1921

38

15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65 andover

32 | Survey Results

3.3 Most Affected Daily Life Areas

NDPS/MFS 2016 presents the most affected daily life areas of people with disability.

The disability is estimated based on problems reported in the 17 functioning domains of mobility,

hand and arm use, self-care, seeing, hearing, pain, sleep and energy and drive, breathing, affect,

interpersonal relationships, handling stress, communication, cognition, household tasks,

community and citizenship participation, caring for others, work, and schooling. These domains

can be understood as meaningful sets of body functions, actions, tasks, or area of life which

capture a specific phenomenon or the experiences of an individual. Each domain is assessed with

several questions— covering different areas with emphasis on

Date post:	15-Feb-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

storage.googleapis.comstorage.googleapis.com/request-attachments...TERMS OF USE OF PSA PUBLICATIONS...

Documents