Disability in people affected by leprosy: the role of impairment, activity, social participation, stigma and discrimination

Wim H van Brakel, Benyamin Sihombing, Hernani Djarir, Kerstin Beise, Laksmi Kusumawardhani, Rita Yulihane, Indra Kurniasari, Muhammad Kasim, Kadek I Kesumaningsih, Annelies Wilder-Smith, Wim H van Brakel, Benyamin Sihombing, Hernani Djarir, Kerstin Beise, Laksmi Kusumawardhani, Rita Yulihane, Indra Kurniasari, Muhammad Kasim, Kadek I Kesumaningsih, Annelies Wilder-Smith

Abstract

Background: Leprosy-related disability is a challenge to public health, and social and rehabilitation services in endemic countries. Disability is more than a mere physical dysfunction, and includes activity limitations, stigma, discrimination, and social participation restrictions. We assessed the extent of disability and its determinants among persons with leprosy-related disabilities after release from multi drug treatment.

Methods: We conducted a survey on disability among persons affected by leprosy in Indonesia, using a Rapid Disability Appraisal toolkit based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. The toolkit included the Screening of Activity Limitation and Safety Awareness (SALSA) scale, Participation Scale, Jacoby Stigma Scale (anticipated stigma), Explanatory Model Interview Catalogue (EMIC) stigma scale and Discrimination assessment. Community members were interviewed using a community version of the stigma scale. Multivariate linear regression was done to identify factors associated with social participation.

Results: Overall 1,358 persons with leprosy-related disability (PLD) and 931 community members were included. Seventy-seven percent of PLD had physical impairments. Impairment status deteriorated significantly after release from treatment (from 59% to 77%). Around 60% of people reported activity limitations and participation restrictions and 36% anticipated stigma. As for participation restrictions and stigma, shame, problems related to marriage and difficulties in employment were the most frequently reported problems. Major determinants of participation were severity of impairment and level of education, activity and stigma. Reported severity of community stigma correlated with severity of participation restrictions in the same districts.

Discussion: The majority of respondents reported problems in all components of disability. The reported physical impairment after release from treatment justifies ongoing monitoring to facilitate early prevention. Stigma was a major determinant of social participation, and therefore disability. Stigma reduction activities and socio-economic rehabilitation are urgently needed in addition to strategies to reduce the development of further physical impairment after release from treatment.

Keywords: ICF; activity; disability; discrimination; impairment; leprosy; participation; stigma.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Selection procedure of survey participants.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Distribution of grade 0, 1 and 2 impairments after release from treatment (RFT).
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Results of the Explanatory Model Interview Catalogue (EMIC) stigma scale.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Examples for discrimination from the discrimination scale.

