These are transcripts from In-depth interviews with 36 individuals with disability in Malawi (and their carers in some cases).
The study took place in 10
Traditional Authorities (TAs) and townships in Malawi (See Table 1). These were
purposively selected from across the Northern, Central and Southern regions.
Data collection was done through local languages and with the support of three field assistants from
the Federation for Disabled People in Malawi (all of them disabled people). Data collection took place between July and October
2014. Respondents were purposively
sampled to reflect a range of impairments as well as variety in location and
socio-demographic characteristics. The sample was not intended to be
statistically representative. Respondents in each TA were identified through a
two-step process beginning with consultation of ‘key informants’ who included
village chiefs, representatives of Disabled Persons Organisations (DPOs), local
social welfare officers and other service providers. Following the Washington
Group short list of screening questions (18),
key informants were asked to identify individuals in their community who they
thought would experience ‘some difficulty’, ‘a lot of difficulty’ or be ‘unable to do’ any of six specified activities: seeing,
hearing, walking, remembering/understanding, communicating and self-care. Lists
of up to 20 names, along with descriptions of each individual’s impairment
type, were generated by key informants in each region. Based on these lists the
research team purposively selected participants based on impairment type,
gender, age and geographical location. The second step in the process involved
the research team confirming the eligibility (determined by having at least ‘some
difficulty’ in doing at least one of the six activities) of each of the
purposively selected participants using the same short set of questions with the
participant and/or the caregiver.
The study employed
a range of participatory and qualitative methods. These included free listing and ranking of priorities, Photovoice, observation, emotion mapping, WASH demonstrations and in-depth interviews. These methods drew on tools developed by the Water, Engineering and
Development Centre (WEDC) at Loughborough University(19), WaterAid, The Centre for Evidence in Disability at
the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and the Leonard
Cheshire Disability and Inclusive Development Centre (LCDIDC) at University
College London. All research tools are available at: http://ehg.lshtm.ac.uk/wash-disability. The data provided is principally from the in-depth interviews as data from some of the other methods could not be anonymised.