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
xxii
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.
Introduction and Survey Methodology | 3
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.
4 | Introduction and Survey Methodology
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.
Introduction and Survey Methodology | 5
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
6 | Introduction and Survey Methodology
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).
Introduction and Survey Methodology | 7
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.
8 | Introduction and Survey Methodology
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
Characteristics of Households and Respondents | 11
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
12 | Characteristics of Households and Respondents
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
Characteristics of Households and Respondents | 13
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
14 | Characteristics of Households and Respondents
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
Characteristics of Households and Respondents | 15
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
16 | Characteristics of Households and Respondents
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
Note: Totals may not add up to 100% due to rounding
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
Characteristics of Households and Respondents | 17
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
Note: Totals may not add up to 100% due to rounding
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
FEMALE
BOTH SEXES
Highest educational atta inment
MALE
18 | Characteristics of Households and Respondents
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
Characteristics of Households and Respondents | 19
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
20 | Characteristics of Households and Respondents
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
Characteristics of Households and Respondents | 21
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
22 | Characteristics of Households and Respondents
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
No Mild Moderate Severe
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
No Mild Moderate Severe
No Mild Moderate Severe
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
No Mild Moderate Severe
No Mild Moderate Severe
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