References

    1. WHO. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011. World report on disability.
    1. Leonardi M, Bickenbach J, Ustun TB, Kostanjsek N, Chatterji S. The definition of disability: what is in a name? Lancet. 2006;368:1219–21.
    1. WHO. International classification of functioning, disability and health. 2001. Available from: [cited 20 April 2009]
    1. Britton WJ, Lockwood DN. Leprosy. Lancet. 2004;363:1209–19.
    1. Wilder-Smith EP, Van Brakel WH. Nerve damage in leprosy and its management. Nat Clin Pract Neurol. 2008;4:656–63.
    1. World Health Organisation. Global Strategy for Further Reducing the Leprosy Burden and Sustaining Leprosy Control Activities. Operational Guidelines. 2006. [cited 22 July 2009]
    1. Richardus JH, Habbema JD. The impact of leprosy control on the transmission of M. leprae: is elimination being attained? Lepr Rev. 2007;78:330–7.
    1. Van Brakel WH, Officer A. Approaches and tools for measuring disability in low and middle-income countries. Lepr Rev. 2008;79:50–64.
    1. Jopling WH. Leprosy stigma. Lepr Rev. 1991;62:1–12.
    1. Van Brakel WH. Measuring health-related stigma – a literature review. Psychol Health Med. 2006;11:307–34.
    1. Stevelink SA, van Brakel WH, Augustine V. Stigma and social participation in Southern India: differences and commonalities among persons affected by leprosy and persons living with HIV/AIDS. Psychol Health Med. 2011;16:695–707.
    1. Reeder GD, Pryor JB. Dual psychological processes underlying public stigma and the implications for reducing stigma. Mens Sana Monogr. 2008;6:175–86.
    1. Weiss MG. Stigma and the social burden of neglected tropical diseases. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2008;2:e237.
    1. World Health Organisation. Global leprosy situation, beginning of 2008. Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 2008;83:293–300.
    1. World Health Organisation. Enhanced global strategy for further reducing the disease; Burden due to leprosy. Operational guidelines (updated) (2011–2015); 2009. p. 4. Contract No.: SEA-GLP-2009.
    1. van Brakel WH, Anderson AM, Mutatkar RK, Bakirtzief Z, Nicholls PG, Raju MS, et al. The participation scale: measuring a key concept in public health. Disabil Rehabil. 2006;28:193–203.
    1. van Brakel WH. Measuring leprosy stigma – a preliminary review of the leprosy literature. Int J Lepr Other Mycobact Dis. 2003;71:190–7.
    1. Withington SG, Joha S, Baird D, Brink M, Brink J. Assessing socio-economic factors in relation to stigmatization, impairment status, and selection for socio-economic rehabilitation: a 1-year cohort of new leprosy cases in north Bangladesh. Lepr Rev. 2003;74:120–32.
    1. Guidelines to reduce stigma: how to assess health-related stigma; Amsterdam/London: The International Federation of Anti-Leprosy Associations (ILEP) and the Netherlands Leprosy Relief (NLR); 2011.
    1. Rensen C, Bandyopadhyay S, Gopal PK, Van Brakel WH. Measuring leprosy-related stigma – a pilot study to validate a toolkit of instruments. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33:711–9.
    1. Kelders R, van Brakel W, Beise K, Irwanto Testing and validating a simplified scale to measure social participation of people with disabilities in Indonesia. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34:638–46.
    1. Melchior H, Velema J. A comparison of the screening activity limitation and safety awareness (SALSA) scale to objective hand function assessments. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33:2044–52.
    1. Weiss MG, Doongaji DR, Siddhartha S, Wypij D, Pathare S, Bhatawdekar M, et al. The explanatory model interview catalogue (EMIC). Contribution to cross-cultural research methods from a study of leprosy and mental health. Br J Psychiatry. 1992;160:819–30.
    1. Ebenso J, Fuzikawa P, Melchior H, Wexler R, Piefer A, Min CS, et al. The development of a short questionnaire for screening of activity limitation and safety awareness (SALSA) in clients affected by leprosy or diabetes. Disabil Rehabil. 2007;29:689–700.
    1. Jacoby A. Felt versus enacted stigma: a concept revisited. Evidence from a study of people with epilepsy in remission. Soc Sci Med. 1994;38:269–74.
    1. Weiss MG, Doongaji DR, Siddhartha S, Wypij D, Pathare S, Bhatawdekar M, et al. The explanatory model interview catalogue (EMIC). Contribution to cross-cultural research methods from a study of leprosy and mental health. Br J Psychiatry. 1992;160:819–30.
    1. Meima A, van Veen NH, Richardus JH. Future prevalence of WHO grade 2 impairment in relation to incidence trends in leprosy: an exploration. Trop Med Int Health. 2008;13:241–6.
    1. Arole S, Premkumar R, Arole R, Maury M, Saunderson P. Social stigma: a comparative qualitative study of integrated and vertical care approaches to leprosy. Lepr Rev. 2002;73:186–96.
    1. Fung KM, Tsang HW, Corrigan PW, Lam CS, Cheung WM. Measuring self-stigma of mental illness in China and its implications for recovery. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2007;53:408–18.
    1. Fung KM, Tsang HW, Corrigan PW. Self-stigma of people with schizophrenia as predictor of their adherence to psychosocial treatment. Psychiatr Rehabil J. 2008;32:95–104.
    1. Corrigan PW, Larson JE, Rusch N. Self-stigma and the ‘why try’ effect: impact on life goals and evidence-based practices. World Psychiatry. 2009;8:75–81.
    1. Van Bennekom CA, Jelles F, Lankhorst GJ. Rehabilitation activities profile: the ICIDH as a framework for a problem-oriented assessment method in rehabilitation medicine. Disabil Rehabil. 1995;17:169–75.
    1. Chen S, Chu T, Wang Q. Qualitative assessment of social, economic and medical needs for ex-leprosy patients living in leprosy villages in Shandong Province, The People's Republic of China. Lepr Rev. 2005;76:335–47.
    1. Plagerson S. Attacking social exclusion: combining rehabilitative and preventive approaches to leprosy in Bangladesh. Dev Pract. 2005;15:692–70.
    1. Nicholls PG, Bakirtzief Z, Van Brakel WH, Das-Pattanaya RK, Raju MS, Norman G, et al. Risk factors for participation restriction in leprosy and development of a screening tool to identify individuals at risk. Lepr Rev. 2005;76:305–15.
    1. Weiss MG. Stigma and the social burden of neglected tropical diseases. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2008;2:e237.
    1. Scott J. The psychosocial needs of leprosy patients. Lepr Rev. 2000;71:486–91.
    1. Gershon W, Srinivasan GR. Community-based rehabilitation: an evaluation study. Lepr Rev. 1992;63:51–9.
    1. Kopparty SN, Kurup AM, Sivaram M. Problems and coping strategies of families having patients with and without deformities. Indian J Lepr. 1995;67:133–52.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever