Reimbursable Advisory Services Agreement on Modernizing the Disability Assessment System in Romania (P171157) Output 5. Mid-pilot report on recommendations on disability determination and needs assessment Bucharest, January 2023 1 Disclaimer: This report is a product of the staff of the World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this paper and assumes no responsibility for any errors, omissions, or discrepancies in the information and no liability for the use or non-use of the information, methods, processes, or conclusions set forth. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any opinion on the part of the World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. This report does not necessarily represent the position of the European Union or the Government of Romania. Copyright statement: The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable laws. For permission to photocopy or reprint any section of this document, please send a request containing the complete instructions either (i) to the National Authority for the Protection of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Str. General Constantin Budișteanu nr. 28C, et. 1, Sector 1, Bucharest, Romania) or (ii) to the World Bank Group Romania (Str. Vasile Lascăr nr. 31, et. 6, Sector 2, Bucharest, Romania). This report was delivered in January 2023 under the Reimbursable Advisory Services Agreement on Modernizing the Disability Assessment System in Romania (P171157), signed between the Ministry of Labor and Social Solidarity and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development on June 30, 2020. 1 The report corresponds to Output 5 and is the Mid-pilot report on recommendations on disability determination and needs assessment. 1 The project, initially implemented by the National Authority for Persons with Disabilities, has taken over by the National Authority for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Children and Adoptions – institution established through the Government Emergency Ordinance no. 68 of 6 November 2019, by taking over the activities, attributions and structures of the National Authority for Persons with Disabilities (and of the National Authority for the Protection of Children Rights and Adoption), which was discontinued. Subsequently, the GD no. 234/2022 (in force since 18 February 2022) established by the current National Authority for the Protection of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (ANPDPD). 2 Acknowledgments Output 5, produced under the Reimbursable Advisory Services Agreement on Modernizing the Disability Assessment System in Romania (P171157), was developed under the supervision of Cem Mete and Dhushyanth Raju, with the overall coordination of Ms. Anna Akhalkatsi. The study, analysis, and consultation activities of relevant stakeholders, together with the drafting of the report, were coordinated by Victor Sulla (team leader) and Manuela Sofia Stănculescu. The World Bank team was composed of the following international and local experts (in alphabetical order) - Florentina Bărbuță, Mihai Berteanu, Jerome Bickenbach, Georgiana Blaj, Bogdan Corad, Luminița Daneș, Mădălina Manea, Monica Marin, Aleksandra Posarac, Mentor Shala, Atena Stoica, Daniela Tontsch and Clara Ursescu. On behalf of the World Bank, Andrei Zambor, Ramona Lipară, and Oana Caraba provided constant support throughout. The World Bank is grateful for the excellent cooperation, coordination, and attentive and prompt feedback provided by the partner institution ANPDPD, in particular by Mr. Mihai Tomescu (President), Monica Violeta Solomie, Liliana Toader, Crina Gîrleanu, Daniela Oana Ambara, Mirela Vasii, Maria Cotoi, Fevronia Scarlat, and Iolanda Dinu, as well as by Ms. Ștefania Andreescu, Ms. Elena Șerban and Ms. Alina Diaconu, on behalf of the Ministry of Labor and Social Solidarity. In addition, the World Bank is grateful to all the representatives of relevant institutions who participated in the pilot study and contributed with valuable comments and observations to the finalization of this Output, in particular to the chiefs and members of the complex assessment services (within the General Directorates for Social Assistance and Child Protection), the presidents, members, and secretaries of the assessment commissions (within the county and local councils). Equal opportunities and equity All project activities were designed and implemented for the equal benefit of boys and girls, men and women. The project team and experts received equal treatment regardless of gender, ethnic origin, or other characteristics. Sustainable development During project implementation, the World Bank team aimed for a wise and effective use of resources to protect the environment and ensure social cohesion. Every citizen and institution should bear in mind that sustainable development is the only way to meet human needs without undermining the integrity of natural systems and the future of humanity. 3 Content Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 7 1. Modernizing comprehensive disability assessment for adults in Romania ............................................ 9 Main methodological elements ............................................................................................................................... 9 1.1.1. Theoretical framework: ICF and UNCRPD.................................................................................................................................................. 9 1.1.2. What we understand by modernizing the disability assessment system in relation to the ICF and UNCRPD ................. 11 1.1.3. Proposed general methodology for the comprehensive assessment of disability based on the ICF and UNCRPD....... 11 1.1.4. Paradigm shift................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Overview of project activities ................................................................................................................................14 2. Pilot study for the modernization of comprehensive disability assessment for adults in Romania . 15 2.1. Objectives and scope of the pilot ..................................................................................................................15 2.2. Pilot design .......................................................................................................................................................17 2.2.1. What we knew from the Diagnosis study (Output 1) .......................................................................................................................... 17 2.2.2. Selection of counties for the pilot .............................................................................................................................................................. 18 2.2.3. Co-production: Stakeholder consultations ............................................................................................................................................. 19 2.3. Methodology for data collection in the pilot study ....................................................................................19 2.3.1. General principles and inclusion criteria .................................................................................................................................................. 19 2.3.2. The new toolkit (Outputs 2 and 3) being piloted.................................................................................................................................. 20 2.3.3. The new draft unified procedure for complex disability assessment (Output 4 draft), which is being piloted ................ 26 2.3.4. Projected working times for the pilot ....................................................................................................................................................... 32 4. Preparing the pilot implementation .................................................................................................................33 2.4.1. County teams .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 33 2.4.2. Training of county teams and pretesting of new instruments.......................................................................................................... 34 2.4.3. Resource materials for pilot implementation ......................................................................................................................................... 36 2.4.4. e-PLIN - Online data collection tool.......................................................................................................................................................... 37 2.5. Pilot implementation (first five months) ......................................................................................................39 2.5.1. Dimension 1: Data collection ....................................................................................................................................................................... 39 2.5.2. Dimension 2: Institutional capacity building .......................................................................................................................................... 40 2.5.3. Dimension 3: Communication and consensus building...................................................................................................................... 42 2.6. Preliminary results (first five months of piloting) .......................................................................................43 2.6.1. Overview of the data collection process .................................................................................................................................................. 43 2.6.2. Actual working time in the pilot ................................................................................................................................................................. 45 2.6.3. Pilot sample ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 46 2.6.4. Provisional summary results for the disability assessment ................................................................................................................ 48 2.6.5. Provisional summary results for the needs assessment...................................................................................................................... 54 2.6.6. Validation of the new work package for complex disability assessment ...................................................................................... 56 3. Next steps for the following five months of piloting ............................................................................... 57 Dimension 1: Data collection .................................................................................................................................57 3.1.1. Collection of additional data ....................................................................................................................................................................... 57 4 3.1.2. Data correction and validation.................................................................................................................................................................... 58 3.2 Dimension 2: Data analysis plan - Brief proposals of alternative methods for determining disability 59 3.3. Dimension 3: Increasing institutional capacity ............................................................................................63 3.3.1. Activities with county teams ........................................................................................................................................................................ 63 3.3.2. Activities with social workers in SPASs ..................................................................................................................................................... 63 3.3.3. Integration with other relevant projects .................................................................................................................................................. 63 3.4. Dimension 4: Communication and consensus building ..............................................................................64 3.5. Recommendations for adjusting the pilot in the second stage.................................................................65 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................................ 66 Annex 1. Sample selection for the pilot study ............................................................................................... 69 Annex 2. Instruments for participation in the pilot study ........................................................................... 77 Annex 2.1_FORM 00: Recruiting for the pilot study ...........................................................................................78 Annex 2.2_FORM 0: Pilot study registration data ...............................................................................................80 Annex 2.3_INFORMED CONSENT ..........................................................................................................................83 Annex 3. Preparing the pilot study.................................................................................................................. 85 Annex 3.1_List of county teams members participating in the pilot study ....................................................85 Annex 3.2_Proposal for the visual identity of the project .................................................................................87 Annex 3.3_WHODAS Cards ....................................................................................................................................88 Annex 4. Description of the e-PLIN database ................................................................................................ 89 Annex 5. Monitoring sessions, examples...................................................................................................... 102 Annex 6. WHODAS training ............................................................................................................................ 105 Annex 7. Informative fiche ............................................................................................................................. 110 Annex 8. Syntaxes used to produce indicators and tables with sensitivity analysis and preliminary results ................................................................................................................................................................. 111 Annex 9. Preliminary results ........................................................................................................................... 117 Annex 10. Syntaxes used to identify errors .................................................................................................. 124 5 Acronyms and Abbreviations ADL Activities of daily living ADR Authority for the Digitization of Romania ANDPDCA National Authority for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Children and Adoptions ANPDPD National Authority for the Protection of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ANPD National Authority for Persons with Disabilities 2 APP Professional personal assistant ATU Administrative Territorial Unit CEPAH Commission for the Assessment of Adults with Disabilities ICF International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health ICD International Classification of Diseases CNASR National College of Social Workers of Romania CSEPAH The Higher Commission for the Assessment of Adults with Disabilities DGASPC General Directorate of Social Assistance and Child Protection DSM Diagnostic and Statistical Classification of Mental Disorders Manual ECA Europe and Central Asia EIF Expression of interest form FSS Social service provider GEO Government Emergency Ordinance HG Government Decision IADL Instrumental activities of daily life M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MMSS Ministry of Labor and Social Solidarity MS Ministry of Health NGO Non-Governmental Organization PIRIS Individual rehabilitation and social integration program PIS Individual Service Plan PLIN Individualized Plan PNRR National Recovery and Resilience Plan POIDS Operational Program Inclusion and Social Dignity SECPAH Complex Assessment Service for Adults with Disabilities SNDPD National Strategy on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2021-2017 SNMD National Disability Management System SPAS Public Social Assistance Service 3 UN United Nations UNCRPD United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities WB World Bank WHO World Health Organization WHODAS 2.0 WHO Disability Assessment Questionnaire 2.0 2 The National Authority for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Children and Adoptions - an institution established by GEO No 68 of 6 November 2019, has taken over the activities, powers and structures of the National Authority for Persons with Disabilities (and the National Authority for the Protection of Children's Rights and Adoption). Subsequently, by GD no. 234/2022 (in force from 18 February 2022) the current National Authority for the Protection of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (ANPDPD) was established. 3 In this report, the acronym SPAS is used generically for all forms of organization of public social assistance services established in municipalities, towns and communes in Romania (DAS - Social Assistance Department, SPAS - Public Social Assistance Service or Compartment, according to GD no. 797/2017). 6 Introduction The International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) provides a framework for classifying and measuring disability, which considers disability a universal and multidimensional phenomenon. The application of the ICF provides an integrated bio-psycho-social approach to the collection and dissemination of information and policy formulation. Under this Advisory Services Agreement, the medico-psycho-social approach is ensured by using the ICF framework and aligning with the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). The new vision and general methodology for the comprehensive disability assessment proposed in this project follows the recommendations of the UN Committee that: "the assessment should be based on a human rights approach to disability, focus on the needs of the person arising from barriers in society rather than on the disability itself, consider and take into account the wishes and preferences of the person, and ensure full involvement of persons with disabilities in the decision-making process." 4 There is broad recognition among experts that Romania should change the procedure for assessing and classifying the degree and type of disability according to the ICF standards. Over the last ten years, there have been several attempts to do so, but largely without success. Currently, in Romania, the National Authority for the Protection of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (ANPDPD) has initiated an extensive process of reform of the system, focusing on the application of the ICF framework in the assessment of disability for adults in addition to the existing one for children. Through the current Reimbursable Advisory Services on the Modernization of the Romanian Disability Assessment System, the World Bank is assisting ANPDPD in improving the legislation governing the assessment of adults with disabilities in Romania. This Reimbursable Advisory Services covers activities that will result in the development of seven analytical deliverables. The seven deliverables are: 1. Diagnosis report on the current disability assessment mechanism 2. Set of proposed medico-psycho-social criteria for disability assessment 3. Proposed working instruments for a modernized disability assessment 4. Report on the recommendation of a complex assessment procedure of persons with disabilities 5. Mid-pilot report on recommendations on disability determination and needs assessment 6. Technical recommendations to facilitate specific expertise in disability assessment for court cases 7. Final report on recommendations on disability determination and needs assessment. This Output 5 corresponds to activities (i)-(iii) of Component 3 of the Reimbursable Advisory Services. In accordance with the terms of reference of the project, the objective of these activities is to produce a mid- pilot assessment report that will include (a) the methodology of data collection (including training support); (b) a description of the dataset together with all information collected by the ANPDPD during the first six (6) months of the pilot; (c) brief proposals for alternative methods for disability determinization and proposed indicators that show to what extent the proposed methods best predict the current disability level; (d) proposed syntaxes for producing indicators and tables with sensitivity analyses and preliminary results based on the first data set; and (e) recommendations for adjusting the pilot during its second phase. Accordingly, the current Output 5 presents the activities undertaken to design, prepare and implement the pilot study. The report is based on the following: (a) The conclusions and recommendations of the Diagnosis Report on the current disability assessment system (part of Output 1); and (b) The overall methodology, along with the new set of criteria (part of Output 2) and assessment tools (part of Output 3), were developed using basic principles, scientific findings from the literature, and good practice from international examples. As a final note, the technical assistance provided under this Agreement is aimed at supporting the reform of the comprehensive disability assessment system. Therefore, it is not tackling the general reform of disability policies in Romania, which could include reform of benefits and services, identification of the extra cost of 4 UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, General Comment on Article 19. 7 disability, development of case management for adults, accessibility and information, the transition from childhood to adulthood, unification of disability and invalidity systems, etc. However, it is imperative to support the alignment and coordination of the reform of the disability assessment system with all the reforms, projects, and major changes in the legislative framework with an impact on disability that are taking place in parallel, such as the deinstitutionalization of adults with disabilities, the development of services for people with disabilities in the context of European funds (including PNRR and POIDS), changes to the Civil Code regarding guardianship, curatorship, and the implementation of the Decision no. 490/2022 for the approval of the Strategy on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (SNDPD) "A fair Romania" 2022-2027. The primary audience for this report is ANPDPD specialists working with adults with disabilities and the hundreds of practitioners involved in disability assessment across Romania. Structure of the report Output 5 is organized into three chapters. Chapter 1 briefly reviews the main elements proposed in the project to modernize the comprehensive disability assessment for adults in Romania, as well as an overview of the project activities. Chapter 2 focuses on the pilot study, including the pilot's objectives and the main activities carried out to design, prepare and implement the pilot study, together with interim results based on interim data collected between August and December 2022. Finally, chapter 3 reflects on the next steps, including the adjustments needed for the second pilot period (January-May 2023). The annexes include materials developed to support the activities described in the previous chapters. 8 1. Modernizing comprehensive disability assessment system for adults in Romania This chapter is organized into two sub-chapters. The first sub-chapter is a brief recapitulation of the main methodological elements proposed in the project to modernize the comprehensive disability assessment for adults in Romania. The second sub-chapter reviews the project activities to highlight the place and role of the pilot study for testing new criteria, tools, and procedures for comprehensive disability assessment. Main methodological elements This sub-chapter presents a selection of the key elements used to develop the new work package for comprehensive disability assessment proposed to modernize the current system in Romania. 1.1.1. Theoretical framework: ICF and UNCRPD Several countries in Europe and around the world have reformed or are in the process of reforming the way they carry out disability assessments for the provision of social cash and in-kind benefits to align with the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). There are many reasons why governments have taken this step. Still, invariably the stated motivation is to modernize the assessment of disability, moving from a 'purely medical approach' to one based on the 'social model of disability' using 'medico-psycho-social' criteria for assessment, i.e., the ICF categories. 5 Romania is among the countries that have launched reforms for disability assessment aligned to the ICF and based on the "ICF principles". Officially endorsed by all 191 WHO Member States in May 2001, 6 WHO developed ICF as the international standard for describing and measuring health, functioning, and impairment - i.e., disability. The ICF was designed to complement the International Classification of Diseases (ICD, now in its 11th revision) 7 as the global standard epidemiological tool for describing health status. ICF is not just about people with disabilities; in fact, ICF is about all people. This model tells us that functioning and disability are not neatly demarcated categories into which people should be integrated but are the extreme ends of a continuum on which we all find ourselves. On this continuum, our functioning can range from integrity in body functions, body structures, activities, and participation to impairments/deficiencies in functions or structures, activity limitations, or participation restrictions. In the ICF model, disability means some limitation or restriction in a person's functioning that is generated both by the person's intrinsic health capacity to perform actions (e.g., walking, dressing, housework, family, school or work) and by the impact of the person's environment on the level of effective performance of those actions. Factors in a person's environment can be facilitators or barriers through their absence or presence. Factors that enhance functioning and reduce disability are considered facilitators, while factors that limit functioning and create disability are barriers. 8 Therefore, the assessment of disability requires an evaluation of both the person's health capacity and their environment (barriers and facilitators), which, in interaction, determine the level of performance, i.e., the degree of disability the person has. 5 In this document, ICF categories/descriptors/items/parameters are used interchangeably. 6 World Health Assembly Resolution WHA 54.21 of 22 May 2001. 7 https://www.who.int/news/item/11-02-2022-who-s-new-international-classification-of-diseases-(icd-11)-comes-into- effect 8 For example: for a wheelchair user, the steps at the entrance to a building are a barrier, while a ramp with the right incline is an enabler. 9 ICF does not define disability but, more relevantly, shapes disability in order to describe and measure it. The ICF model of disability aligns, on the one hand, with the accepted view among academics and scientists and, on the other hand, with the recognized understanding of disability in international human rights law. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) characterizes disability as reflecting the experiences of persons "who have enduring physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which, in interaction with various barriers, may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others." As a conceptualization of the experience of living with a condition in a person's everyday environment, ICF describes activities and participation in nine life areas (domains) using a multitude of descriptors, such as the examples provided in Table 1. Table 1: ICF domains and descriptors ICF field ICF descriptors (selection) 1 Learning and applying Watching, listening, copying, focusing attention, learning to read, learning knowledge to write, learning to calculate, learning to make decisions 2 General tasks and demands Accomplishing a single task or several tasks, fulfilling daily routines, managing stress, and other psychological challenges 3 Communication Reception, production of non-verbal messages, conversation, and use of communication devices and techniques 4 Mobility Changing and maintaining body position, carrying, moving and handling objects, walking and moving, using means of transport 5 Self-care Washing, taking care of body parts, using the toilet, dressing, eating, drinking, taking care of yourself 6 Domestic life Purchasing goods and services, preparing meals, doing housework 7 Interpersonal interactions Show respect and warmth in relationships and respond to them, and relationships appreciation, tolerance, physical contact, regulate behavior in interactions such as impulses and aggression, interact according to social rules, establish and maintain informal social relationships 8 Major life areas a. Education: informal education/training, preschool education, school education b. Work and employment: getting, keeping, and ending a job; gainful employment c. Economic life: using money to buy food, saving money, keeping a bank account 9 Community, social and civic a. Community life, recreation/leisure, religion/spirituality: participate in life games and sports, visit museums, cinemas, or theatres b. Human rights, political life, citizenship: enjoys nationally and internationally recognized rights, exercises the right to vote, has legal status as a citizen Source: https://icd.who.int/dev11/l-icf/en/http%3a%2f%2fid.who.int%2ficd%2fentity%2f993742687 For assessment purposes, the ICF considers two levels or dimensions of functioning/disability, namely: - the specific disability that is a limitation in a particular ICF area; and - disability of the whole person (also called global or synthetic disability), which refers to multiple limitations in different areas. In the integrative biopsychosocial model, the person's disability as a whole is a general description of the degree of disability a person experiences in his or her life. It requires evidence of actual limitations of the person's activity in everyday life caused by impairments and other restrictions associated with the underlying health condition in interaction with the person's actual environment. In other words, the person's disability as 10 a whole is the result of the medical condition's impact on the level of effective activity performance and participation in all areas of a person's life. The person's disability as a whole is measured using a synthetic index constructed statistically by aggregating limitations in different domains of life. Therefore, the assessment of disability must be carried out using sound psychometric tools - to ensure valid and reliable data collection - and detailed statistical analysis, in particular, item-response theory and Rasch modeling. 1.1.2. What we understand by modernizing the disability assessment system in relation to the ICF and UNCRPD The overall objective of this project is to propose a modern approach to disability assessment, following the ICF framework and aligning with the principles of the UNCRPD. Accordingly, the modernization of the disability assessment system requires the incorporation of ICF and UNCRPD principles, both in the determination of disability and in the assessment of needs. • In terms of determining the degree of disability, the project involves: o (1) revision of the current medico-psychosocial criteria and o (2) selection of a set of ICF criteria in line with international best practice, representing a scientifically robust and meaningful integration of information regarding functioning into the assessment process alongside medical information. • Regarding the activities and services that the adult with disabilities needs for social integration, a set of ICF criteria is selected corresponding to a range of services, among those available in Romania, identified in a participatory manner. 1.1.3. Proposed general methodology for the comprehensive assessment of disability based on the ICF and UNCRPD The general methodology described in detail in Output 2 uses the international terminology that follows from the theoretical framework briefly described in section 1.1.1. In practice, the new model developed for the comprehensive disability assessment in Romania is a process that includes the following four steps: 1. Medical and psychological assessment Disability Disability 2. ICF-based performance assessment determination assessment Comprehensive disability 3. Disability certification assessment Needs 4. Assessing the service and support needs assessment of people with disabilities Procedurally, the disability determination is an authoritative, usually legally regulated, administrative process - which may involve several steps and official actors - that provides some form of support, service, or assistance to people based on eligibility criteria and a disability assessment procedure that identifies the type, degree or level of disability of the person as a whole that the applicant suffers. Disability assessment is the initial administrative examination process for determining disability. This first stage assesses the person's level of disability as a whole (expressed in percentages, grades, or levels). This decision forms the basis for another administrative action, called disability certification, where further decisions are made - whether the applicant qualifies for any, some, or all of the benefits, services, and supports available under the various regulatory legislations. 11 A disability assessment is a brief description and measure of a person's overall Working performance of ordinary everyday behaviors and actions, ranging from simple to definition complex, in his or her actual or usual environment, depending on the person's health status. Individual Needs Assessment is an administrative process that identifies the needs and requirements of people with disabilities based on evidence of their functional problems. Needs assessments are, by their nature, individualized and focus on specific actions that a person has difficulty performing due to health conditions or environmental barriers they face in everyday life (e.g., sensitivity to air pollution or barriers to mobility). The diagnosis report 9 showed that one of the main challenges in the modernization of the disability system in Romania is that the disability assessment and the needs assessment are merged into the single process of "Comprehensive disability assessment", according to Law 448/2006 on the protection and promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities. The merging of the two assessments is ineffective because: i. The needs assessment must be done through direct interaction with the person and considering in detail all types of support needs of the person (i.e., clinical, granular, and individualized). Done properly, the needs assessment will involve multiple professionals and different specialized tools to identify the exact difficulty level regarding sensory issues, mobility issues, cognition or emotional issues, independent living issues, and so on. ii. Not all applicants need this level of scrutiny. Some claimants may not have a level of disability that qualifies them for any existing benefit or service. Conducting a comprehensive needs assessment for these individuals is a waste of time and money. iii. Most applicants will have disability-related issues in one or two areas. While an appropriate disability assessment tool can easily highlight these issues, accurate identification of needs requires a separate process. iv. The disability assessment, if carried out with a sufficiently scientifically rigorous tool, can be carried out by qualified specialists quickly and efficiently without placing an undue burden on the applicant. Individual needs assessment potentially requires different qualified professionals (doctors, vocational specialists, psychologists, educational specialists) and, to be effective, may take longer and require more than one assessment session. As a solution, the general methodology newly proposed in Output 2 introduces a clear distinction between disability assessment and needs assessment. In line with international best practice, the needs assessment is independent of and subsequent to the disability assessment. In short, both scientifically and administratively, disability assessment and individual needs assessment differ fundamentally in methodology and outcomes. For this reason, it is neither practical nor efficient to carry out these different forms of assessment simultaneously. 1.1.4. Paradigm shift According to the legislation in force in Romania, the comprehensive assessment for disability classification is a two-step process. In the first stage, the Service for the Comprehensive Assessment of Adults with Disabilities (SECPAH) 10 carries out the assessment. 11 The results are recorded in the Comprehensive Assessment Report. 9 World Bank (2021) Output 1 presented an analysis of the current disability assessment and determination system in Romania and assessed it, among other things, in terms of its alignment with the ICF terminology and conceptual model of functioning and disability. 10 In Romania, there are 47 comprehensive assessment services for the classification of adult disability. DGASPC provides these services in all 41 counties and 6 districts of Bucharest. 11 In accordance with the Joint Order of the Minister of Labor, Family and Equal Opportunities and the Minister of Public Health no. 762/1.992/2007 approving the medical-psycho-social criteria on the basis of which the classification in degree of disability is determined, with subsequent amendments and additions and with the assessment procedure defined in GD 12 At. the same time, an Individual Rehabilitation and Social Integration Program (PIRIS) and an Individual Service Plan (PIS), which include the services/actions that SECPAH recommends for the applicant, are drawn. Then, in the second stage, the applicant's file, together with the complex assessment report and the PIRIS, is forwarded to the Commission for the Assessment of Adults with Disabilities (CEPAH) which makes the final decision on (i) classification or non-classification in a disability grade; (ii) the vocational guidance certificate, upon request; and (iii) the services/actions recommended in the PIRIS, including protective measures such as the provision of a personal assistant or admission to an institution or day center. The major change that the new overall methodology proposes is to restructure the Comprehensive disability assessment from a two-step process to a four-step process, as illustrated in Infographic 1. This restructuring has been based on the recommendations in Output 1 12 and has been carried out using international good practices. In addition, for each of the four steps, a work package was developed within the project, including a methodological framework - ICF criteria/categories (part of Output 2), working tools for SECPAH and SPAS (part of Output 3), and procedures (part of Output 4). Infographic 1: The new four-step process of Comprehensive disability assessment and the corresponding methodological package developed in the project Overall, the new general methodology is aligned with the ICF principles and is based on a set of ICF categories (medico-psychosocial criteria) presented in Output 2. According to the new general methodology, the assessment of the degree of disability is the aggregated result of two distinct steps, namely the medical and psychological assessment (step 1), together with the assessment of functioning based on a sound psychometric instrument (step 2). In contrast to the current situation, the certification of disability (step 3) will be done automatically by aggregating the medical and psychological assessment score with the functioning assessment score based on an algorithm to be determined in the pilot study. Finally, the individual needs assessment (step 4) is differentiated and reinforced by developing a specific methodology and appropriate assessment tools. For a real change of paradigm, the new individual needs assessment makes a transition from the medical model to the biopsychosocial model, i.e., from emphasizing recovery needs and care services to taking into account not only what a person cannot do but also what the person can or could do (emphasis on the assessment of skills for socio-professional integration/work potential, on decision-making autonomy/support in decision-making, etc.). Furthermore, in assessing the needs, the approach is centered on the positive no. 430/2008 and Order no. 2298/2012 approving the Framework Procedure for the assessment of adults for classification in degree and type of disability. 12 The three main recommendations to align the assessment process with the ICF principles, as well as those of the UNCRPD, include: the need to integrate functioning into the disability assessment, to update the medical criteria and to redesign the approach so that needs assessment and disability assessment are clearly separated. 13 aspects, e.g., identifying resources, potential, abilities, skills, etc. (aspects related to personal factors) and facilitators (aspects related to the environment). Thus, the whole process of comprehensive disability assessment is aligned with the UNCRPD and the ICF and covers all mandatory areas of assessment foreseen in the current legislation. 13 The new tools are designed from a performance (rather than capacity) perspective 14 and are structured according to the ICF's dimensions, domains (life areas), descriptors, and qualifiers. For both the disability assessment and the needs assessment, the tools use a unique set of ICF descriptors (part of Output 2), however: - for the assessment of disability, the degree of difficulty in performing the activities is measured, and - for the needs assessment, the NEED FOR SUPPORT to carry out the activities is measured. Overview of project activities Infographic 2 shows the project's main activities, organized into five phases, and the timetable. Activities related to the pilot study started since phase 3 - the change design. In parallel with the development of the new methodological package (criteria, tools, procedures), designing the pilot study to allow rigorous testing on valid and reliable data and adjustment of the new methodological package was initiated (see section 2.2). Thus, in phase 3, the WB team recommended the counties to apply the pilot based on the results Diagnosis report. The ANPDPD concluded collaboration protocols with these DGASPCs and identified SECPAH/CEPAH specialists who formed the county teams. In addition, the WB team developed the data collection methodology for the pilot study. Infographic 2: Overview of project activities 13 The six mandatory areas of assessment are: social, medical, psychological, professional or vocational aptitudes, level of education and skills and level of social integration (GD no. 268/2007, art. 48, respectively Order no. 2298/2012. art. 4). 14 Performance is a true description of what happens in a person's life in the context of all the environmental barriers and facilitators they face. In contrast, capacity information is usually the result of an inference or clinical judgement based on medical information about a person's expected ability to perform in relation to their health condition and impairments/disabilities. 14 Phase 4 of the project focused on preparing the pilot study, with support materials for the pilot implementation, county teams trained, and the e-PLIN data collection tool developed and tested. The pilot study launched on August 1, 2022, following a tour of field visits to all counties involved. The activities carried out in phase 4 are detailed in section 2.3. Phase 5 of the project deals with the implementation of the pilot study. In the original project, Phase 5 was scheduled to last 12 months and cover at least eight counties (one county in each region of the country). However, due to various bureaucratic delays, 15 the Reimbursable Advisory Services was amended, the pilot period was reduced to 10 months, and the number of DGASPCs involved was increased from 8 to 10 to compensate for the reduced implementation period. Training activities for selected county teams were also transferred from joint events (with physical attendance) to online sessions. After the WB team organized the training sessions, the county teams started collecting data for piloting the new methodological package for the comprehensive disability assessment under the coordination of the ANPDPD and with the assistance of the WB. After five months of implementation (from August 1 to December 31, 2022), the new methodological package was reviewed and validated. As a result, a new, improved version of the e-PLIN tool was put into production. A detailed description of the activities carried out during the first five months of piloting can be found in section 2.4. A selection of summary results of the available interim data can be found in section 2.5. The following steps are listed and discussed in Chapter 3, including adjustments needed for the pilot study's second part (next five months). 2. Pilot study for the modernization of comprehensive disability assessment system for adults in Romania This chapter covers the pilot study and is organized into five sub-chapters. It starts with a sub-chapter on the objectives and scope of the pilot. It continues with three sub-chapters describing the activities to design, prepare, and implement the pilot. The last sub-chapter contains a selection of intermediate results, determined based on data collected during the first five months of implementation. 2.1. Objectives and scope of the pilot The pilot study, part of Outputs 5 and 7, aims to test, for ten months, the new four-step process of complex disability assessment and the corresponding methodological package developed within the project. The methodological package includes new methodologies, tools, and specific procedures for the disability assessment and the assessment of service and support needs of adults with disabilities, as briefly described in section 2.2. 16 The specific objectives of the pilot are: 1) Collection, for the first time in Romania, of functioning data (according to ICF) to be systematically analyzed in order to model appropriate algorithms to aggregate the medical score with the functioning score and identify the level of global disability (of the person as a whole). 2) Collection, for the first time in Romania, of data on the service and support needs (covered and uncovered) of people with disabilities. 3) Demonstrate the practical feasibility of administering the new criteria, tools, and procedures for complex disability assessment. 15 Mainly, the public procurement of training events for specialists involved in piloting. 16 The new assessment criteria aligned to the CIF and CDPD are extensively set out in Output 2. The new comprehensive disability assessment tools are available in Output 3. 15 4) Comparison of results obtained from current practice and the use of the newly developed methodological package. However, the pilot study is not only a means of scientific research and validation of a new methodological package but also an opportunity to build consensus that disability assessment is fair and ensures equitable access to existing benefits and services. Disability assessment is rigorous, fair and ensures equitable access to existing KEY benefits and services. The reform we design, we design together, and it means "better" for both people with disabilities and the professionals involved in the MESSAGE process! In line with the objectives, the activities subsumed in the piloting were organized along four dimensions, as shown in Infographic 3. Infographic 3: Organization of the pilot study activities In relation to the objective of research and scientific validation of the newly developed methodological package, the piloting activities were grouped by data collection and analysis dimensions. In relation to the objective of preparing the constituents for reform, the piloting activities aimed at capacity building at the level of the institutions directly involved in the piloting, but also at communicating with all other stakeholders from the institutions responsible for comprehensive disability assessment (DGASPC, SECPAH, CEPAH) in the counties not selected for the pilot, to NGOs active in the field and people with disabilities. 16 2.2. Pilot design In parallel with the development of the new methodological package, the pilot study design was also carried out, as shown in Infographic 2. The pilot design considered the resources and constraints at the SECPAH level identified by the Diagnosis report, the proposals and comments provided by stakeholders in an extensive consultation process, and the selected counties that agreed to implement the pilot. All these themes are discussed in the sections that follow. In addition, section 2.3 presents the data collection methodology developed for the pilot study also as part of the design phase. 2.2.1. What we knew from the Diagnosis study (part of Output 1) The diagnosis study revealed numerous shortcomings affecting how the assessment of disability is carried out under the legislation in force. Among these, human capital and information management issues were central. Given that the piloting of the new comprehensive assessment package was to be carried out by SECPAH with people who have applied for disability assessment after their assessment is completed according to current regulations and practices, human capital and information management issues were considered critical to the design of the pilot. The main information considered included the following: • Legislation is applied and understood differently from one county to another. As a result, there is no uniform approach to comprehensive disability assessment at the national level. • In practice, the comprehensive assessment for disability classification is not a participatory process; the interaction of SECPAH and CEPAH with applicants is very limited or non-existent and does not include a feedback mechanism, which violates the principle of "nothing for us without us". • Decision-making in SECPAH and CEPAH lacks transparency. The CEPAH decision is essentially the same as the SECPAH recommendations based on the comprehensive assessment for more than 90% of the cases. Redundancy relates not only to disability classification/non-classification but also to PIRIS. The role and responsibilities of CEPAH in relation to SECPAH regarding the disability classification process should be clarified and standardized at the county level. • The number of specialists employed per SECPAH varies considerably between counties (from 5 to 22) and is generally insufficient. • Only a few SECPAHs comply with HG No 268/2007 (art. 49) regarding staff specializations. For example, specialists such as educational psychologists, physiotherapists, educational instructors, and rehabilitation therapists represent very few of the total SECPAH staff and are found in a small number of counties. The incomplete staff structure in terms of specializations affects how SECPAH carries out comprehensive assessments based on medico-psychosocial criteria. Most SECPAHs in the country cannot provide a comprehensive assessment as designated by current legislation. • From the perspective of the paradigm shift from a medical to a holistic approach, the current technical expertise is not aligned with the ICF either at the CEPAH level or within SECPAH. Family doctors and general practitioners predominate, while specialists in medical expertise in work capacity and physical medicine and rehabilitation are very few. • The workload per SECPAH and CEPAH member varies significantly from county to county but has remained relatively high. Coupled with the skewed workload distribution among team members, 17 significantly affects how the evaluation is conducted. As a result, the time allocated to each file by SECPAH specialists is about 15-20 minutes. In comparison, CEPAH makes decisions on disability classification and services/benefits included in the individualized plans (PIRIS) in less than 5 minutes. Thus, the length of the decision-making process per case is too short to allow for adequate deliberation or comprehensive, evidence-based decision-making. 17 The workload per SECPAH member varies significantly depending on the specialization of each member; specialist doctors have the highest workload. 17 • Lack of skills and training on the ICF framework. Staff training is minimal at SPAS, SECPAH, and CEPAH levels. In particular, training on ICF is extremely limited. For example, out of a total of 478 SPAS staff surveyed, only five have ever attended a training course on the ICF. At the CEPAH level, out of 120 members, only 8 (from 8 counties) have ever attended training on the ICF framework. Also, within the SECPAHs studied, only 12 out of 346 specialists from only three counties have participated in a training course on ICF in the last 12 months (in 2020). • The data management process is highly fragmented between counties and within counties (at SECPAH, CEPAH, and secretariat levels), making it difficult to carry out the complex assessment in an appropriate manner. Automation of processes is minimal across the system. The majority of activities related to disability assessment are paper-based. The quality of data in existing databases is relatively poor. 2.2.2. Selection of counties for the pilot During the design phase of the pilot study, the WB team selected a set of relevant indicators based on the data collected for the Diagnosis study to choose the DGASPCs to pilot the new methodological package. 18 The analysis carried out for all counties with available data can be found in Annex 1. Given the high heterogeneity of county practices, the pilot study needs to cover existing practices as much as possible to ensure that the new work package for comprehensive adult disability assessment can be applied uniformly across the country. Therefore, to ensure the best possible coverage of diversity across the territory, the selection considered the following set of indicators: • Size of the officially registered adult population with disabilities at the county level, according to the Statistical Bulletin • SECPAH/CEPAH workload - Total number of people assessed/classified with disabilities per year as reported by SECPAH and CEPAH • Mode of work - Percentage of files assessed by SECPAH that did not involve face-to-face interaction with the person evaluated, as reported by SECPAH • Development region • DGASPC institutional factors indicating the potential for active involvement and responsible implementation of the pilot study Due to the reduction of the piloting period (from 12 to 10 months), a larger number of counties than initially planned (10 instead of 8) was selected, as stated in section 1.2. The selected sample includes ten DGASPCs, from nine counties plus one sector from Bucharest. That is at least one county from each region of the country, according to the project requirements, namely: Arad, Bacău, Constanța, Dolj, Giurgiu, Ialomița, Olt, Sălaj, Sibiu and Bucharest Sector 3. In total, the DGASPCs in the sample assessed over one year a total of about 56,000 cases (with a reduction to approximately 38,500 cases in 2020 in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic), which indicates the possibility of a pilot of at least 6,000 cases assessed using the new work package. For the implementation of the pilot, the ANPDPD concluded working protocols with the ten selected DGASPCs and identified teams of SECPAH/CEPAH specialists to carry out the testing and data collection. 18 The Selection of Counties for the Pilot Study document was revised and submitted to the ANPDPD as a separate document on February 18, 2022. 18 2.2.3. Co-production: Stakeholder consultations The new methodological package (criteria, tools, procedures), including the rules for piloting it, has been developed in a profoundly participatory manner. A first version was created by the World Bank's multidisciplinary team, which included doctors, psychologists, social workers, sociologists, disability rights and human rights representatives, ICF and WHODAS specialists, lawyers, and architects. This team worked closely with the ANPDPD validation experts in refining the methodological package and in consultation workshops to discuss the tools. The suggestions, comments, and recommendations received were noted by the BM team and integrated into the version that went into piloting. The consultation process involved a total of 15 workshops, 19 held from April 11 to April 21, 2022, attended by around 300 professionals, including specialists from DGASPC, SECPAH, and CEPAH, representatives of the Higher Commission for the Assessment of the Adults with Disabilities (CSEPAH), local social workers, experts from various national institutions or professional associations relevant to the disability assessment system, international ICF experts, policymakers and disability rights activists. Overall, the new methodological package and its piloting rules received positive feedback during the consultation workshops. 2.3. Methodology for data collection in the pilot study This sub-chapter reviews the general principles and inclusion criteria, the rules for administering the new methodological package, and the steps in the unified (or modified) outline procedure established for the pilot study. The two-stage piloting exercise (the first to improve the tools and the second to test the calculation formulas) is in line with how disability assessment has been implemented in Taiwan. 20 2.3.1. General principles and inclusion criteria The first key consideration in designing the pilot was that, for fairness, the pilot study must and is being conducted in parallel with the current system. Therefore, pilot participants are assessed using both the new procedure and tools and the current system. Individuals entering the system, in fairness, cannot be required to undergo an assessment that has not been formally approved and is under review. Therefore, all participants in the pilot are assessed according to the current regulations of the Romanian disability assessment system. Only those who agree to participate in the pilot study are further evaluated using the new methodological package. 19 The consultation process was conducted online using the Zoom platform. English-Romanian and Romanian-English interpretation was provided for events with international participation. The consultation workshops were both video and audio recorded. 20 Chiu et al (2013). 19 Participation in the pilot study is voluntary. Persons applying for a disability assessment are informed about the pilot study, its purpose, and its content and are invited to participate in the pilot study. The SECPAH/CEPAH team clearly states that participation in the pilot study does not impact the person's disability status or the benefits or services they receive. The pilot study is only intended to test the new tools and collect data that could improve the assessment of disability in Romania. Only applicants for disability classification who, after being informed, agree to participate and sign a consent form are included in the pilot study. All adults (aged 18+) applying for disability classification can participate, regardless of whether they are applying for the first time (lifetime) or applying for a renewal assessment. Medical diagnosis, time of onset, type of disability, or degree of disability (if one already exists) are not criteria for inclusion/exclusion of participants in the pilot study. Given the considerable changes that the new medical- psychological criteria bring (compared to the current criteria), the pilot rules allow county teams to recruit, including people who apply for disability classification and do not meet the conditions in the current regulations. For applicants with psychiatric disorders with psychotic symptoms or intellectual disabilities who cannot respond on their own, the person's representative may sign informed consent to participate in the pilot study if the person verbally agrees to participate in the pilot study but cannot sign. 2.3.2. The new toolkit (part of Outputs 2 and 3) being piloted The new methodological package includes 13 working tools corresponding to the four stages of the complex disability assessment process, plus the pilot study, as shown in Infographic 4. Of these, two tools help recruit and register participants in the pilot study, three tools are designed for medical and psychological assessment, another tool is used for assessment of functioning, six tools relate to individual needs assessment modules, and the last tool is the Individualized Plan (PLIN) which concludes the process. The new tools are presented in detail in Output 3. Infographic 4: A proposed new toolkit for the ICF and UNCRPD-based comprehensive disability assessment This section focuses on the management rules for the instruments set up for piloting. 20 Tools for participation in the pilot study CODE PILOTING RULES F00 Objective: Recruitment of pilot participants (see Annex 2) Identification of the main characteristics of the population applying for disability classification during the reference period Pilot target: Total population estimated at around 60,000 people Evaluator: The SECPAH specialist who receives the application file for disability classification. Respondent: For all persons applying for disability classification, whether or not they are informed of the opportunity to participate in the pilot and, if informed, whether or not they accept or decline to participate in the pilot study. Method: Based on the documents on file F0 Objective: Pilot participant registration and informed consent (see Annex 2) Pilot target: 6,000 people Evaluator: The SECPAH specialist who receives the file for disability classification. Respondent: Only for informed individuals who agree to participate in the pilot study after signing the consent. Method: Based on the documents on file. Face-to-face or online interaction 21 with the person evaluated is mandatory for signing informed consent. Tools for assessing disability In line with the ICF theoretical model, the new general methodology defines disability assessment as a two- step process. The first stage is the medical and psychological assessment based on specific criteria, and the second stage is the assessment of functioning using the WHODAS+RO questionnaire, as shown in Outputs 2 and 3. COD PILOTING RULES F1 Objective: Medical and psychological assessment Pilot target: 6,000 cases assessed Evaluator: A team consisting of at least the specialist doctor and a SECPAH/CEPAH psychologist. The decision on the team's composition is taken by the head of SECPAH, depending on the case's characteristics and the specialists' availability. Respondent: For all participants in the pilot study. Method: Based on the documents on file and the information obtained during the interview for disability classification, following the regulations. The scheduling of the medical and psychological assessment interview in the pilot study must be correlated with the date of presentation for the interview conducted under the legislation in force (the two assessments must be possible at the same time). Green Objective: They are not piloted: Form - The standardized "green" form for doctors and - Minimum requirements for the psychological assessment report These forms are not piloted by the county teams but will be pretested and adjusted by the World Bank team (see Chapter 3). F2 Objective: ICF-based assessment of functioning WHODAS+RO Pilot target: 6,000 cases assessed 21 Currently, according to legislation, online interviewing is only possible in the context of crisis situations (e.g., pandemics/epidemics). However, Output 1 has already shown that in many counties the assessment for disability classification is carried out on the basis of paperwork only, in the absence of an interview. 21 COD PILOTING RULES Evaluator: A SECPAH/CEPAH practitioner, thoroughly trained to use WHODAS+RO, who may be a doctor, a psychologist, a psycho-pedagogue, or a social worker. Respondent: For all participants in the pilot study. Method: Face-to-face or online interview conducted, based on prior planning, either at the SECPAH office or at the applicants' home, for non-disabled persons. Scheduling for the functional assessment interview must correlate with medical and psychological assessment interview scheduling. In addition, these must be linked with the presentation date for assessment under the current disability legislation. Tools for needs assessment The new general methodology proposes a clear separation between the assessment of disability and the assessment of support needs of adults with disabilities. The needs assessment follows the disability assessment: only people who obtain a disability certificate will benefit from the needs assessment incorporating all mandatory areas (in law) not covered in the previous assessment stages. The aim of the individual needs assessment is to promote greater autonomy for people with disabilities so that they can enjoy their rights and participate fully in social and economic life. Consequently, this stage is linked to people's access to services, case management of adults with disabilities, and planning of services at the local and national levels. The needs assessment includes six modules, namely: social, vocational, and educational, personal assistance, housing adjustment, assisted decision making, and other service needs. Accordingly, a specific tool has been developed for each assessment module, with separate instructions, as shown below. COD PILOTING RULES F2 Objective: Initiate needs assessment through the Expression of Interest Form (EIF) EIF Pilot target: 6,000 cases assessed Evaluator: SECPAH/CEPAH practitioner who also administered WHODAS+RO. Respondent: For all participants in the pilot study. - The EIF must be completed for each person, even if they declare no interest in any form of needs assessment. - Each person can express an interest in one or more assessment modules. Provisions M1 and M4 needs assessment modules can also be initiated at the request of persons that are not or organizations/institutions other than the person being assessed, but only with the piloted: consent of the person being assessed. At the first contact with the case manager (in M0), the person may change their mind and options. At this point, the interview plan for the needs assessment is decided. Method: Face-to-face or online interview conducted after the completion of WHODAS+RO. ASoc Objective: Social assessment Information required for the needs assessment modules (M1-M5) from the person's natural living environment, contributing to the analysis of personal and environmental factors, as well as information from the Activities and Participation domain, according to the ICF criteria. Pilot target: No target has been set. Evaluator: - SECPAH specialist who only partially completes the Annex_Asoc tool, according to the data in the documents on file. - In the case of non-disabled persons who are assessed at home, a SECPAH specialist, when possible, completes the Annex_Asoc. 22 COD PILOTING RULES - Very rarely, SPAS representatives based on the Annex_Asoc tool after prior training in the use of the new tool. Respondent: All persons expressing an interest (within the EIF in F2) in one or more of the needs assessment modules. Method: The information requested in the Annex_Asoc comes from existing administrative data, direct interaction with the applicant and his/her family, including a home visit, as well as from other local sources such as other specialists in the community (doctor, AMC, mediator, teachers, police, priest, etc.). M0 Not piloted The M0 First Contact Needs Assessment form is not applicable in the pilot study because the needs assessment stage follows immediately after the completion of the EIF (see also section 2.2.3). M1 Objective: Assessment of support needs in education and work, with the aim of increasing access of adults with disabilities to the active labor market and educational services. Pilot target: Estimated minimum - 500 cases evaluated 22 Evaluator: Preferably, a multidisciplinary team of SECPAH specialists which, in addition to the case manager, may include educational psychologists, educational instructors, remedial educators, psychologists specializing in work and organizational psychology or other specializations, career counselors, supported employment specialists (COR 263507) or vocational assessment specialists (COR 263506). However, if this is not possible, the case manager may also conduct the interview alone. Respondent: For all people with a disability certificate who have expressed an interest in the M1 module on employment and education needs. M1 is strongly recommended for 18-35- year-olds. Method: Face-to-face interview, held at SECPAH headquarters or online. M2 Objective: Assessment of personal assistance needs to ensure that adults with disabilities have equitable access 23 to existing or to be developed personal assistance services. In particular, the M2 module has been designed to facilitate the transition from almost exclusively family-based personal assistance (as it is at present) to the gradual development of a network of non-family personal assistants, employed on a contract basis, who provide several hours of care in the person's home, according to their specific needs. In the case of people recommended for care by a professional personal assistant, information is collected on the preferences of the disabled person that can support the matching process. Pilot target: Estimated minimum - 2,500 cases assessed 24 22 Based on existing data, an expected low number of applications for this evaluation module can be estimated. Therefore, increasing interest in the M1 module, especially among young people with disabilities, is a challenge for the SECPAH specialists involved in the pilot study. This challenge is all the greater in a context marked by a weak presence of supported employment opportunities, sheltered units, occupational rehabilitation services and, more generally, active labor market services for vulnerable groups. 23 Currently, the assessment of needs for personal assistance is merged with the assessment for disability. Thus, a person is not only classified as severely disabled, but is simultaneously granted/refused entitlement to the personal assistance service in the absence of a specific and explicit assessment. The legislation provides for four degrees of disability - mild, medium, accentuated and severe. In fact, however, two subtypes of severe degree are recorded on the certificate - with and without a personal assistant. 24 Based on existing data, an expected high number of applications for M2 can be estimated. Currently, by law, only severely disabled people are eligible for personal (family) assistants, while both accentuated and severely disabled people are eligible for APP. In the new general methodology and in the pilot, people with accentuated or severe disability can apply for the M2 module. Based on data from the Diagnosis study, about 88% of the files assessed over a calendar year receive the severe or marked degree. More than half of the assessed files (51%) receive the acute degree and 37% receive the severe degree, of which 30% with personal assistant and 7% without personal assistant (data for 2019, Output 1). However, 23 COD PILOTING RULES Evaluator: Preferably a multidisciplinary team of SECPAH specialists under the coordination of the case manager. The assessment team may include social workers, psychologists, educational psychologists, doctors, or physiotherapists. It would be preferable for the person's legal representative/carer/family to participate in this interview. Respondent: For all persons with a certificate of severe or marked degree of disability who have expressed an interest in the M2 module on personal assistance needs. People with a mild or moderate degree of disability are not eligible for personal assistance and, therefore, cannot opt for the M2 module. Method: Face-to-face or online interview. The face-to-face interview can be held, subject to prior planning, either at SECPAH's premises or at the applicant's home, for non-mobile persons. M3 Objective: Assessment of housing adaptation support needs to shift the focus from investing in supported housing (in APP, center, or sheltered housing) to allocating resources to helping families caring for an adult with a disability to adapt their housing. 25 In addition, the M3 module ends with a Home Accessibility Profile, which could also be used to certify professional personal assistants who have to provide care for a disabled person in their own home. Pilot target: Estimated minimum - 500 cases evaluated 26 Evaluator: Preferably a multidisciplinary team of SECPAH specialists under the coordination of the case manager, which may include social workers, psychologists, doctors, or physiotherapists. If this is not possible, the case manager can also conduct the interview alone. The person's legal representative/carer/family should preferably also participate in the interview. Respondent: For all people with a disability certificate who have expressed an interest in the M3 module on home adaptation needs. Method: Face-to-face or online interview. The face-to-face interview can be held, subject to prior planning, either at SECPAH's premises or at the applicant's home, for non-mobile persons. M4 Objective: Assessment of needs for decision support in managing economic resources to increase access of adults with disabilities to supported decision-making services to be developed. 27 This assessment may be helpful in courts in cases where judicial advice or special guardianship is required. Pilot target: Estimated minimum - 500 cases evaluated 28 Evaluator: Preferably a multidisciplinary team of SECPAH specialists, under the coordination of the case manager, which may include social workers, psychologists, psycho-pedagogues, doctors, or physiotherapists. The person's legal representative/carer/family should preferably also participate in this interview. given the time constraints (of both assessors and assessed individuals), it is reasonable to set a target of approximately 40% of all pilot study participants requesting the M2 assessment module. 25 Operational plan for the implementation of the SNDPD Annex 2. Target 5 = Measures to reduce the number of people with disabilities who are vulnerable because they would not be able to evacuate their homes in the event of disasters and other risk situations and humanitarian emergencies; Target 15 = Access technologies and assistive devices paid for through external non-reimbursable funding sources; Target 20 = Social housing or housing benefit for people with disabilities. 26 Existing data do not allow an estimation of the interest of people with disabilities in housing adaptations. Such data will only become available following the pilot study. The target has therefore been set on statistical grounds at the minimum estimated for the M1 module. 27 Operational plan for the implementation of the SNDPD, Annex 2. Target 6 = By 2027, at least 17,000 people with disabilities benefit from assistance and decision support services in a pilot program. 28 Existing data do not allow an estimation of the interest of people with disabilities in assisted decision-making in relation to the management of economic resources. Such data will only become available following the pilot study. The target has therefore been set on statistical grounds at the minimum estimated for the M1 module. 24 COD PILOTING RULES Respondent: For all people with a disability certificate who have expressed an interest in the M4 module on assisted decision-making needs. M4 is strongly recommended for people with severe degrees of disability, especially those with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities (as assessed by the disability assessment). Method: Face-to-face or online interview. The face-to-face interview can be held, subject to prior planning, either at SECPAH's premises or at the applicant's home, for non-mobile persons. M5 Objective: Inventory of unmet needs for services and support. 29 It does not have a separate instrument but a section within the Individualized Plan (PLIN). By aggregating data from the M5 module at the administrative-territorial unit, county, and national level, it is possible to quantify the specific service and benefit needs of adults with disabilities. This can be used to develop evidence-based service development plans. Pilot target: 3,600 cases evaluated (equal to the PLIN target) Evaluator: The specialist designated in charge of the case by the head of SECPAH. Respondent: For all recipients of a Comprehensive Disability Assessment, regardless of how many and which needs assessment modules have been completed. It would be preferable for the person's legal representative/carer/family to attend this interview. Method: Face-to-face or online interview. The face-to-face interview can be held, subject to prior planning, either at SECPAH's premises or at the applicant's home, for non-mobile persons. PLIN Objective: Individualized Plan (PLIN) containing the conclusions of the assessment and the list of services and benefits that the person needs in the social integration process: (i) which are recommended by SECPAH specialists, (ii) which he/she has actually benefited from in the last 12 months and (iii) which he/she wants (and assumes) for the next 12 months. PLIN, which was designed to replace the current PIRIS and PIS. Pilot target: 3,600 cases assessed 30 Evaluator: The specialist designated in charge of the case by the head of SECPAH. Respondent: For all beneficiaries with a complex disability assessment for whom a needs assessment has been completed, regardless of how many and which assessment modules have been completed. It would be preferable for the person's legal representative/carer/family to attend this interview. Method: Face-to-face or online interview. The face-to-face interview can be held, subject to prior planning, either at SECPAH's premises or at the applicant's home, for non-mobile persons. General rules for piloting evaluation tools In addition to the specific piloting rules for each of the evaluation tools, there are also general rules for piloting which are listed below. Alignment with the ICF principles Scientific standards for evaluation procedures require that evaluations are evidence-based, accurate (valid), and consistently produced by all evaluators (reliable). Concerning the assessment of the disability of the 29 The services and benefits considered under the M5 tool refer to: (i) necessary services as identified by the doctor and psychologist following the medical-psychological assessment; (ii) personal assistance; (iii) services that support independent living recommended by SECPAH specialists based on the results of the M1-M4 needs assessment modules; (iv) free benefits, subsidies and exemptions as required by law; (v) social benefits addressing disability; and (vi) social benefits addressing poverty. 30 Target set based on the targets for each assessment module (about 60% of total persons assessed). 25 person as a whole, the only way to meet the scientific standards is for the assessment tools, threshold criteria, and procedures to be aligned with the ICF conceptualization of functioning and disability. A disability assessment that is random, unstructured, arbitrary, or subject to assessor bias does not meet any threshold of objectivity or validity. While no administrative process can be free from manipulation, corruption, or fraud, every government is obliged to strive to make the process as fair and valid as possible. Moreover, since the rights and well-being of every citizen are at stake in disability assessment, both procedures and tools should be assessed in terms of fair access for all citizens, the quality of the information used, and the validity and reliability of the assessment. These are minimum acceptable standards for disability assessment that no government can ignore. Alignment with the principles of the UNCRPD In line with the principles of the UNCRPD, the general rule for the piloting of all instruments is that their administration must be carried out in a way that respects the human dignity, individual autonomy, and independence of persons; must be non-discriminatory, accessible, and accepting of human diversity; and must contribute to the full and effective participation and inclusion of persons with disabilities in society. Using international best practice The working tools were built from the instruments provided in the current regulations, which were modified, taking into account international best practices, adapted to the Romanian context based on the results of the Diagnostic study (part of Output 1). Piloting rules have also been modeled on instructions from international best practices. WHODAS+RO interviews and all needs assessment modules should be conducted similarly with each participant. Such standardization helps to ensure that participants' different responses are not an effect of the way the interview is conducted. The same principle applies to different interviewers. For example, if one interviewer is friendly to participants and another is distant, participants may give different answers. To this end, training sessions for specialists organized by the World Bank have also considered standardized interviewing procedures to help prevent such situations. Confidentiality and privacy All information obtained during interviews is confidential and remains confidential indefinitely. The pilot study implementation teams in the ten selected DGASPCs must strictly ensure the protection of personal data. Each participant must be guaranteed privacy, thus ensuring a high level of comfort and facilitating the most accurate responses. For example, when WHODAS+RO (or any other interview) is administered face-to-face, it must be conducted in a closed room where others cannot hear answers. 2.3.3. The new draft unified procedure for complex disability assessment (part of draft Output 4), which is being piloted The new methodological package also includes the outline for a new unified procedure for complex assessment. 31 This draft procedure is organized around the four stages of the evaluation approach and is included in the pilot. The flow of activities followed in the pilot for each stage is described in this section. 32 PHASE 0. Recruitment and registration of pilot study participants Only applicants for disability classification who, after being informed, agree to participate and sign a consent form are included in the pilot study. a) The briefing is about the purpose and organization of the pilot. 31 The unified procedure has been validated and adjusted after the first 5 months of piloting (section 2.6.6) and will be finalized after piloting and will be presented in Output 4. 32 Infographics with the flow of activities by stages of the unified procedure are available in Output 3. 26 b) After information, the SECPAH specialist must complete the F00. The recruitment form, whether or not the person agrees to participate. c) If the person accepts, the Informed Consent form must be signed, after which the SECPAH specialist completes the F0. Pilot Registration Form and schedules the interview for the functioning assessment (WHODAS+RO). The informed consent form (Annex 2) records, among other things: - Responsibility of the project team in ensuring the confidentiality of the data collected - The fact that participation is voluntary, unpaid, and involves no cost or risk to health - Possibility to withdraw from the research at any time without giving any explanation. - The fact that participation in the pilot study will not influence the outcome of the assessment for obtaining/renewal of the disability certificate. For applicants with psychiatric disorders with psychotic symptoms or intellectual disabilities who cannot respond on their own, the person's representative may sign informed consent to participate in the pilot study if the person verbally agrees to participate in the pilot study but cannot sign. As a rule, STAGE 0 only applies after the person's assessment for disability classification under the law has been completed. If the person is 18 years and over and signs the informed consent to participate in the pilot study, then the implementation team must take over the person and follow the flow of activities in STAGE 1 or STAGE 2, as appropriate. There are no strict rules for recruiting participants. It was clear from consultations with stakeholders that there is a need for flexibility at the SECPAH level regarding the decision to inform/recruit all or certain persons (e.g., selected based on a statistical step or another rule) among those applying for disability. The main reasons include insufficient staff in SECPAHs, lack of certain specialists (on some days or permanently), existing practices regarding the scheduling of assessments (as required by law), difficulties in interacting with certain applicants, and, in particular, the significant number of applicants who are not evenly distributed over the days of a month but are crowded at certain times of the month, and marked differences from one county to another. Because it was not possible to identify an information/recruitment rule acceptable to all counties, the solution was to allow specialists to decide which cases to inform/recruit. The only firm recommendation on information and recruitment is to respect the diversity rule. That is, to recruit people who are as diverse as possible in terms of the variables included in the F00 and F0 forms, i.e., gender, age, rural/urban residence, living with family/institutionalized in a social service, independent or under guardianship, first-lifetime disability assessment or renewing an older certificate, already have a mild, medium, severe or severe disability certificate, with or without a personal assistant, different types of disability (medical conditions) and valid for one year, two years or permanently. The characteristics of the provisional sample obtained after the first five months of piloting (August-December 2022) are available in section 2.6.3. PHASE 1. Medical and psychological assessment STAGE 1 is part of the disability assessment. The SECPAH medical specialist, together with a psychologist (at the decision of the SECPAH chief), have already interviewed the person for their disability classification (as required by law), so they do not need to conduct a separate interview as part of the pilot. The SECPAH team, using the documents on file and the information from the existing interview, applies the revised Medical and Psychological Criteria (part of Output 2) and completes the F1 form containing the medical-psychological score, type of disability, proposed validity of the disability certificate, special medical needs, and recommendations for medical services. In addition, the team also assesses the quality of the existing data in the medical and psychological documents on file, which allows an estimation of medical score distortions resulting from input data deficiencies (such as insufficient data, vague, unclear, incomplete, contradictory, or suspected fraudulent diagnoses). 27 PHASE 2. Assessment of operation based on CIF STAGE 2 is also part of the disability assessment and can be carried out independently of STAGE 1. That is, the results of the medical and psychological evaluation are helpful but are not necessary to assess functioning. Thus, it is possible for a person once recruited to enter directly into the interview for STAGE 2, while STAGE 1 may be carried out in parallel or later. This is possible because, unlike STAGE 1, STAGE 2 requires a mandatory interview with the person to apply the WHODAS+RO tool in the F2 form. For applicants with psychiatric disorders with psychotic symptoms or intellectual disabilities, the participation of the legal representative/carer/family member in the interview is allowed, as in these cases, the person's answers to the WHODAS questions may not accurately reflect reality. In addition, for these cases, the WHODAS+RO questionnaire is accompanied by cards in easy-to-understand language to facilitate the active participation of applicants in the interview. With the introduction of WHODAS+RO, firstly, information from a psychosocial perspective is collected scientifically and in a consistent, standardized way across all counties in the country. Secondly, this information will have the same real, transparent, and quantifiable impact on the final disability classification assessment in all cases and all counties. Based on the responses from WHODAS+RO, the functioning assessment is finalized with an overall score and specific scores by ICF domains, which will be used for both the disability assessment and the needs assessment. In WHODAS+RO, the instructions for assigning qualifiers are only indicative. They refer mainly to the pain/discomfort experienced by the person being assessed (as patients report to a physical medicine and rehabilitation physician). 33 In the spirit of WHODAS 2.0 (WHO), as an instrument that measures the performance of a person's daily activities and real-world environment, responses are from the respondent's perspective and not the specialist's. For these reasons, the questionnaire is accompanied by cards to facilitate application. A specialist assessor may not always agree with the respondent's answer, but the response received should be the one recorded. While this can be frustrating, the assessor must adhere to this standard to ensure consistency in the administration of the instrument. However, for this reason, WHODAS+RO is complemented by a short section on feedback from both the applicant and the evaluator/interviewer. These data allow an estimate of the distortions in the overall functioning score resulting from the strategic manipulation of responses by the evaluated person. PHASE 3. Certification of disability Once the disability assessment phase is completed, the degree of disability is determined based on an algorithm (applied automatically) that combines the medical-psychological score with the WHODAS+RO score. The disability certification stage leads to the person's disability status and disability certificate, making them eligible for certain immediate entitlements (e.g., free healthcare). THE STEPS SET OUT IN THE OUTLINE OF THE UNIFIED PROCEDURE HOW THE STEPS IN THE PROCEDURE ARE PILOTED On completion of Phase 1, the team sends the completed F1 form to the This stage was not chief of SECPAH. Similarly, at the end of stage 2, the evaluator sends the included in the first five completed F2 form to the SECPAH chief. First, the SECPAH chief reviews the months of piloting. documents submitted by the evaluators, approves them, or sends them back However, now, based on for revision. After review and any corrections, the SECPAH chief determines the data already collected, the person's disability score as a whole and the appropriate degree of it is possible to start disability using the software. testing several types of algorithms to combine the 33 The person being assessed is informed at the beginning of the interview that the answer must relate to the degree of difficulty they have in carrying out the activity in question (increased effort, discomfort or pain, slowness, etc.) due to their health condition and not for other reasons. 28 medical-psychological The whole person disability score is automatically generated by software score and the functioning that incorporates both (i) the combination algorithm for determining the score (WHODAS+RO) to functioning score based on specific WHODAS+RO scores and (ii) the determine the disability combination algorithm for calculating the overall score based on the score of the person as a medical-psychological and functioning scores. Based on the global score, the whole (see also section software also indicates the appropriate degree of disability to be assigned to 3.2). the person. In this way, the level of disability is no longer determined based on a subjective or discretionary decision. Instead, the decision is scientifically sound (valid and reliable) and non-discriminatory, in addition to being based both on the individual's health status and on-point assessments of specific activities. PHASE 4. Assessment of individual needs for services and support The individual needs assessment is initiated at the end of the performance assessment phase. The needs assessment is voluntary to ensure freedom of choice and control for people with disabilities over their own lives, including the support they receive, in line with the UNCRPD. So, the certificate applicant should be informed as early as possible. Only in this way is the applicant aware of the actions and time required, and opportunities available. Consequently, the F2 form is designed so that after the WHODAS+RO application (performance review) is completed, the needs assessment is initiated by applying the Expression of Interest Form (EIF). The unified procedure outline (part of draft Output 4) provides for a number of steps, of which only some have entered piloting, as follows: THE STEPS SET OUT IN THE OUTLINE OF THE HOW THE STEPS IN THE PROCEDURE ARE UNIFIED PROCEDURE PILOTED The SECPAH specialist must do the following: The steps in the procedure are modified as follows: (i) inform the applicant of the existence of the - The requirement to have a certificate does not needs assessment after the certification stage, apply. People undergoing their first-lifetime accessible to all beneficiaries of a certificate (with assessment (who do not yet have a certificate) can legal status as a person with a disability). also opt for the needs assessment. (ii) strongly recommend module M1 - assessment of support needs and services in education and work for people with disabilities aged 18-35 and - It applies as such. module M4 - assessment of decision support needs for all people with severe disabilities. - It is explicitly stated that the needs assessment will (iii) assist the applicant in completing the in no way affect the rights (services and benefits) Expression of Interest Form (EIF) for participation in the person has under the assessment by law. the needs assessment, with the possibility of opting The special instruction is not to create a waiting for one or more services and the corresponding horizon that can lead to misunderstandings and assessment modules. disappointment. (IV) explain to the applicant the possible benefits of the individual needs assessment (job potential profile, housing affordability profile, assisted decision-making recommendation, and access to - Not applicable. personal assistance service) and that it ends with an Individualized Plan (PLIN) which will be communicated to the SPAS who will be responsible 29 THE STEPS SET OUT IN THE OUTLINE OF THE HOW THE STEPS IN THE PROCEDURE ARE UNIFIED PROCEDURE PILOTED for supporting and monitoring them over the next 12 months. 34 PHASE 4A. Social assessment The social assessment is the first step in the needs assessment and provides the necessary information for the assessment modules (M1-M5) from the person's natural living environment. It, therefore, only applies to people who express an interest in the EIF (from F2) for one or more of the needs assessment modules. At present, the social inquiry is a document required on file for all adults applying for disability classification and must be carried out according to the framework model provided in GD no. 430/2008, Annex 6. According to these provisions, all applicants for disability classification have a social inquiry on file. However, according to the new methodological package, the social assessment is based on a new tool, Annex_Asoc - Annex to the social inquiry for adults with disabilities, designed to replace the current framework model. In contrast to the existing provisions, according to which the person has to apply to the SPAS in order to obtain the mandatory social inquiry on file, the new unified outline procedure proposes a significant change involving the following: THE STEPS SET OUT IN THE OUTLINE OF THE HOW THE STEPS IN THE PROCEDURE ARE PILOTED UNIFIED PROCEDURE (i) the social inquiry report is no longer compulsory for all applicants but only for those - It applies as such who express an interest in the needs assessment. (ii) the request for the Social inquiry Annex is sent - In the pilot study, the disability assessment and the by SECPAH/DGASPC via a standard email once the needs assessment are carried out in one meeting with person has completed the disability assessment the person and not on two different days as required stage and expressed interest in one or more of the by the procedure. services covered by the needs assessment modules - During the first five months of piloting, the within the EIF. Annex_Asoc was completed by SECPAH specialists either only partially, 35 according to the existing data in the social inquiries in the files, or in its entirety, in the case of non-disabled people who were assessed at home (when possible). However, the Annex_Asoc was completed only for some cases and not for all, and in (iii) SPAS has 14 days to complete the Annex_Asoc most cases contains only partial data. 36 and send it back to SECPAH (by mail or email). 37 - For the next five months of piloting, it is expected that the number of Annex_Asoc will increase only after the 50 social workers at the SPAS level have been selected and trained, as foreseen by the project (activity postponed for now, see also section 3.3.2). (IV) the application for the social inquiry on the - Not applicable. model Annex_Asoc can also be submitted after the 34 Upon completion of the F2 form (after the EIF), the SECPAH specialist hands the applicant the "How to appeal a disability certificate" guide that will be part of Output 4. 35 Annex_Asoc contains more information than the model framework in the legislation. 36 Output 1 showed that, according to SECPAH specialists, the completeness and accuracy of the information in the existing social inquires in the files is unsatisfactory, especially in terms of housing, the person's economic situation and community services. In addition, they rarely include comprehensive information about the applicant's living context, daily routine, lifestyle choices or difficulties faced, with a focus on contextual and environmental factors that could act as a resource (facilitator) or barrier (obstacle). In addition, the social inquiry framework model lacks a section that should reflect the point of view of the person with a disability, such as their fears and concerns, how they would like to live and plans for the future. 37 Ideally, SPASs would have access to an ANPDPD computer system where they could fill in the Annex_Asoc directly and not on paper. 30 assessment by persons with a valid disability certificate directly to the SPAS, which will inform SECPAH/DGASPC and obtain an appointment for the individual needs assessment. STAGE 4B. Individual needs assessment modules Based on the principles of the UNCRPD, the needs assessment is not only voluntary but also modular, 38 as there is no one-size-fits-all solution/measure: people with disabilities have different support needs and costs. Thus, the needs assessment comprises four distinct modules (M1, M2, M3, and M4) that subsume the concept of independent living, understood as choice and control in everyday life for people with disabilities, on an equal basis with the general population. To these, two additional modules (M0 and M5) are added. The Unified Procedure Outline (Output 4 draft) provides for the following steps, which have been modified for piloting purposes as follows: THE STEPS SET OUT IN THE OUTLINE OF THE UNIFIED HOW THE STEPS IN THE PROCEDURE PROCEDURE ARE PILOTED (i) after the SPAS submits the Annex_Asoc, the SECPAH chief - Not applicable. In line with the changes designates a case manager who schedules the interviews. to the procedure in stage 4A, the disability The date is communicated to the SPAS, which forwards it to assessment and needs assessment are the applicant. If possible, the SPAS can support the person carried out in one meeting with the person with access to a computer connected to the Internet (if the and not on two separate days as required person does not have one) so that the interviews can be by the procedure. organized online. - Any SECPAH specialist who recruits a (ii) the needs assessment is initiated with the first contact person becomes implicitly responsible for between the applicant and the case manager. The M0 form that case during the piloting period. is the tool for the first contact. (iii) the case manager is the individual needs assessment - Given the projected times for each piloted coordinator and contact person for the applicant. The case instrument (see section 2.3.3), the needs manager ensures that all required assessment modules are assessment can be stopped at any time if completed by drawing on various sources of information the person no longer wishes to continue or and participating in face-to-face or online interviews with is tired. the applicant. 39 (iv) the assessment is concluded by the case manager completing the PLIN with the person and his/her - It applies as such. representative/family. GENERAL. Other provisions of the Unified Outline not applicable in the pilot study THE STEPS SET OUT IN THE OUTLINE OF THE UNIFIED HOW THE STEPS IN THE PROCEDURE PROCEDURE ARE PILOTED - The procedure requires that any instrument (not just PLIN, but F00, F0, F1, (1) The applicant and the case manager sign the PLIN. The F2, etc.) is signed by the applicant receives a copy. appraisee/representative and the SECPAH sends the needs assessment results to the evaluation team. However, this rule does Secretariat, which sends a copy of the PLIN to SPAS. not apply in the pilot for simplicity and to avoid giving the process too formal an 38 During the consultation process with representatives of SECPAH/CEPAH, NGOs and people with disabilities, the choice of needs assessment modules was confirmed as optimal in the current context. 39 The person also receives an Information Sheet on the list of devices found in Romania, organized according to the 16 types of activities included in the evaluation, which will be part of Output 4. 31 THE STEPS SET OUT IN THE OUTLINE OF THE UNIFIED HOW THE STEPS IN THE PROCEDURE PROCEDURE ARE PILOTED SPAS is responsible for providing support, information, and appearance, which may create false guidance services for people with disabilities to implement expectations or misunderstandings among the activities and services included in the PLIN. the persons evaluated. (2) For one year or until the renewal of the PLIN, SPAS is responsible for monitoring the degree of implementation of - All provisions of the unified procedure the recommendations in the PLIN. relating to SPAS were not applied in the To this end, a PLIN Monitoring Form (M&E PLIN) was first five months of the pilot because the developed within the project for use by SPAS implementation teams did not include representatives. 40 SPAS should complete the M&E PLIN and SPAS representatives. send it to SECPAH when the person concerned presents for In the next five months, it is possible that reassessment for renewal of either the certificate or the some provisions could be applied, but PLIN. most likely only in isolated cases and not The M&E PLIN will be used in the training of SPAS social systematically. workers, together with the Annex_Asoc (section 3.3.2). 2.3.4. Projected working times for the pilot Conducting both a disability assessment and a needs assessment for an applicant may require between one and seven different types of assessment, depending on the specific conditions of the applicant. For example, in the case of a person with a severe impairment applying for a Certificate of Disability, Assisted Decision Making, and Personal Assistant, the process may require two separate meetings with SECPAH, totaling 30 minutes (for completion of WHODAS+RO) plus about 90 minutes (for the needs assessment, including the Individualized Plan). Given also the significant number of files to be assessed (250 thousand files evaluated over a year, nationally), time management is essential to ensure an adequate workflow while allowing for adaptations to the specific conditions and demands of the applicants. A sound system satisfies both beneficiaries and staff involved in disability assessment. To this end, the World Bank team has modeled the unified comprehensive assessment procedure by using a simple and effective time management method to "be a little happier and do a little more" or "work smarter, faster, and better". 41 This is the Pomodoro technique to reduce the impact of internal and external interruptions on concentration and flow. According to this technique, work (complex tasks) is divided into indivisible work units (simple tasks called Pomodoro), separated by short breaks (3-5 minutes). Traditionally, a work unit lasts 20-25 minutes. Work units are recorded at completion, which adds a sense of achievement and provides raw data for self- observation and further improvement. Four units of work form a set. Longer breaks of 15-30 minutes separate two consecutive sets. Infographic 5 shows how the new toolkit is distributed across Pomodoro-like working time intervals. However, it should be kept in mind that the needs assessment is modular and voluntary, implying that only some people will be eligible/opt for more than one module, with a small number of applicants benefiting from all assessment modules. It is easy to see from Infographic 5 that the new methodological package increases the theoretical working time by introducing several evaluation steps, each with a specific tool and rules. But without this effort, the evaluation will remain unstructured, uneven, and rather arbitrary. From the point of view of the person assessed, the data obtained through the implementation of the pilot in the first five months brings encouraging news, as demonstrated in section 2.6.2. For the total sample, the average time spent by people with disabilities on assessment in the pilot was less than one hour (56 min). In fact, 87% of the people assessed spent a maximum of 80 minutes in the assessment process under the new package. The threshold of 2 hours was exceeded for 6.4% of people assessed. 40 The M&E PLIN tool will be attached to Output 4. 41 Pash and Trapani (2013). 32 Infographic 5: The new toolkit translated into Pomodoro (working time estimation) Note: The estimate of applicants for individual needs assessment (about 40% of applicants) is based on statistical data collected in Output 1 on the proportion of severely disabled adults and personal assistants and the proportion of vocational assessment recipients (see also section 2.3.1). Only the pilot study will show the interest of people with disabilities in one or more of the individual needs assessment modules. 4. Preparing the pilot implementation From April to July 2022, a variety of activities were conducted in preparation for the pilot study (Infographic 2). These included the formation, organization, and training of county teams conducting the pilot, the creation of resource documents such as guidelines and instructions, and the development and testing of the online e- PLIN data collection tool. The preparation phase concluded on August 1, 2022, with the launch of the pilot study. 2.4.1. County teams The prerequisite for successfully implementing the pilot study was establishing a fair and trustworthy working environment that would contribute to the development of institutional capacity and encourage multidisciplinary teamwork. At the level of each county, it was recommended that the team of specialists tasked with implementing the new methodology and tools contain at least the following members: • Two doctors, one of whom should preferably be the president of the CEPAH. In this way, the main CEPAH member is not only informed but also trained and experienced in applying the comprehensive assessment based on the biopsychosocial model of disability. • Two social workers • One psychologist • One expert who acts as a case manager for adults with disabilities (or is trained to do so), preferably a psychologist, educational psychologist, rehabilitation pedagogue, or social worker. In general, the county teams tasked with implementing the pilot study include all members of the SECPAH team as well as representatives of the CEPAH (at least its president) and its secretariat. 106 experts participated in the pilot project implementation during the first five months; 90 from SECPAH and 16 from CEPAH. On average, county teams consisted of 11 individuals, but this number ranges from a minimum of 7 specialists in 33 Ialomița to a maximum of 20 in Bucharest Sector 3. The teams mostly comprise women aged 36 to 55 (90%). The profile of the county teams is presented in Table 2, and the team members are listed in Annex 3.1. Table 2: Profile of the county teams participating in the pilot study TOTAL AR BC B S3 CT DJ GR IL OT SJ SB TOTAL, of which... 106 12 10 20 13 11 8 7 8 9 8 SECPAH 90 11 9 20 10* 9 5 6 6 7 7 CEPAH 16 1 1 0 3 2 3 1 2 2 1 Women 95 11 7 19 13 11 8 7 6 7 6 Men 11 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 Under 35 10 0 3 1 4 0 0 0 1 0 1 36-45 years 32 2 1 6 2 6 3 2 2 4 4 46-55 years 47 6 4 12 5 3 4 4 3 5 1 56-65 years 14 3 2 1 2 2 1 0 2 0 1 Medic 21 3 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 Social worker 31 7 2 9 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 Psychologist 24 1 3 5 4 3 3 2 1 1 1 Psychopedagog 6 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 Sociologist 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Kinesiologist 6 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 Education instructor 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Vocational counselor 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Vocational therapist 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Medical assistant 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lawyer 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 Economist 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Other 7 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 Source: World Bank, MODDiz Pilot, e-PLIN data. The role of the county teams in the pilot study is to: • Identify and recruit volunteers for participation in the pilot study from among applicants for disability classification; • For the selected persons, SECPAH/CEPAH specialists will apply the new work package according to the procedures established in the pilot study (without any legal consequences for the persons assessed), in addition to the assessment according to the legislation in force resulting in the classification in degree and type of disability; • Record, for the evaluated cases, all the information requested in the e-PLIN tool. For this purpose, the ANPDPD purchased tablets to equip the county teams. The active participation of SECPAH and CEPAH experts in implementing the pilot study was based on working protocols that ANPDPD concluded with the General Directorates of Social Assistance and Child Protection and the County Councils of the ten counties. 2.4.2. Training of county teams and pretesting of new instruments Training activities prior to the official launch of the pilot study were organized in two phases. In the first phase, online consultation and training sessions were conducted. In the second phase, the World Bank team conducted field visits to all selected counties. Online consultation and training sessions In the run-up to the launch of the pilot study (April 11-21, 2022), a series of online workshops were held, which were widely attended by specialists involved in the disability assessment process. Some of these sessions were specially organized for DGASPC, SECPAH, and CEPAH specialists and aimed at familiarizing them with the paradigm shift and the proposed new methodology. Thus, during these online workshops, SECPAH and CEPAH specialists were trained on: 34 • What does alignment with the ICF and UNCRPD principles mean in terms of disability and needs assessment • What are the concepts when talking about comprehensive disability assessment • What are the changes in the proposal to modernize the disability assessment system • What tools are used for medical and psychological assessment • How to do the performance assessment and the WHODAS+RO questionnaire • What are the tools, and how is the needs assessment carried out • What are the workflows and the specialists involved. The workshops were attended not only by specialists from the counties implementing the pilot study but also by other counties. Their views and feedback received throughout the workshops were integrated into Outputs 2 and 3 and are reflected in the final tools included in the pilot. The information provided during these sessions served as the basis for future preparation and implementation of the pilot study. Separate training was conducted for using the e-PLIN tool, which included: information on e-PLIN login accounts, unique codes for each specialist in the county team, and steps about logging into e-PLIN or opening a new case. Visits to counties to launch the pilot study To ensure a good understanding of the new tools and procedures and train the specialists who would apply the new methodology in the pilot study, the ANPDPD should have organized two face-to-face training sessions. However, for reasons beyond the project team's control, these training sessions could not be held before the official launch of the pilot study in the ten counties. 42 As a result of this limitation, the WB project team decided to carry out a country tour and visit all counties participating in the pilot study. The main objective was to get to know the members of the county teams, provide them with printed support materials and train them in the use of the new methodology and implementation of the pilot study under conditions that meet the highest standards of practice. Between 10-29 July 2022, the nine counties plus sector 3 in Bucharest were visited. The working visits lasted, on average, 6 hours/county. The activities took place according to the following plan: More information on these training sessions foreseen in the project is provided in chapter 3. Next steps for the next 5 42 months of piloting. 35 • Getting to know the county team and how disability assessment is carried out at the county level • Presentation of the project objectives and directions for the proposed modernization of the disability assessment system • Presentation of the toolkit to be piloted; procedures and steps to be followed; discussion of indicators to be collected; discussion of revised medical and psychological criteria • Overview of e-PLIN - steps to connect, structure, types of questions, logical conditions, jumps, information flow between forms • Presentation of supporting materials, e.g., WHODAS application guide and WHODAS cards • Define possible workflows for the implementation of the pilot study, depending on the specialists available locally and the responsibilities they have in the disability assessment process • Exercise to identify representative images for the logo/visual identity of the project (examples used are available in Annex 3.2) The e-PLIN toolkit, together with the WHODAS Completion Guide, WHODAS cards, and labels/stickers with images representative of the visual identity of the project, were printed and distributed to the county teams. On completion of the visits to the counties, before the launch of the pilot study, the complete package of materials was also made available to the counties in electronic format. Pretesting and subsequent adjustment of the new methodological package The process of developing the instruments tested in the pilot study was highly participatory. The WB team incorporated feedback received during working meetings, technical meetings, and field visits. The tools included in the e-PLIN were pretested by the project team before the pilot study was launched to ensure that: (i) the completion of the tools is not problematic; (ii) they can be applied uniformly; and (iii) they are complete, with feedback from people with disabilities included. These conditions having been met, e-PLIN v.6, launched in the first week of August 2022, provided the platform for pretesting the tools in all counties participating in the pilot with county-level specialists. A total of 70 cases were completed by teams from Dolj, Olt, Sălaj, Sibiu, and Giurgiu, allowing testing of the tools (including detailed instructions) and the Individualized Plan, as well as the overall functionality of e-PLIN. The feedback received on the difficulties encountered was implemented in e-PLIN v.7, launched in mid- August. During the first five months of piloting, necessary adjustments to the whole methodological package were identified and included in e-PLIN v.8, launched at the end of December 2022. 2.4.3. Resource materials for pilot implementation The pilot study implementation package includes, on the one hand, the associated tools and procedures for the new disability assessment methodology and, on the other hand, resource materials to facilitate the implementation. The resource materials cover the following: • Recruitment and registration steps - Information and informed consent, i.e., completion of forms F00 and F0 (see section 2.3.1 and Annex 2); F00 was made available to the county teams for completion in Excel spreadsheet format. • Functioning assessment - a guide to WHODAS application and support cards. WHODAS+RO guide and cards WHODAS+RO is a standardized instrument containing 45 questions corresponding to the relevant ICF categories included in e-PLIN to serve the functional assessment. To support county-level practitioners in the application of WHODAS+RO, the WB team developed the WHODAS+RO Guide (Output 2). The guide contains question-by-question instructions (from WHODAS+RO) to ensure that evaluators do not offer their own interpretations when applicants ask for clarification on a particular question. These instructions address (1) how each question should be applied and (2) how to assign qualifiers appropriately. Regarding 36 the rules for administering the questionnaire, the team relied heavily on WHODAS 2.0. Manual. 43 In terms of instructions for assigning qualifiers, the team developed help/check questions, vignettes, or examples for each question, mainly from a physical medicine and rehabilitation perspective. The instructions for assigning qualifiers are only indicative. They refer mainly to the pain/discomfort experienced by the person being assessed (as patients report to a physical medicine and rehabilitation physician). In the spirit of WHODAS 2.0, as an instrument that measures the performance of a person's activities in daily life and their real-world environment, the answers are from the perspective of the respondent and not the specialist. Moreover, for these reasons, the questionnaire is accompanied by cards to facilitate application (see Annex 3.3). A specialist assessor may not always agree with the respondent's answer, but the response received should be the one recorded. While this may be frustrating, the assessor should adhere to this standard to ensure consistency in the administration of the instrument. In addition, the person being assessed should be informed at the beginning of the interview that the answer should refer to the degree of difficulty he or she is experiencing in performing the activity in question (increased effort, discomfort or pain, slowness, etc.) due to the health condition and not for other reasons. The WHODAS guide in print was made available to members of the county teams at the time of the field visit. 2.4.4. e-PLIN - Online data collection tool To ensure that the pilot study was carried out smoothly, the World Bank team took into account the following contextual factors: • The high number of files evaluated annually by SECPAH/CEPAH; • The fact that the application of the new methodological package is parallel to the assessment for disability carried under the legislation in force; • The fact that some of the evaluations have to be carried out by SECPAH at the applicant's home; • COVID-19 context imposing restrictions on interaction and increased use of digital media. In this context and given the complexity of the tested methodological package, comprising a large number of interrelated elements, the World Bank team provided support for the development of e-PLIN, an online data collection, and analysis tool to support the implementation of the pilot study. What is e-PLIN? e-PLIN is the technical infrastructure for data collection and management that integrates the tools, methodology, and procedures developed in Outputs 2, 3, and 4 (draft) of the project and implemented as described in chapter 2.3.3 being piloted. e-PLIN has been designed as a tool that: • enables the collection and recording of disability and needs assessment data in an efficient (user- friendly and easy-to-use interface) and accurate (based on the logical and validation conditions included) manner • allows different members of the multidisciplinary team to work simultaneously on the same case • provides the possibility to view the information collected on several access levels (county and national) • allows data extraction and anonymization on a predefined database format. The tool has been developed to work online, facilitating real-time monitoring of how the study is progressing. Thus, e-PLIN can be opened and used in a browser on any computer/tablet connected to the internet. The address is https://evaluare-dizabilitate.ro. The information entered, even in the absence of an internet connection, is saved locally, and when the connection is re-established, it is synchronized with the server. e-PLIN development and testing e-PLIN translates the information in the methodology and procedures developed in the project into an online electronic format. This means that: 43 WHO (2010) Chapter 7. 37 • Collects and stores a substantial volume of data at a disaggregated level across multiple instruments that are inter-connected and inter-dependent • Optimizes the data collection process by automatically transferring information from one instrument to another for the same person • Includes logical validation conditions for the information collected to ensure the validity of the data • Allows automatic calculation of indicators, jumps between questions • Provides information and recommendations on the steps to follow. The technology used: The implementation of the e-PLIN system was carried out using Survey Solutions software. Survey Solutions is an open source software platform for data collection, developed and managed by the World Bank. This software is designed to provide an intuitive and easy-to-use interface for users while offering powerful configuration and customization options. It can be accessed at https://mysurvey.solutions/en/. The e-PLIN infrastructure is hosted on a Windows VPS server in Romania with the hardware and software specifications below, including an SSL certificate. Hardware Software CPU: Virtual CPU 3.79 GHz, (8 processors) Windows Server 2019 RAM: 16GB Microsoft.Net Core 3.1 runtime DISK: 200GB SSD Microsoft IIS 10 (full) Survey Solutions version 22.09.1 Latest version of PostgreSQL The development period of e-PLIN on the Survey Solutions platform was approximately two months. During this time, the project team developed and tested five versions. e-PLIN v.6 was fielded to the pilot study participating counties in August 2022. After two weeks of testing, with feedback received from the integrated territory, version 7 was released and used to implement the pilot study until December 2022. Finally, on December 28, version 8 was released, which includes changes resulting from consolidated feedback received during the first five months of the pilot study. Testing: Before going into production, all e-PLIN versions were tested by the WB team together with the county teams, and dedicated training sessions on usage were organized. In addition, throughout the pilot, the WB team provided continuous 24/7 support. Roles and actions in e-PLIN Login/Users: e-PLIN can be accessed via an account and password defined by the project team. The Survey Solutions platform offers specific tools for different sets of users. Thus, in e-PLIN, there have been defined: A development/ • Manages the technical and methodological aspects of e-PLIN, users, data, administration and application settings. This role allows for creating and managing e-PLIN account content and user accounts, configuring application settings and permissions, monitoring data collection and usage, and troubleshooting possible problems. Six national user • Intended for use by the ANPDPD and have the most extensive access rights accounts in e-PLIN and in relation to the data collected. Users of these accounts can open and view cases, delete entries in the database and have the ability to export and anonymize data collected at the pilot level. A supervisory • It has partial data viewing rights, without editing, to monitor the progress of account data collection. 47 interviewer • The county account allows all county team members to view and edit open accounts (one for cases at the county level. To open a new case or to fill in other information each county). for a case already registered, each team member signs with a unique code (CodeS variable). This unique code is linked to the identification information of the project team members. 38 e-PLIN is designed to allow access only to authorized users and restrict access to data appropriate to each user's role. In addition, the Survey Solutions system offers 2FA (two-factor authentication) to provide additional account protection. An additional layer of security can be added to prevent password theft. Database structure and export The description of the e-PLIN database is provided in Annex 4. The database includes 839 individual questions structured in 104 sections and 38 tables (rosters), which contain all the data related to the questions in the toolkit (part of Output 3), tables, and identifying variables such as County, TAU Name, SUP SIRUTA, LOC along with the generated unique ID. In e-PLIN, the validation logic conditions mentioned in the toolkit are automatically applied. In addition to the information collected based on the methodology developed for the pilot study, e-PLIN allows the export of (1) metadata that provides additional information on the data collection process and records of all events and their timing; (2) documentation for the forms; and (3) other possible documents attached to the case (such as pictures). Data export from e-PLIN can be done in STATA, SPSS, or Excel database format. e-PLIN allows downloading data at any time, making it a good tool for monitoring the progress and performance of fieldwork. 2.5. Pilot implementation (first five months) The first implementation phase of the pilot study (five months) in the ten counties took place from August to December 2022. Activities were carried out on several dimensions: • Data collection - ongoing support (email/phone) on implementation, monitoring sessions • Increasing the capacity of the county teams involved in the pilot study - workshops, continuous training of doctors and psychologists • Communication and transparency - production of an information fiche with information on the progress of the project, regular information meetings with DGASPC directors 2.5.1. Dimension 1: Data collection Data collection was carried out by the county teams using the methodology developed within the project and the e-PLIN online tool, which allowed efficient collection and easy access to data in real-time. In addition, the WB team provided ongoing group and individualized assistance through 1-1 working sessions and technical support, as well as monitoring the progress of data collection and providing solutions to technical, methodological, or organizational problems that arose. Ongoing support (email/phone) For the smooth implementation of the pilot study, from August to December 2022, the WB team provided continuous support through email and telephone and responded in real-time to questions and issues arising during the implementation of the pilot. It also worked closely with the county-level teams. The WB team also provided support to: • Administration of information on the reference population from which study participants were selected, • The correct use of the data collection tools and the e-PLIN tool, and • Coordination of the administrative aspects of the implementation of the pilot study. An effective communication system was established, which allowed for the rapid resolution of issues that arose during the implementation of the pilot study. Monitoring sessions Weekly monitoring sessions were conducted on the progress of data collection. Ten such monitoring sessions were carried out during the first five months of implementation of the pilot study. 44 These sessions were led 44 12, 19, 26 September; 3, 17, 31 October; 7, 21, 28 November; 5 December. 39 by the WB team and involved the participation of all local teams. They were organized via videoconference on the ZOOM platform and aimed to discuss progress in recruiting participants, collecting data, and monitoring the overall pilot implementation. The format was concise, with an average duration of 30-45 minutes. For each monitoring session, the WB team prepared a presentation that included: the target, total number of cases assessed weekly overall and at the county level, weekly pace, total and average, and punctual information about news/plans. The presentation that opened the monitoring sessions (12 September 2022), an interim one (21 November 2022), and the last one (5 December 2022) are available, for example, in Annex 5. The monitoring sessions created a context of transparency regarding the progress of each county team and collaboration, facilitating the exchange of experience between the experts involved in the pilot study. 2.5.2. Dimension 2: Institutional capacity building Capacity building of the county teams participating in the pilot study was achieved through workshops where the tools and new disability and needs assessment methodology were discussed. Multiple training sessions were also organized for doctors and psychologists who carry out the medical-psychological assessment on the one hand and specialists involved in applying the new WHODAS+RO tool on the other. Working sessions on tools and methodology These online sessions aimed at discussing, adjusting, and, last but not least, applying the tools included in the methodology in a uniform way. Ten training sessions were carried out, including four general sessions on the methodological package tested in the pilot study, two sessions to discuss the F1 form, one session to discuss the F2 form, and three working sessions on the needs assessment module (M1-M4). In addition, multiple working sessions were held in smaller teams, in particular with teams from Sălaj, Dolj, and Bacău counties, for feedback on the methodology and use of e-PLIN in the pilot study. In the general training sessions, attended by all members of the county teams: • each instrument included in the new methodology was fully discussed • errors have been pointed out, corrections and additions have been made for a clearer understanding of the questions • changed the format of some questions (e.g., from open questions to coded questions) • new logical conditions have been included to allow faster completion of questionnaires and jumps when information is not applicable • errors/deletions were identified in the way the indicators in the methodology were translated into the e-PLIN tool or adjustments to the format in which they are presented • consensus has been reached on the procedures for applying the various instruments/questions These workshops and training sessions have allowed the tools to be adjusted for more straightforward application, created consensus on the information and how it is collected, and enabled county teams to go through, understand and apply the methodology and data collection tools correctly and uniformly. Training sessions on medical-psychological assessment During the first five months of piloting, particular attention has been paid to how the tools proposed in the new methodology can be completed using the information the person comes on file with. This activity is particularly concerned with the Medical-Psychological Assessment (form F1), which is based on the documents in the file and the interview with the beneficiary for the disability classification, according to the law. In the absence of standardized medical documentation on file that systematically collects information on the principal diagnosis, possible secondary diagnoses, the ongoing or fluctuating nature of health symptoms, the 40 nature and dose of treatment, and, as far as possible, prognostic elements of the course of the disease, 45 national practice in reading and interpreting medical records remains uneven. To achieve a pilot study consensus on completing the F1, eight online training sessions were held from October 14 to December 8, 2022, with doctors and psychologists from the county teams. During the one-hour sessions, the proposed cases, and the way the F1 was filled in, were analyzed, and, following discussions, methods of recording the same information uniformly were agreed upon. The process involved the following steps: 1. Selection of a medical file from those made available by the county teams. Throughout the eight training sessions, files were selected to cover a variety of diagnoses as well as practices in medical and psychological file construction. Examples of files reviewed: late-onset Alzheimer's dementia, Neoplasm, Parkinson's disease Stage IV, Mixed dementia, Chronic incomplete spastic paraparesis, Severe mental retardation, and Senile dementia. In selecting the file, the project team also considered aspects such as the completeness of the information, the presence/absence of a psychological assessment, the clarity of the data (both in terms of wording and presentation format), and the existence of contradictory medical information. In addition, files registered during the pilot study implementation that raised issues in completing to the county team were also analyzed. 2. Preparation by the project team of an F1 form in Google form format for each working session. Together with the scanned medical file, the link for completing the F1 was made available to the county teams for completion. 3. Completion of the medical file in F1 Google form by the county teams. The completed data could be accessed in real time, and the discussion during the working session was structured based on the results. The F1 form was completed in most cases as a single response per county, following discussion and joint decision of the county team members. However, in some cases, each county team member (doctor/psychologist) recorded individual responses, reflecting the sometimes- uncoordinated way of working. 4. Working session - discussion on F1 completion results, focusing on understanding differences in completion and agreeing on a consensus for future practice at the pilot study level. Google's results visualization platform allowed the results to be projected in graphical or tabular form, thus providing visual support for the discussion. The working sessions with doctors and psychologists from the county teams implementing the pilot study achieved several objectives: • Harmonization of county teams on: - Recording of the various principal and secondary diagnoses and disease codes according to the revised criteria; - The role of medical documents in the files (referral vs. medical letter) and their use in the pilot study; - The use of the diagnosis generating the most severe impairment to determine disability - Information used on the known date of pathology vs. date of diagnosis (e.g., known disease in childhood, diagnosed in adulthood) - The need for supporting documentation from medical specialists, not just diagnoses written in documents for disability classification • Transparency of practices and decision-making in disability assessment, be it locally developed practices in the use of different scales or tools (e.g., in the validity of the certificate if the applicant is 45 In the new methodology these are the Medical Green Form and the Minimum Psychological Report and have been described in Output 2. 41 a first-time assessor or in the use of the Barthel scale), the reasoning of decisions on whether or not to grant the associated disability, the use of file information versus direct observation and the expertise of the specialist on the assessment board. • Create a professional environment supported by WB and ANPDPD experts for debates on topics/procedures/decisions in disability assessment practice. Training sessions on the application of WHODAS The WHODAS form has been introduced in the e-PLIN toolkit to serve the functional assessment. WHODAS+RO is a standardized instrument containing 45 questions corresponding to the relevant ICF categories selected in Output 2 and capturing the functioning level in six life domains. 46 WHODAS training sessions opened on November 25, 2022, with a session conducted by an international WHODAS expert. The two-hour session, conducted online using the ZOOM platform, 47 included general information about the WHODAS form as a standardized form of data collection for measuring the level of functioning as part of the disability assessment and specifics on the frames of reference, 48 response options and scores. The visual aids used in the WHODAS training session are available in Annex 6. Training sessions on the use of WHODAS will be continued in the second part of the implementation of the pilot study. Feedback Throughout the piloting process, feedback from the county teams was systematically collected on all elements tested. 2.5.3. Dimension 3: Communication and consensus building All the activities carried out during the implementation of the pilot study (first five months) aimed at building an atmosphere of collaboration, trust, and transparency. Communication on the new methodology and implementation of the pilot study Communication activities have been started since the preparatory phase of the pilot study. The project team took every opportunity to disseminate information on the proposed modernization of the disability assessment system and the 10-month implementation of the pilot study. An example of this is the conference of the National Association of General Directorates of Social Assistance and Child Protection held on 30 June 2022 in Brasov. During this conference, which was attended by all the DGASPCs in the country, the WB team gave a presentation detailing the steps taken in developing the new methodology and the activities carried out in preparation for the pilot study, and the activities planned for the future. Information fiche The pilot study information fiche was developed to share information on the progress of data collection with the project team and other stakeholders (counties not included in the pilot, NGOs, and people with disabilities). The fiche summarizes general information about the pilot, the implementation period, the target, and the total number of cases registered. In the first five months of implementation, 3 Information fiches were produced and disseminated to: • Project team - the extended team of WB experts, ANDPCA, and members of the county teams implementing the pilot study • Directors of DGASPC 46 The six life areas correspond for nine chapters of the CIF (Output 2, Table 3). 47 English-Romanian and Romanian-English interpretation was provided for events with international participation. 48 What the person in question should bear in mind when answering the question (and the assessor should remind them). 42 • The general public, being available on the official website of the ANPDPD. To facilitate the dissemination of information on the progress of data collection in the pilot study, the WB team set up information and dissemination campaigns using specific tools such as MailChimp. The model Information fiche is available in Annex 7. Meetings with DGASPC directors The work carried out by the county teams in the pilot study is voluntary, unpaid and does not exempt team members from the daily activities they must carry out according to their job description. To make these activities visible to management, the project team has established a series of regular meetings (once every six weeks) with the DGASPC directors, where they are informed about the progress made by their teams and are asked to support them in their work in the pilot study. The first such meeting was held on November 9, 2022. 2.6. Preliminary results (first five months of piloting) This section provides the first raw results based on data collected during the first five months of piloting, from August 1 to December 20, 2022. Important to note, the data is unweighted and provisional as the data cleaning and validation process is not complete. The preliminary results are organized into six sections. We begin with an overview of the data collection process and the multidimensional profile of the sample. A selection of results for the disability and needs assessment, as well as on the pilot's timeframe, is included next. The last section covers the validation of the new work package in a stakeholder event. The syntax used to produce indicators and tables with sensitivity analysis and preliminary results is provided in Annex 8. 2.6.1. Overview of the data collection process Figure 1 shows the main indicators used to describe the progress of the data collection process in the pilot. In total, 2,180 assessed cases were completed between 1 August and 20 December 2022. Figure 1: Evolution of the data collection process during the first five months of the pilot study Source: World Bank, MODDiz Pilot, e-PLIN data. Note: Data for August 1 – December 20, 2022. 43 Developments in the first five months of the pilot provide important information for the eventual adoption of the new methodological package at the national level. First, there are significant differences in performance between counties (Figure 1). For fairness, it is essential to remind that the county teams are piloting the new package as additional work to their current service tasks, with an already significant workload. Moreover, this extra work is unpaid and involves not only additional effort but also a substantial change in thinking and approach to cases compared to the current practice used for disability classification under current legislation. Within the pilot, the county teams apply different criteria, tools, and procedures that are more complex than the daily routine. The main lessons learned are the following: 1. Significantly poorer performance was achieved by county teams with current practices conflicting with those in the piloted work package. Primarily, counties that make disability classification assessments based on records alone, in the absence of direct interaction with the person, for most cases. 49 These county teams have serious difficulties with piloting, as they cannot recruit participants and cannot apply the work tools that involve an interview with the person being assessed. 2. County teams with insufficient or incomplete human resources in terms of specialization also achieve weaker performance. However, in these situations, if there is a willingness to participate, solutions can be found with satisfactory results. 3. The number of specialists in SECPAH is not in itself a good indicator of performance. For example, the Olt team, with only five specialists and the highest workload in the country, performs better in the pilot than other counties with teams with more specialists and a workload less than half that of Olt. 50 The difference is due to the coordination of the SECPAH team, the support received from the DGASPC management, the cooperation between SECPAH and CEPAH at the county level, and the willingness to participate and contribute to the modernization of the system (under the conditions specified above). 4. The performance of the Olt team shows that the new methodological package is feasible and can be applied in all counties in the country if the SECPAH teams are provided with adequate training and assistance based on the model of the pilot study. 5. The excellent performance of the teams in Dolj, Sălaj, and Constanta seems to indicate that ideally, if the new package is adopted, it is not only feasible but can be successfully implemented if SECPAH is staffed by 9+ specialists, necessarily with a specialist doctor (a physical medicine and rehabilitation doctor would be excellent), along with various other specialties to ensure a rigorous assessment on the various needs assessment modules. 6. Some specific provisions for the teams in Bucharest should be added to the draft unified procedure for complex disability assessment because, unlike the counties, these teams are larger precisely because they have to cover both DGASPC and SPAS responsibilities. Figure 1 shows also some seasonality of activities at the SECPAH level. August was the first pilot month. It was a difficult month not only because it was the adjustment month but also because it was a holiday month when teams were not operating at full capacity. In September, the caseload increased in line with the end of the holidays and a normal learning curve and adjustment to the new work package. October and November reflect the performance possible under "normal" conditions, with the entire team present and already familiar with the work package. December is an atypical month; there are many days off and holidays, and current activity is above average, being the end of the year. In addition, as part of the pilot, developing a new e-PLIN version, incorporating feedback collected throughout the period, has been completed. Thus, December was focused on finalizing all cases registered in the existing version of e-PLIN and, in parallel, testing the new version of e- PLIN. During the Christmas vacation, the pilot went on a break, and on December 28, 2022, the new e-PLIN version was put into production. Therefore, the total number of new cases was low in December. Instead, all already registered and unfinished cases were solved, and the validation and adjustment of the work package were performed. 49 Data on the way of working by county is provided in Table A2, Annex 1. 50 See data for 2019 in Table A2, Annex 1. A description of the county teams can be found in section 2.4.1. 44 2.6.2. Actual working time in the pilot The projected working times for the pilot were discussed in section 2.3.4. Figure 2 shows the actual times recorded in the pilot implementation process. By design, the new methodological package increases the working time per complete evaluation by introducing several evaluation steps, each with a specific tool and rules. Indeed, the average time for the assessment of a case by SECPAH is currently 30-35 minutes 51 and 76 minutes in the pilot (Figure 2), with the observation that this also includes 20 minutes, on average, spent on completing the social inquiry on the Annex_Asoc model. This task in current practice is not the responsibility of SECPAH but of SPAS. 52 From the point of view of SECPAH specialists, about 17% of the evaluated cases take the same amount of time as the current average (up to 35 minutes). Another 30% of cases last up to one hour, 41% last between 60 and 120 minutes, and the remaining 12% last more than two hours. Figure 2: Time per complete assessment (from F00 to PLIN) spent by SECPAH specialists and assessed persons, respectively, according to data obtained in the first five months of piloting (percentages) Source: World Bank, MODDiz Pilot, e-PLIN data. Note: Data for August 5 – December 31, 2022, N=2,110 cases assessed, total sample. The time calculated for SECPAH specialists is higher because it includes the Annex_Asoc (completed based on file data) and the medical-psychological assessment (F1), which in the pilot do not involve direct interaction with the assessed person. The sum of the bars is 100% of the reference population (SECPAH specialists, i.e., the persons assessed). From the perspective of the pilot participants, the time per complete assessment is reduced because some steps in the procedure do not require direct interaction between the assessor and the person being assessed. We refer to the completion of the Annex_Asoc and the F1 form for the medical-psychological assessment (based on the interview carried out under the legal framework). Thus, in the pilot, the average time spent on the evaluation by people with disabilities was less than one hour (56 min). In fact, 87% of the people assessed spent a maximum of 80 minutes in the assessment process, according to the new package. The threshold of 2 hours was exceeded for 6.4% of people assessed. 51 According to Output 1, at present, nationally, direct interaction between an applicant and the SECPAH team takes, on average, 15-20 minutes, regardless of where the assessment is carried out, at SECPAH headquarters or at the applicant's home. To this is added 10-15 minutes for completing documents and managing the file. 52 Average time that does not take into account the average round trip time for home assessment cases. Output 1 shows that, nationally, for home assessments, the average round trip time is approximately 107 minutes, with considerable variation from a minimum of 7 minutes to a maximum of 300 minutes. On average, home visits in urban areas, especially in large cities, take longer than in rural areas. 45 Table 3: Comparison between projected and actual working times observed in the implementation of the pilot in the first five months by evaluation tools (minutes) F00 F0 F1 F2_ F2_EIF Annex_Asoc M1 M2 M3 M4 PLIN WHODAS+RO Projected time 15 15 30 15 60 20 40 15 20 20 The actual time taken 5 8 17 18 (for F2) 23 17 22 17 18 18 to implement Source: World Bank, MODDiz Pilot, e-PLIN data. Note: Data for August 5 - December 31, 2022, N=2,110 cases evaluated, total sample. The actual working times observed in implementation are very close to the times expected by design (and from pre-testing) for most of the new working tools piloted, namely the recruitment and registration forms (F00 and F0), the medical-psychological assessment (F1) and the assessment modules M1, M3, M4, and PLIN (Table 3). For the F2, Annex_Asoc, and M2 instruments, the differences between expected and actual times are large but do not a cause for concern. o The F2 form includes WHODAS+RO and EIF. International practice shows that WHODAS 2.0 (adapted for Romania in WHODAS+RO) is applicable within 20-30 minutes. Regarding the EIF, the 15 minutes foreseen in the unified procedure outline are intended to inform the person afterward about the existing services. In the pilot, the information provided is much more limited, focusing on needs and not on access to services, with special instruction not to create a waiting horizon that may lead to misunderstanding and disappointment on the part of the person assessed (see section 2.3.3, STEP 4). For this reason, in the pilot, the EIF is reduced to less than 5 minutes for most cases. In addition, for about 28% of all people assessed, the EIF was not completed at all (i.e., zero time) because the person did not want to or the assessor did not consider it appropriate. o Annex_Asoc is completed for only 38% of the total persons assessed, generally at the office only using existing data on file. In contrast, the projected time refers to completion by the SPAS, following the rules on social worker practice developed and approved by the CNASR, which provide for home visits included. o The M2 module on personal assistance needs is applicable in a much shorter time than designed because the e-PLIN tool allowed some of the items to be automated and others to be applied only in particular situations. In addition, people with severe disabilities (eligible for M2 application) are over-represented in the sample, while those with severe disabilities are under-represented (see also Figure 4). 2.6.3. Pilot sample To describe the sample profile, we use the key variables from the F00 and F0 forms (Annex 2), which show the extent to which the diversity rule (see section 2.3.2) was respected in recruiting the pilot participants. Figure 3 shows that the pilot sample has similar characteristics to the general population of disabled people reported in the Statistical Bulletin. 53 Women (around 53%) and people aged 50+ (over 43% of people aged 65+) predominate. In line with the general pattern, among people aged 65 and over, the share of women increases markedly from the 65-69 age category to the 85+ age category (Figure A.1, Annex 9). A total of 39 pilot participants were under guardianship or curatorship. Most of the pilot participants are in family care and/or living independently, with only around 2% being in a residential service (HG no. 867/2015). 53 ANPDPD (2022), dates 30 June. 46 Figure 3: Main socio-demographic characteristics of the population assessed in the pilot in the first five months (percentages) Source: World Bank, MODDiz Pilot, e-PLIN data. Note: Data for August 1 - December 31, 2022, N=2,180 cases evaluated, total sample. The sum of bars is 100% on each variable. See also Table A.5 in Annex 9. Of the total sample, 56% were from urban areas and 44% from rural regions, with no significant differences by gender or age group. In contrast, many statistically significant differences exist between county sub- samples, as shown in Table A.5 in Annex 9. People who applied for disability assessment for the first time (lifetime) are statistically over-represented in the pilot sample (Figure 3) because they were easier to recruit. The diagnostic study showed that, nationally, of the total number of cases resolved in one year, around one-third (in 2019) and 37% (in 2020) were new cases, i.e., people undergoing their first (lifetime) assessment, with 54 the remainder being reassessments to renew an existing certificate. People requesting reassessment due to a change in their medical or social situation represent around 5% both in the general disabled population and in the pilot sample. Around 58% of the pilot sample had a disability certificate at the time of enrolment in the pilot. The main characteristics of the existing certificates in the pilot are available in Figure 4. Figure 4: Main characteristics of existing disability certificates that were additionally assessed in the pilot during the first five months (%) Source: World Bank, MODDiz Pilot, e-PLIN data. Note: Data for August 1 – December 31, 2022, N=1,206 persons with a disability certificate assessed out of the total sample. See also Table A.5 without Annex 9. Concerning the type of disability, people with physical disabilities have a similar share to the general population with disabilities. 55 Still, those with somatic disabilities are much over-represented (41% compared to 19%), to the detriment of all other types, especially mental (8.8% compared to 16%), associated (5.6% compared to 13%), and visual (4% compared to 11%) disabilities. However, this deviation from the existing 54 The percentage of people at first assessment varies between counties, from a minimum of 27% to a maximum of 42% in both 2019 and 2020, Output 1. 55 The distribution of the general population with disabilities by type is as follows: physical (27%), somatic (19%), mental (16%), associated (13%), visual (11%), psychological (10%), hearing (3%) and HIV/AIDS (1%), ANPDPD (2021). 47 pattern may also result from the new medico-psychological criteria, which include more medical conditions and fewer restrictions than the criteria in the current legislation. The pilot rules allow county teams to recruit even people who apply for disability classification and do not meet the conditions in the current regulations. The sample distribution by degree of disability is also skewed compared to the general population with disabilities. 56 People with marked and medium disabilities are statistically over-represented. In contrast, people with severe disabilities (with or without a personal assistant) are under-represented (22.6% compared to 40.9%), most likely because people with severe disabilities have more communication and comprehension difficulties. This also affects the actual working time observed in the implementation, which is shorter than expected, as already shown in section 2.6.2. However, a correction has to be made in this respect in the next five months of the pilot. Finally, people with permanent disability certificates represent less than 9% of the pilot sample. Although out of all the files assessed over a year, about 34% are permanently valid, 57 these people return to SECPAH only in case of a change in their medical or social situation. Therefore, for a better representation of people with permanent certificates, data should be collected not only on the existing certificate (with which they enter the assessment) but on the newly obtained/renewed one as a result of the assessment carried out in parallel with the pilot. This change has already been made, and data on the newly obtained/renewed certificate will be systematically collected during the next five months of the pilot. 58 2.6.4. Provisional summary results for the disability assessment The disability assessment has two components, which combined will indicate the degree of disability of the person as a whole, namely the medical-psychological assessment and the functioning assessment. Correspondingly, the summary results in this section take into account the medical-psychological score (recorded in the F1 form) and the associated WHODAS+RO scores (calculated from the 45 items in the F2 form). Medical-psychological score The medical-psychological score indicates the existence of impairment of the body's functions and structures and can take values from 1 - mild impairment to 4 - complete impairment. The score is assigned by the SECPAH team, consisting of a doctor and a psychologist, based on the rules of the revised medical and psychological criteria (part of Output 2). For the total sample, the persons assessed are distributed according to the medical-psychological score as follows: 5% - mild impairment, 31% - moderate, 35% - severe, and 29% - complete impairment. Figure 5 shows that the variable that produces a significant difference is the age of the person assessed. Thus, people aged 65 and over are more than twice as likely as young people and people under 65 to have a complete impairment score (43% versus 16-20%). At the same time, older people are almost twice as likely as young people to have a moderate impairment score (23% versus 36-40%). This result is not surprising, as it has been scientifically demonstrated that aging is generally accompanied by more extended periods of frailty, illness, and disability. 56 Distribution by degree of disability: 40.9% severe degree, 46.7% marked degree and 12.4% medium or minor degree, ANPDPD (2021). 57 Data for 2019 from Output 1. 58 The corresponding questions are already included in the new e-PLIN version which goes into production on December 28, 2022. 48 Figure 5: Medical-psychological score by population category and distribution of WHODAS+RO total score by medical-psychological score Distribution of population categories by medical score (percentages) Histograms of WHODAS+RO total score by medical score Source: World Bank, MODDiz Pilot, e-PLIN data. Note: Provisional data for August 1 - December 31, 2022, N=2,180 persons assessed, out of the total sample, 27 non-responses. Medical scores indicating impairment of body functions and structures are assigned by the SECPAH team based on medical- psychological criteria reviewed in the project. Histograms of the WHODAS+RO total score constructed as a summative index of all 45 items. There is a slightly higher percentage (33% versus 29%) of people with complete impairment among rural (compared to urban) residents than the sample (33% versus 29%). This is not an age-derived effect, as rural applicants are not over 65 to a greater extent than urban applicants in the pilot sample. Instead, it is related to the lower accessibility of rural people to disability assessment (part of Output 1). As a result, potential beneficiaries in rural areas are discouraged from applying, with applications being submitted by people with complete impairment to a greater extent than in urban areas. In contrast, people with milder impairments do not engage in the process or postpone it because they are not familiar with and informed or are not able, supported, and encouraged; the process of preparing and registering the file is difficult, not adapted, or too costly. Marked differences in the distribution of medical-psychological scores are recorded between counties (Figure 6). These discrepancies may be an effect of significant profile differences between county subsamples (see Table A.5, Appendix 9). For example, consider Dolj county, with the highest proportion of medical- psychological scores indicating complete impairment of body functions and structures. This weight is associated with a county sub-sample in which are statistically over-represented (compared to the other counties): people aged 65 and over, people in rural areas, with a certificate with a severe degree (with or without a personal assistant), with physical or mental disability. Figure 6: Medical-psychological score by county (percentages of county sub-sample) Source: World Bank, MODDiz Pilot, e-PLIN data. 49 Note: Provisional data for August 5 - December 31, 2022, N=2,110 persons assessed, out of the total sample, 16 non-responses. Medical scores indicating impairment of body functions and structures are assigned by the SECPAH team based on medical- psychological criteria reviewed in the project. At the same time, however, inter-county discrepancies may result from different practices of medical- psychological scoring by county teams. Precisely to reduce the rater effect, the WB team conducted a series of trainings and joint working sessions with all teams involved in the piloting on the revised medical- psychological criteria and how to apply them, as presented in section 2.5.2. An analysis of the evolution of medical scores by county over the first five months of the piloting shows marked changes in most counties, indicating that joint working and sharing experience effectively changed the teams' existing practices. 59 Even so, only further analysis measuring the contribution of all factors (both the subsample profile and the way of scoring) will be able to rigorously measure the rater effect (whether or not it exists and to what extent it affects the outcome). Figure 5 illustrates the relationship between the medical-psychological score and the WHODAS+RO total score. The two scores are strongly correlated. 60 For people with mild to moderate impairment, the WHODAS+RO total score tends to have predominantly low values (the bell is shifted to the left), i.e., most activities mentioned in the questionnaire are reported by most respondents to be not at all/not very difficult to perform. For people with severe impairment, the WHOADS+RO total score curve shifts to the right, i.e., the proportion of people reporting items as extremely/difficult to do increases. Finally, for complete impairment, the WHOADS+RO total score bell is flattened and shifts predominantly towards higher values, i.e., most people report more items as extremely/difficult to do. 59 Further analysis is needed to determine whether or not these changes have led to a narrowing of practice differences between teams. 60 Pearson coefficient 0.4063 (p<0.001; N=918). 50 Figure 7: Dominant opinion scores for the 45 items and histograms by WHODAS+RO ICF domains Extremely difficult/difficult activities to carry out Activities that are not/not at all difficult to carry out Histograms for ICF domains Source: World Bank, MODDiz Pilot, e-PLIN data. Note: Provisional data for August 1 - December 31, 2022, N=2,180 persons assessed, total sample. Dominant opinion (Hofstede-type) scores on the 45 items range from a minimum of -58 to a maximum of 33. The more people report the item as extremely difficult/difficult to do, the higher the score value. The more people report the item as not at all/not very difficult to do, the lower the score. For histograms, specific scores by WHODAS+RO ICF domains constructed as a summative index of the corresponding items. 51 WHODAS+RO score Figure 7 gathers information on all 45 items in WHODAS+RO, plus specific scores for the six Activities and Participation domains (from the ICF). Data collected during the first five months of the pilot show that for most of the sample, only two domains contain 10 of the 12 extremely/difficult to do activities (yellow bars). So, of all the domains, the most problematic for people with disabilities in Romania are performing Household activities (domain 5.1) and Social participation (domain 6). The most problematic areas of participation and activities for the disabled population in Romania Domain 5.1. Household chores Domain 6. Social participation Not just doing them, but doing Time allocated to self-care them well and finishing them Dealing with the emotional effects of ill health within a certain allotted time The extra cost of disability Difficulties faced by the family due to a member's disability Access to activities for relaxation and pleasure that the person can do alone Participating in social activities (e.g., parties, religious or other activities) like others In addition to the correlation between the functioning score and the medical-psychological score highlighted above, variations in the mean total score for WHODAS+RO by subpopulation indicate the existence of an effect of age of the person assessed, an assessor effect and a statistical association with assessments based on legislation translated into the degree and validity of the existing disability certificate (Figure 8). Recall that the total score for WHODAS+RO is constructed as a summative index of all 45 items included in the questionnaire. Of the whole sample, older people with a severe disability certificate (especially severe with a personal assistant) and permanent validity are most likely to report difficulties in completing several items and consequently have a significantly higher mean score than the sample average. In other words, if this result is also confirmed at the level of the whole pilot, any possible legislation of the new package would not require a re-evaluation of the existing certificates with permanent validity because it would lead to similar conclusions as at present (with a high medical-psychological score and a high WHODAS+RO score, the degree of disability can be presumed to be severe and the validity permanent). More significant changes are more likely to occur at lower levels of disability. Figure 8 also shows a significantly higher mean total WHODAS+RO score for rural than urban people. The rural-urban discrepancy is not explained by the prevalence of people over 65, which would be higher in rural than in urban areas, as we have also noted for the medical score. The higher average WHODAS+RO score for rural reflects the influence of environmental factors - an unfriendly environment marked by multiple barriers makes many human activities more difficult. WHODAS+RO measures disability as a result of the interaction between a person's health status and their physical, built, interpersonal, attitudinal, social, cultural, economic, and political environment in a person's real life. In short, disability is the experience of living a person's life with a health problem in their real world. A "real world" full of barriers limits functioning and creates disability and is therefore associated with a higher WHODAS+RO total score. 52 Figure 8: WHODAS+RO total score by population categories (mean scores) Source: World Bank, MODDiz Pilot, e-PLIN data. Note: Provisional data for August 1 – December 31, 2022, N=2,180 persons assessed, out of the total sample, 77 non-respondents. WHODAS+RO total score constructed as a summative index of all 45 items. See also data in Annex 9. Other specialists include physiotherapist, vocational counselor, sociologist, lawyer, economist, and public administration specialist. Yellow bars indicate values significantly higher than the mean (p<0.001). The WHODAS+RO total score, unlike the medical-psychological score, differs statistically significantly not only between counties but also according to the assessor's specialization (because any previously trained SECPAH specialist can apply WHODAS+RO). Thus, depending on the specialization of the assessor, the score ranges from a minimum in the case in the "other specialists" category to a maximum for cases where WHODAS+RO is administered by a physician (Figure 8). That is, factors that may influence the score include the specialization of the assessor, in addition to the sub-sample profile and the specific county practice (including how the pilot team is organized), as shown in Table 4. Table 4: WHODAS+RO total score by county and rater specialization (mean scores) Specialization of the evaluator Average Other specialists Sig. Social Psychologist/ County by Medic (physiotherapist, lawyer, N worker Psychopedagogue county etc.) ARAD 128 129 129 * - p = 0,9830 67 BACAU 114 123 119 107 - p = 0,2554 175 CONSTANTA 107 134 87 118 108 p < 0,001 288 DOLJ 94 - - - 90 - 353 IALOMITA 116 126 * 102 126 p < 0,01 183 OLT 82 84 * * 79 p = 0,0626 222 SALAJ 93 92 * 97 84 p < 0,05 372 SIBIU 97 - - 102 * - 182 SECTOR 3 123 120 - 135 - p = 0,1988 133 GIURGIU 132 129 133 * - p = 0,9141 148 Total sample 104,7 109,5 114,5 106,3 90,5 p < 0,001 2.123 Source: World Bank, MODDiz Pilot, e-PLIN data. Note: Provisional data for August 1 – December 31, 2022, N=2,180 persons assessed, out of the total sample, 57 non-responses. WHODAS+RO total score constructed as a summative index of all 45 items. Other specialists include physiotherapist, vocational counselor, sociologist, lawyer, economist, and public administration specialist. * Less than 5 cases. Marked cells indicate values significantly different from the mean according to a one-way Anova analysis of variance (p<0.001). 53 Therefore, also about WHODAS+RO, further analysis is needed to measure the evaluator effect rigorously (whether it exists or not and to what extent it affects the outcome), taking into account the contribution of all the factors mentioned. In addition, preliminary data indicate the need for additional training sessions on the application of WHODAS+RO in the next five months of the pilot; the Guide and the sessions already conducted do not seem sufficient to ensure uniformity in how SECPAH specialists understand and use the new tool. 2.6.5. Provisional summary results for the needs assessment The needs assessment includes four modules (M1-M4) plus PLIN, with specific tools, rules, and objectives. This section presents an overview and then focuses on the M2 personal assistance module, which attracts the most interest from people with disabilities. Overview of the needs assessment package Completing the needs assessment modules is in line with how the pilot was designed, 61 both in terms of completion rates and target groups (Table 5). The needs assessment covered women and men equally. In contrast, while M1 was mainly applied to young people, modules M2-M4, especially the personal assistance module, were more frequently administered to people over 65. Table 5: Completion rate of needs assessment tools in the first five months of piloting (%) Sex Age Total Evaluation tool Men Women <36 36-64 65+ M1: FM1. Has module 1 been completed? (Yes, complete & Yes, partial) 13 11 36 8 9 12 M2: FM2. Module 2 completed? (Yes, complete & Yes, partial) 40 38 25 31 51 39 M3: FM3. Has module 3 been completed? (Yes, complete & Yes, partial) 10 8 5 8 12 9 M4: FM4. Module 1 completed? (Yes, complete & Yes, partial) 9 9 5 6 13 9 PLIN: TIMEPLIN_b > 0 68 64 74 62 67 66 Total sample- % 100 100 100 100 100 100 -N 1.017 1.156 259 964 939 2.180 Source: World Bank, MODDiz Pilot, e-PLIN data. Note: Provisional data for August 1 - December 31, 2022. M2 personal assistance module The M2 module measures a person's personal care needs based on a score calculated using three parameters - intensity, frequency, and the number of hours of care required for three types of needs - personal, domestic, social, plus special needs (medical and behavioral). Preliminary data do not allow this score to be determined, as the information on the intensity of needs is automatically imported from the social survey report completed on the newly developed Annex_Asoc model developed in the project, which is available in too few cases. Therefore, for this report, we use a coarse proxy score that provides an indicative picture constructed as a summative index of the types of needs for which the person needs help/assistance (regardless of the intensity, frequency, or number of required assistance). Theoretically, this proxy score can take values from zero to 16 (6 types of personal needs, five domestic, and five social). The three components of the proxy score are strongly interrelated, as shown in Table A.12, Annex 9. Figure 9 shows the average proxy personal assistance scores by population category. Significantly higher values are recorded for elderly (65 years and over) and severely disabled certificate recipients with a personal assistant. As in the case of disability assessment scores (section 2.6.4), there is an effect related both to the specialization of the assessor (Figure 9) and to the practice and organization at the county team level (Table 61 See data collection methodology in section 2.3.1. 54 A.13, Appendix 9). In other words, preliminary data indicate the need for additional training sessions on the application of the M2 module in the next five months of the pilot. Figure 9: Personal care proxy score by population categories (mean scores) Source: World Bank, MODDiz Pilot, e-PLIN data. Note: Provisional data for August 1 – December 31, 2022, N=2,180 persons assessed, total sample. Personal assistance proxy score calculated as a summative index of all types of needs (personal, household, and social) in module M2, taking values from zero to 14. The existing disability certificate with which the person came for renewal. See also data in Annex 9. Other specialists include physiotherapist, vocational counselor, sociologist, lawyer, economist, and public administration specialist. Yellow bars indicate values significantly higher than the mean (p<0.001). The M2 module allows county teams to make their own assessment, following the application of the items, based on their professional experience and without a summary score. To achieve the aim of the law to ensure that people with disabilities have a fulfilled life on equal terms and to ensure decent living conditions according to law no. 448/2006, at the end of M2, the county team decides whether the applicant needs personal assistance (with the answer options Yes, Yes, partially, or No) and, if Yes, estimates the number of hours/days of personal assistance needed. Figure 10 shows the relationship between the SECPAH decision and personal assistance scores (proxy and specific). Figure 10: SECPAH personal assistance decision by proxy score and specific scores by type of need (mean scores) Source: World Bank, MODDiz Pilot, e-PLIN data. Note: Provisional data for August 5 - December 31, 2022, N=832 persons for whom the M2 assessment module was applied. The personal care proxy score calculated as a summative index of all types of needs (personal, household, and social) in the M2 module, taking values from zero to 14. Differences in the graph are significant according to a one-way Anova analysis of variance (p<0.001). For about 54% of the people for whom the M2 tool was applied, the SECPAH team assessed the need for personal assistance with Yes. In these situations, the person needs help/support for more than ten types of needs, on average, both personal and household/social needs (Figure 10). In addition, the estimated average 55 time per day of help/support is 12 hours; in this category, a significant proportion of cases need round-the- clock care (24 hours/day), as shown in Figure 11. In about 36% of cases, the SECPAH decision on needing personal assistance was partial yes. 62 Typically, these cases cumulate six types of needs on average, among which domestic needs predominate (Figure 10). In other words, in such cases, personal assistance could be replaced by home care services for an estimated 4 hours on average per day (Figure 11). Figure 11: SECPAH decision on personal assistance and estimated number of hours/day needed (percentages of persons assessed) Source: World Bank, MODDiz Pilot, e-PLIN data. Note: Provisional data for August 5 - December 31, 2022, N=778 persons for whom the M2 assessment module was applied and the SECPAH decision was positive (Yes, partial, or Yes). The SECPAH decision on personal assistance is statistically significantly associated with the existence of special medical needs 63 but not with the presence of special behavioral needs. 64 Of those with special medical needs, 73% receive a favorable decision (Yes) compared to 42% without such needs. A positive decision was given to all those who already have a personal assistant at the time of the assessment and many others who are not currently receiving these services. However, as with the various scores analyzed above, the SECPAH decision on personal assistance also differs considerably between counties (Figure A.2, Appendix 9), and these differences may stem from the specific profile of the sub-sample, along with an effect of assessor specialization as well as one of county practice. 2.6.6. Validation of the new work package for complex disability assessment The work package was validated at a mid-term pilot workshop on January 16, 2023. The workshop was organized online, with the participation of the ANPDPD project coordination team and the county teams involved in the pilot (over 45 participants). For the second half of the pilot (the next five months), the tools were adjusted by incorporating all feedback received from all stakeholders, with a new version of the online e-PLIN data collection tool going into production on December 28, 2022. 62 The remaining 10% of people assessed with the M2 module for personal assistance received the SECPAH decision of No. 63 For example, inhalation or oxygen therapy, postural drainage, suctioning, tube feeding (e.g., nasogastric), turning or positioning, dressing open wounds, etc. 64 For example, self-injury, injury to others, destruction of property (e.g., setting a fire, breaking furniture), theft, attempted suicide, etc. 56 3. Next steps for the following five months of piloting For the second half of the piloting, the planned activities are organized along four dimensions relating to data collection, data analysis, team capacity building, communication and consensus building for reform. In line with the project's Terms of Reference, the main activities on each dimension are listed below. Dimension 1: Data collection The main data collection activities concern the collection of additional data and correcting and validating existing data. 3.1.1. Collection of additional data Pretesting of "green forms" related to medical-psychological evaluation In addition to continued data collection by the county teams, the WB team will organize extensive pretesting of the two new "green forms" - the Standardized "Green" Form for Doctors and the Minimum Requirements for the Psychological Assessment Report. These are proposed as part of the new methodological package to standardize the documents to be included in the disability assessment application file. 65 Future pretesting of the "green forms" will include (1) identification of medical and psychological data gaps in current disability classification files and (2) adjustment of the "green forms" after actual application by a batch of medical specialists and clinical psychologists (from outside SECPAH). This work will be carried out in collaboration with the National College of Psychologists from February to April 2023, and the results will be reported in Output 7. Self-administered WHODAS 2.0 testing The WB team, in collaboration with disability NGOs, will test WHODAS 2.0 with 12 self-administered items on a sample of 200-250 people for statistical analysis in a comparative manner with WHODAS+RO (45-item version) applied by the county teams. Pretesting and adjustment of the tool Annex_Asoc After selecting and training 50 social workers at the SPAS level (postponed for the time being), the new tool Annex_Asoc - annex for adults with disabilities to the social inquiry report will be pretested and adjusted. 66 The work will be carried out by the WB team in collaboration with the National College of Social Workers in Romania (CNASR), which, during the consultation workshops of the project, informed that it will organize 65 The introduction of standardized forms is a way to limit the possibilities of obtaining/providing fraud-prone medical and psychological documents. At the same time, for the completion of the new instruments, medical specialists and clinical psychologists will have to use the list of diseases (ICD 10 codes), jointly approved by the MMSS and the MS, linked to the revised medical criteria (Output 2). By doing so, medical specialists and psychologists will become increasingly familiar with the disability criteria. In addition, the introduction of "green forms" could help to increase access to disability assessment and make it possible to estimate data that is not currently available, such as the number of people diagnosed by a medical specialist as suffering from a medical condition related to the disability criteria. Finally, the adoption of these new tools by the ANPDPD, the Ministry of Health and the National Health Insurance House would add value by providing valuable information for medical and psychological assessment, which is currently only available on a random basis. More details are available in Output 3. 66 The information requested in the Annex_Asoc comes from existing administrative data, direct interaction with the applicant and his/her family, including a home visit, as well as from other local sources such as other specialists in the community (doctor, AMC, mediator, teachers, police, priest, etc.). It is very important that all items in the Annex_Asoc are completed with a sense of responsibility. If some items are missing, the assessment of the person will not be possible because some scores cannot be determined. It is essential that social workers/ SPAS representatives are aware that the toolkit contains multiple check keys that allow for the identification of erroneous information. In conducting the social survey, the social worker will follow the rules of social worker practice developed and approved by the CNASR. 57 training courses for specific skills in social evaluation of adults with disabilities and, in parallel, will develop a specific intervention guide for the social worker in the field of people with disabilities which will include, among others, instructions for the use and application of the Annex_Asoc together with specific references for the social worker's practice. 3.1.2. Data correction and validation The data collected in the pilot study will undergo a continuous correction and validation process, covering the whole dataset recorded in e-PLIN during the pilot study. This process means developing, on the one hand, a syntax 67 - a string of logical and validation conditions - that facilitates the identification of errors and, on the other hand, the actual correction of cases by the county teams. Data correction syntax In syntax construction, the process of identifying errors in datasets considers a classification of error sources, which can be: • Discrepancies between the recorded answer and the one claimed by the question type or the supporting instructions; • Merging the primary data set with the related sets; • Switching from one version of the application to the next. Next, it is necessary to check a set of criteria that, ideally, any variable included in the database should meet. The main categories of criteria are related to the existence of complete record sets, compliance with the type of variables, and the logic of the questionnaire. • By complete record sets, we mean no non-response for categories of persons to whom a question is applied. In other words, when a question applies to people who, for example, have a dwelling, all respondents with a dwelling should have a recorded response. Otherwise, an error is flagged. • Respecting the type of a variable means that the answer is numeric for questions defined as numeric (such as Specialist Code). For questions suggesting a text answer, the answer is a string. • The elements in the logical structure of the questionnaire that can lead to errors are filters. Most of the time, the application directs the evaluators to the sections that are addressed to the evaluators according to their characteristics. For situations where such a filter could not be automated or did not exist in early versions of the application, an error is reported. For example, the section Asoc3.1. "Participation of the person with disabilities in education and training" is addressed to persons under 65 years of age who do not have a first- or second-degree disability pension. In these cases, an error was reported for respondents at least 65 years old or receiving a disability pension of type I or II. Another type of error identified comes from merging the primary dataset called e-PLIN with datasets representing answers to questions presented in tabular form. Although there are a few cases, it happens that some variables are found in both datasets but do not have the same value. A particular type of error reported is one that occurs due to inconsistencies between different versions of the databases. Following feedback from the early stages of data collection, changes were implemented to facilitate recording data in a way that facilitates later analysis (e.g., by clarifying ambiguities or converting open questions into closed questions). With the changes made from one version to another, situations arise where acceptable answers in the first versions of the application are no longer permitted in subsequent versions. For example, the variable ECD2_b had an open answer in the first versions of the database but corresponds to a question with a fixed set of categories in later versions. In this case, an error will be reported for an answer of type "physical + mental", which after correction will become 7 "Associated disability". The syntax for identifying errors is available in Annex 10. 67 includes specific commands that can be used to clean and validate data, as well as to perform various statistical analyses such as aggregation calculations, hypothesis tests or regressions. The syntax is used to tell the software what actions to perform on the data. 58 Correction of errors by county teams The immediate next step after identifying errors is to extract the case identification information containing the errors and the list of errors identified per case and correct them. As only county teams and the ANPDPD team are allowed to edit in e-PLIN, a system will be developed where the WB team will assist the county teams in correcting identified errors. Group and individual sessions will be held to explain the technical aspects of the errors and to determine how to fix them. In order not to affect the data collection process, the county teams, together with the WB team, will establish an additional workflow for data correction. 3.2 Dimension 2: Data analysis plan - Brief proposals of alternative methods for determining disability In the e-PLIN database, each participant is assigned a unique identifier, which does not contain personal data generated by the system. For each participant, the data collected includes socio-demographic data, completed assessment instruments, process indicators (related to new working procedures), and selected results of the disability assessment under the legislation in force (type and degree of disability, the validity period of the certificate, etc.). The complete list of variables available for analysis can be found in Annex 4. The analysis of the data collected through the pilot study will include several distinct steps: a) Descriptive statistics of the pilot sample b) Psychometric analysis: Calculation of scores c) Algorithms for combining medical score with WHODAS+RO score a) Descriptive statistics of the pilot sample This standard analysis will contribute to the description of the pilot sample and will serve for further analysis and discussion. Descriptive parameters will include standard socio-demographic variables (including occupational and educational status) as well as the prevalence of primarily reported health conditions according to ICD-10 codes. For example, concerning WHODAS, from previous studies in Eastern European countries, 68 there are population norms and data on correlations between individual scores and health condition categories that can be compared with data collected for Romania through the pilot study. However, for the needs assessment, opportunities for comparison with other data are minimal. b) Psychometric analysis: WHODAS+RO scores and scales in the assessment modules The psychometric analysis's first step is establishing an appropriate procedure for dealing with non-responses (missing values) in the questionnaires. For example, the response scale used in WHODAS+RO contains the response option N/A - Not applicable. 69 The most appropriate method for dealing with non-responses can only be determined after completion of the pilot exercise, based on a statistical analysis of the data, and depending on how many non-responses there are and for what reasons. However, there are several methodological options that will be tested to decide which is the most appropriate for the Romanian data. These options are summarized below. 68 World Bank (2015); Posarac, Fellinghauer and Bickenbach (2021). 69 Respondents may sometimes feel that a question does not apply to their situation; such as if they have not experienced the situation being asked (e.g., for question D4.5 on sexual activities). In this case, the answer option N/A is recorded. The interviewer should check all 'Not applicable' answers. If, in the process of checking, it appears that respondents find a question not applicable to them because they cannot do the activity in question, the item is scored with 5 "Extremely or Could not do". An appropriate check in this situation would be: - Can you tell me why this question does not apply to you? Reasons given by respondents may include issues such as not being expected in their culture to do this activity or not having experienced this activity in the last 30 days. 59 The simple approach Complex approaches Applies when only one item has a missing value. 1. The "hot deck" imputation procedure fills in The method uses the average of the other items to missing item responses using observed values from assign a score to the missing item in the 12-item randomly selected, similar respondents (i.e., with WHODAS 2.0. shared characteristics such as age and gender) who have complete data from the same dataset (i.e., This method should not be used if more than one similar respondents on the characteristics item is missing. considered who answered all questions). The If the respondent is not working and has provided advantage of this procedure is that it preserves the responses to the 32-item WHODAS 2.0, the score distribution of item values. can be used as such and will be comparable to the full 36-item version. 2. The multiple imputation procedure replaces In all other situations where one or two items are each missing value with a set of plausible values missing, the average score for all items in the reflecting uncertainty about the correct value to be domain must be attributed to the missing items. imputed. These multiple imputation data sets - This method should not be used if more than two usually between 3 and 10 - are then analyzed using items are missing. In addition, when calculating standard procedures for complete data, and the domain scores, the two missing items must not results of these analyses are combined. come from the same domain. After resolving non-responses, different scores for the scales included in the toolkit will be calculated. The scores can be simple or complex. The simple score involves a summative index (based on the sum of the scores of all questions in all domains). The complex score takes into account several levels of difficulty for each item. In this case, the data are statistically analyzed (using a technique called Rasch modeling) to create a linear scale by differentially weighting items and severity levels. For example, for WHODAS+RO, the determination of the complex score comprises three steps: - Step 1 - Summing the scores of the recoded items within each domain. - Step 2 - Summing the scores from all six areas. - Step 3 - Conversion of the summary score on a scale from 0 to 100 (0 = no disability; 100 = total disability). There are other ways of calculating complex scores, such as the dominant opinion index (Hofstede), factor analysis, or regression. For each score, the optimal statistical method of calculation will be identified. Rasch analysis (such as for WHODAS+RO) can test reliability and construct validity. Based on such an analysis, a metric or linear scale can be created on a scale from 0 to 100. The consensus in the scientific literature is that Rasch analysis is the most appropriate and efficient statistical method to determine whether interval scale properties are evident in a summary score derived from a questionnaire. 70 A Rasch analysis allows us to test basic hypotheses, 71 in particular: (1) scale targeting, (2) model reliability, (3) ordering of item response options, (4) absence of strong item associations (or item independence), (5) fit of items to the Rasch model, (6) absence of effects of personal factors such as gender and age on item responses (or differential item functioning), and (7) one-dimensionality of the questionnaire. If these assumptions are met, a questionnaire is psychometrically sound, with interval-type total scores that are operational for measurement (allow construction of a metric and a total score). 70 Rasch is a statistical method in the field of probabilistic measurement. It is a modern approach to test theory, first introduced in the 1960s by the Danish mathematician George Rasch (Rasch, 1960). The classical Rasch model works only with dichotomous data - i.e., yes/no answers. But WHODAS uses polytomous scores - answers of 0-4. For this reason, the data are calibrated with the Partial Credit Model (Masters, 1982), an extension of the Rasch model suitable for polytomous responses. (Posarac, Fellinghauer and Bickenbach, 2021) 71 Bond and Fox (2001); Tennant and Conaghan (2007). 60 (1) Targeting the Intuitively, a good questionnaire adapts the level of "difficulty" of its items (i.e., scale: the chances that a certain proportion of the population will be assessed at a certain response level) to the population being assessed. (2) Reliability of the A scale is reliable when it can discriminate between levels, in this case, of model: functioning in the population. This is important for assessing disability and work capacity, which needs to be granular enough to differentiate between people with different levels of functioning. (3) Ordering the It is essential that on the response scale, for example, score 4 represents a 'higher' response options: step than score 3, and so on; otherwise, there is no consistency in the classification, and the questionnaire is neither valid nor reliable. (4) Item Items that are correlated (i.e., "dependent") in a questionnaire are redundant and interdependence: assess roughly the same aspect of the construct measured with that scale - here, functioning. (5) Fit to Rasch Rasch analysis depends on being able to construct a synthetic score of the data model: collected by the questionnaire that shows that it assesses what we want to assess, namely functioning. (6) Differentiation: We need to be aware of the impact of factors such as gender and age on item responses. (7) One- Finally, a questionnaire should measure a single construct, in this case, dimensionality of the functioning, as this is the assessment criterion of interest in terms of disability and questionnaire: work capacity. c) Algorithms for combining the medical score with the WHODAS+RO score The new general methodology proposes to determine the level of disability based on an overall score that incorporates the medical score (based on medical and psychological criteria) and the functioning score (WHODAS+RO summary score). The combination algorithm to determine the overall score can only be determined empirically based on data collected in the pilot study. Analyses will be performed in the second part of the pilot and will be included in Output 7. Examples of algorithms for integrating functioning into disability assessment from World Bank projects in other countries 72 are provided below. These show that algorithms for combining the medical score with the WHODAS summary score may vary depending on the national context. Algorithm A: a discretionary combination of medical score and synthetic functioning score. This is the option in which a person or committee reviews the medical and WHODAS scores and assesses the level of disability as they see fit. The other algorithm types, B, C, D, and E, are statistically determined. The proposed framework for assessing these options - built from the scientific literature - is based on fundamental scientific principles that define the credibility of any disability or work capacity assessment process, namely: o validity - the extent to which the option is based on a genuine assessment of the disability; o reliability - the ability of the option to reach the same conclusion for a specific case assessed by different assessors; o transparency - the extent to which the evaluation process and results can be described and understood by all stakeholders; and o standardization - the extent to which the process withstands distortions or changes over time and in different locations. 72 For example, Greece, Latvia or Lithuania. 61 Algorithm B - average-based: The overall disability score of a person as a whole is determined as a weighted average of the medical score and the WHODAS summary score. Several possible weighting combinations are tested based on the assumption that the medical and functioning scores contribute to different degrees of a realistic and valid assessment of disability. Possible weighting combinations include: • 75% medical score and 25% WHODAS summary score • 50% medical score and 50% WHODAS summary score • 25% medical score and 75% WHODAS summary score • 0 medical score and 100% synthetic WHODAS score Algorithm C - flagging: This algorithm does not involve calculating an overall score but highlights discrepancies between the medical score and the WHODAS summary score. All cases are identified where the medical score is 1 (mild impairment), and the WHODAS score is set above a series of (statistically determined) thresholds 73 that indicate severe limitations in functioning. The flagging approach suggests that a medical score may not adequately capture the experience of disability, and more information or reassessment is needed for flagged individuals. Algorithm D - Augmentation: This approach is based on the idea that at the heart of the disability and work capacity assessment is the medical problem that the individual experiences, but at the same time, this experience is modified (to some extent) by environmental factors that need to be taken into account to increase or adjust the medical score. Thus, depending on specific values of the WHODAS score, a coefficient (here < 1) is statistically determined and applied to the medical score. 74 This algorithm is used in many European countries, such as Germany, France, England, Switzerland, and others. Algorithm E: Use an econometric model to develop coefficients to differentiate between medical and WHODAS scores' combined results. The methodology predicts the level of disability by associating indicators or "proxies" with the level of disability. The method uses multivariate regression to correlate specific determinants, such as WHODAS scores and diagnosis (ICD code groups), with the level of disability. The model has not yet been applied in other countries. All of the above methods are possible options for analyzing the Romanian data as part of the pilot exercise. To choose the most appropriate algorithm for a given population, the analyses consider the answers to the following questions: ?1. How many applicants are eligible for a disability classification as a result of the application of the algorithm? ?2. How many applicants who were not eligible before become eligible for a disability classification as a result of the application of the algorithm? ?3. How many applicants would lose the framework by applying the algorithm? ?4. Who would lose, and who would win? (types of cases) Other research questions: Does the new disability assessment exercise outperform past practices in terms of “accuracy” of disability determination (subject to the confounding factor of definitional changes in disability between the current system and the new approach)? And better performance may not necessarily mean improving the level of accuracy, it could also mean reducing the variance (even if accuracy remains unchanged). This is undoubtedly valuable. To the extent possible, we will also invest in learning carefully what are the costs borne by the system in producing any potential gains in determination performance. 73 For example, a certain score equal to the mean/median + 2 x standard deviation is mentioned or the value corresponding to quintile 3 or 4 is taken. 74 For example, if the medical score is 3 or 4 and the WHODAS+RO summary score is in the 4th quintile, then the overall score = medical score * 0.8. 62 3.3. Dimension 3: Increasing institutional capacity The project activities address the objective of increasing institutional capacity through various methods. Thus, the project provides support in the development of a new system with criteria, tools, and procedures aligned with international standards, provides training of specialists on the new work package, and supports communication with stakeholders who are potential constituents of the new reform. 3.3.1. Activities with county teams For the second part of the pilot (January-May 2023), the WB team will continue the training activities of the county teams. In line with the preliminary results (section 2.6), the focus will be on mitigating differences in practice in applying the new tools, particularly WHODAS+RO and the M2 personal assistance module. The training sessions will be conducted online and in face-to-face meetings foreseen in the project when the ANPDPD concludes the appropriate procurement procedures. 75 Also, as the procurement for the organization of study visits to EU countries more advanced in the implementation or reform of the disability assessment system has been concluded, in the coming months, the members of the county teams will also benefit from these exchanges of experience. By aggregating data from the M5 module (part of PLIN) at the level of the administrative-territorial unit, county, and national level, it is possible to quantify the specific service and benefit needs of adults with disabilities. This can be used to develop evidence-based plans for developing services for people with disabilities. To this end, the Unified Procedure Outline proposes to produce a County Report every 12 months, presenting the results of the aggregated analyses, to be distributed by the DGASPC to the County Council and the county municipalities. The provision goes beyond the piloting period, but with the aim of increasing the institutional capacity of SECPAH/DGASPC/CJ, the WB team will develop a proposal for a standard format for the County Report on the service needs of adults with disabilities, which will be part of Output 4. 3.3.2. Activities with social workers in SPASs One of the project's activities is to organize training sessions for social workers to use the new social survey tool (Annex_Asoc). 76 The WB team will organize these training sessions online in collaboration with the National College of Social Workers in Romania (CNASR), followed by pretesting and tool adjustment (section 3.1.1). 3.3.3. Integration with other relevant projects The ANPDPD team and the WB carried out the activities taking into account other projects, activities, and legislative initiatives in the area of disability, which could influence the successful implementation of the project and, subsequently, the implementation of the reform. National Disability Management System (SNMD) The National Disability Management System (SNMD) is a project implemented by ANPDPD in partnership with the Authority for the Digitization of Romania (ADR) and MMSS. It aims to develop and implement a centralized national platform for collecting, storing, and distributing information on people with disabilities (adults and children) to central and local public authorities, individual beneficiaries, and institutional partners. Given the multiple aspects on which the two projects intersect, several meetings were held to ensure convergence in activity and results: • Presentations (physical on October 20, 2022, online on October 24, 2022) given by the SNMD team on the SNMD structure for adult disability assessment, designed under current legislation 75 Training sessions for the staff who will apply the work package in the piloting (36 persons*2 days*2 training sessions), with the aim to train the experts involved in the piloting on the new methodological package. 76 50 people from 8 pilot counties are expected. 63 • Presentation (online on November 4, 2022) by the WB team of the proposal for reform of the evaluation system currently being piloted Constructive discussions between the two teams led to the conclusion that the activities in the two projects are not conflicting and that the reform of the disability assessment system if accepted, can be integrated into the SNMD platform. The project amending and supplementing the Annex to Order No 762/1.992/2007 The proposal to amend and supplement the Annex to the Order of the Minister of Labor, Family and Equal Opportunities and the Minister of Public Health No 762/1.992/2007 approving the medical-psycho-social criteria based on which the classification in the degree of disability is determined is currently being approved in the specialist technical committees. The project team has reviewed these proposed amendments, and the recommendations will be reflected in the final version of the revised medical and psychological criteria. Decision No 1542/2022 Decision No 1542/2022 approving the criteria and standards for clinical diagnosis, functional diagnosis, and assessment of work capacity based on which classification in grades I, II, and III of invalidity is made, is a complementary document to that proposed in the revised medical and psychological criteria, built on the same modern principles. To ensure consistency between the two systems - disability and invalidity - the project team held discussions (online and in person) with the National Institute for Medical Expertise and Work Capacity Recovery team to coordinate the two initiatives. As a result, the final version of the revised criteria will be aligned with the proposals already mentioned in HG 1542/2022. 3.4. Dimension 4: Communication and consensus building In the coming period, a particular focus will be placed on communicating the progress and results of the pilot study. Fact sheet Information on the progress of the data collection process will be disseminated bi-monthly. In addition, the fact sheet (see example in Annex 7) will be disseminated, as before, to all stakeholders and published on the ANPDPD website. Newsletters In parallel with the Newsletter, the WB team has started preparing a series of newsletters; 6 newsletters (two pages each) will be published online from January until June 2023, when the pilot project will end. The newsletters will include details on the progress of the pilot project implementation and the county teams involved. For the preparation of the first issue, information has already been collected on the members of the teams and their expectations of the reform/pilot. Communication strategy As the project is complex and focuses on a sensitive topic, the WB team will provide support to ANPDPD to develop a concerted multi-level communication strategy regarding the pilot study. This will have realistic/feasible communication objectives for each target group of the pilot study. Specifically, building on the activities and results achieved in the project, the strategy will be developed on three pillars, namely: - information/information transfer, - changing opinions, - development of new behaviors/practices. The communication strategy will be tailored to the needs of each target actor (national or county decision- makers, DGASPCs, evaluation commissions, disability evaluation professionals, beneficiaries, relatives of beneficiaries, NGOs, media, general public). 64 3.5. Recommendations for adjusting the pilot in the second stage Supplementation of county teams In the original project, the pilot was scheduled to last 12 months and cover at least eight counties (one county in each region of the country). With the amendment of the Technical Assistance Agreement, the pilot period was reduced to 10 months, and the number of DGASPCs was increased from 8 to 10. The ten counties involved in the piloting collected about 2,100 cases in the first five months of implementation. To reach the target of 6,000 cases assessed according to the new methodological package, the pilot needs to be adjusted by adding additional teams. Taking into account also the lower performance of some counties, in order to ensure a correct regional distribution, the newly included counties must be from the regions: West, Centre, North-East, and Bucharest municipality. Adjustments for Bucharest Some specific provisions for the teams in Bucharest should be added to the draft unified procedure for complex disability assessment because, unlike the counties, these teams are larger precisely because they have to cover both DGASPC and SPAS responsibilities. 65 Bibliography American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (2004) AAIDD Supports Intensity Scale. Available at: https://www.aaidd.org/sis ANPDPD (2021) Raport de analiză-documentare privind criteriile medico-psihosociale pentru persoanele adulte cu dizabilități. Propuneri privind modificarea și completarea criteriilor medico-psihosociale formulate de către diferite instituții, petenți, comisii de evaluare și serviciile de evaluare complex. Decembrie 2021. ANPDPD (2021) Buletin Statistic privind Protecția Persoanelor cu Dizabilități, 1.01-31.12.2020. Available at: https://mmuncii.ro/j33/images/buletin_statistic/dizab_sem_I_2022.pdf Arnould, C.; Barral, C.; Bouffioulx, E.; Castelein, P.; Chiriacescu, D.; Cote, A. (2012a). Mécanismes d’évaluation du handicap: quels enjeux pour l’élaboration des politiques sociales aujourd’hui, à la lumière de la Convention des Nations Unies relative aux droits des personnes handicapées? Rapport final. Fondation Internationale de la Recherche Appliquée sur le Handicap. Arnould, C.; Barral, C.; Bouffioulx, E.; Castelein, P.; Chiriacescu, D.; Cote, A. (2012b). Mécanismes d’évaluation du handicap: quels enjeux pour l’élaboration des politiques sociales aujourd’hui, à la lumière de la Convention des Nations Unies relative aux droits des personnes handicapées? Support d’application issu de la recherche: outil d’analyse des mécanismes d’évaluation du handicap. Fondation Internationale de la Recherche Appliquée sur le Handicap. Australia National Disability Services, People with disabilities and Supported Decision Making, A guide for NDIS providers in NSW. Available at: https://www.nds.org.au/resources/people-with-disability-and-supported-decision- making-in-the-ndis-a-guide-for-nsw-providers Bickenbach, J.; Posarac, A.; Cieza, A.; Kostanjsek, N. (2015).”Assessing Disability in Working Age Population, A Paradigm Shift from Impairment and Functional Limitation to Disability Approach.” World Bank. Available at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2015/06/24660032/assessingdisability-working-age-population- paradigm-shift-impairment-functional-limitationdisability-approach Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Burkeman, O. (2012) Help!: How to Be Slightly Happier, Slightly More Successful and Get a Bit More Done, Bath : AudioGO. Carlozzi NE, Kratz AL, Downing NR, Goodnight S, Miner JA, Migliore N, Paulsen JS. Validity of the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) in individuals with Huntington disease (HD).. Qual Life Res. 2015 Aug;24(8):1963-71. Chang KH, Liao HF, Yen CF, et al. Association between muscle power impairment and WHODAS 2.0 in older adults with physical disability in Taiwan. Disabil Rehabil 2015; 37:712–720. Chi WC, Liou TH, Wennie Huang WN, Yen CF, Teng SW, Chang. (2013).“IC: Developing a Disability Determination Model Using a Decision Support System in Taiwan: A Pilot Study.” Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, 112(8):473–481. Chiriacescu, D.; Barral, C.; Carlyne, A.; Bouffioulx, E.; Castelein, P.; Cote, A.. (2015). “Analysing Disability Assessment Procedures in the Light of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: A Proposed Methodological Guide.” Alter, 9(1):34-50. Chiu et al. (2013). “Implementing Disability Evaluation and Welfare Services Based on the Framework of International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: Experiences in Taiwan.” BMC Health Services Research. Available at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/13/416 Chiu TY, Yen CF, Chou CH, et al. (2014) Development of traditional Chinese version of World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 36—item (WHODAS 2.0) in Taiwan: validity and reliability analyses. Res Dev Disabil 2014; 35:2812–2820. Cote, Alexandre. (2018). “Disability Assessment in the Light of the UNCRPD.” Presented at the Disability-related Financial Instruments in Light of EU LAW and UNCRPD Seminar, Trier. Available at: http://www.era- comm.eu/uncrpd/kiosk/pdf/seminar_documents/s_c_418DV84.pdf 66 Federici, Stefano, Bracalenti, Marco, Meloni Fabio & Juan V. Luciano (2016): World Health Organization disability assessment schedule 2.0: An international systematic review, Disability and Rehabilitation, DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2016.1223177. Fougeyrollas, P., Noreau, L., St-Michel, G. și Boschen, K. (2008) Measure of the Quality of the Environment. Version 2.0, RIPPH/INDCP, Québec. Available at: https://ripph.qc.ca/en/documents/mqe/what-is- mqe/#:~:text=The%20Measure%20of%20the%20Quality,their%20abilities%20or%20personal%20limitations Garin Olatz, Jose Luis Ayuso-Mateos, Josué Almansa, Marta Nieto, Somnath Chatterji, Gemma Vilagut, Jordi Alonso, Alarcos Cieza, Olga Svetskova, Helena Burger, Vittorio Racca, Carlo Francescutti, Eduard Vieta, Nenad Kostanjsek, Alberto Raggi, Matilde Leonardi, Montse Ferrer Garin et al. Research Validation of the "World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule, WHODAS-2" in patients with chronic diseases Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2010, 8:5. Katz S, Downs TD, Cash HR, Grotz RC. (1970) Progress in development of the index of ADL. Gerontologist 1970; 10:20. Available at: https://www.alz.org/careplanning/downloads/katz-adl.pdf Lauria, A., Benesperi, B., Costa, P., Valli, F. (2019) Designing Autonomy at Home. The ADA Project. An Interdisciplinary Strategy for Adaptation of the Homes of Disabled Persons. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333719298_Designing_Autonomy_at_Home_The_ADA_Project_An_Interd isciplinary_Strategy_for_Adaptation_of_the_Homes_of_Disabled_Persons Lawton MP, Brody EM. (1969) Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist 1969; 9:179. Available at: https://www.alz.org/careplanning/downloads/lawton-iadl.pdf Luciano JV, Ayuso-Mateos JL, Aguado J, Fernandez A, Serrano-Blanco A, Roca M, Haro JM. The 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHO-DAS II): a nonparametric item response analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010 May 20;10:45. Luciano JV, Ayuso-Mateos JL, Fernandez A, Aguado J, Serrano-Blanco A, Roca M, Haro JM. Utility of the twelve- item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHO-DAS II) for discriminating depression "caseness" and severity in Spanish primary care patients. Qual Life Res. 2010 Feb;19(1):97-101. Luciano JV, Ayuso-Mateos JL, Fernández A, Serrano-Blanco A, Roca M, Haro JM. Psychometric properties of the twelve item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHO-DAS II) in Spanish primary care patients with a first major depressive episode. J Affect Disord. 2010 Feb;121(1-2):52-8. Mackenzie, J.A., Wilkinson, K.A. (2020) Assessing mental capacity, A handbook to guide professionals from basic to advanced practice, New York: Routledge. Nottinghamshire Healthcare Profil vocațional, Positive about mental health and learning disability, NHS Foundation Trust. Available at: https://www.nottinghamshirehealthcare.nhs.uk/services-l Pash, A, Trapani G. (2013) Lifehacker: the guide to working smarter, faster, and better, Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley. Posarac, A., Fellinghauer, C., and Bickenbach, J. (2021) Options for Including Functioning into Disability and Work Capacity Assessment in Lithuania, World Bank Report. Available at: https://socmin.lrv.lt/uploads/socmin/documents/files/Lithuania_Including%20functioning%20into%20DA_Final_Au gust%202021.pdf Senatsverwaltung fur Integration, Arbeit und Soziales (2020) TIB Teilhabeinstrument Berlin, Teilhabeorientierte Individuelle Bedarfsermittlung. Available at: https://www.berlin.de/sen/soziales/besondere- lebenssituationen/menschen-mit-behinderung/eingliederungshilfe-sgb-ix/bedarfsermittlung-tib/ Sulla, V., Salazar, M., Stănculescu, M.S. (coord.) (2021) Raport de diagnoză a sistemului actual de evaluare a dizabilității. Banca Mondială. Available at: https://mmuncii.ro/j33/images/Documente/Minister/WB_Evaluarea- dizabilitatii_raport-diagnoza_28_10_2021.pdf Sulla, V., Salazar, M., Stănculescu, M.S. (coord.), Bărbuță, F., Bencze, M.I., Berteanu, M., Blaj, G., Chiriacescu, D., Corad, B., Dan, D., Daneş, L., Dinu, I., Grecu, N., Pascu, G., Predescu, C., Roman, G., Roşu, C., Stoica, A., Tontsch, D., Ursescu, C. (2022) Livrabilul #2. Set de criterii medico- psihosociale propuse pentru modernizarea evaluării complexe a dizabilității, https://anpd.gov.ro/web/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Livrabil-2_Set-de-criterii- medicopsihosociale-propuse.pdf Sulla, V., Salazar, M., Stănculescu, M.S. (coord.), Bărbuță, F., Bencze, M.I., Berteanu, M., Blaj, G., Chiriacescu, D., Corad, B., Dan, D., Daneş, L., Dinu, I., Grecu, N., Marin, M., Pascu, G., Predescu, C., Roman, G., Roşu, C., Stoica, A., 67 Tontsch, D., Ursescu, C. (2022) Livrabilul 3. Noi instrumente de lucru propuse pentru o evaluare modernizată a dizabilității, https://anpd.gov.ro/web/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/P171157_Output3_06sept2022_RO.pdf Tennant A, Conaghan PG. (2007) The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: what is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper? Arthritis Rheum. 2007 Dec 15;57(8):1358-62. doi: 10.1002/art.23108. PMID: 18050173. Ustun TB, Ayuso-Mateos JL, Chatterji S, Mathers C, Murray CJ (2004) Global burden of depressive disorders in the year 2000. Br J Psychiatry 184: 386–392. Virtual DS și EUSE (2014) Profil vocațional. Instrumente pentru ocuparea forței de muncă sprijinită. Ghid simplificat. Available at: http://www.euse.org/index.php/resources/supported-employment-toolkit Yu-Hao Lee, Kwang-Hwa Chang, Reuben Escorpizo, Wen-Chou Chi, Chia-Feng Yen, Hua-Fang Liao, Shih-Wei Huang, Tsan-Hon Liou. Accuracy of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) score as an objective assessment tool for predicting return-to-work status after head and neck cancer in male survivors, Supportive Care in Cancer (2019) 27:433–441. Yen CF, Hwang AW, Liou TH, et al. Validity and reliability of the Functioning Disability Evaluation Scale-Adult Version based on the WHODAS 2.0—36 items. J Formos Med Assoc 2014; 113:839–849. World Bank (2016-2017), Evaluarea dizabilității, Japan PHRD Technical Assistance Grant to Support Disability and Development. World Bank. (2018). Implementation Completion and Results Report (ICR) on a Small Grant in the amount of US 1.71 Million to Romania for an Improved Policy Making and Institutional Framework for People with Disability Project (P128150) World Health Organization. (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization. World Health Organization. (2010). Measuring Health and Disability: Manual for WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0). World Health Organization. (2013). How to Use the ICF: A Practical Manual for Using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Exposure Draft for Comment. Geneva: WHO. World Health Organization. (2017). Technical Meeting on Disability Assessment. Meeting Report. World Health Organization. Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0). Available at: https://www.who.int/classifications/icf/whodasii/en/ World Health Organization’s International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision (ICD-10 Version: 2016). Available at: https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/icdonlineversions/en/ Other sources: https://icd.who.int/dev11/l-icf/en#/http%3a%2f%2fid.who.int%2ficd%2fentity%2f2011053685 https://cupdf.com/document/rom-cat-final.html Institutul de Proiectare, Cercetare si Tehnică de Calcul în Construcții IPCT SA - Normativ pentru adaptarea clădirilor civile și spațiilor urbane aferente la exigentele persoanei cu handicap - Indicativ NP 0512001 Lag (1993:387) om stöd och service till vissa funktionshindrade. https://rkrattsbaser.gov.se/sfst?bet=1993:387 Mental Capacity Act 2005, UK, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/9/contents Ordinul MMFPPV-MS-MEC nr. 1985/1305/5805/2016 68 Annex 1. Sample selection for the pilot study Sample selection criteria The methodology for selecting the sample of counties (DGASPC) for the pilot study is based on the following: • Data collected as part of the background research for Output 1 Diagnosis Report of the current disability assessment mechanism; • The results of the Diagnosis Study presented in Output 1; • Conditions and parameters set for the pilot study by the Terms of Reference. Output 1 highlighted the significant differences between counties in how they understand, interpret, and implement the national legal framework for classifying adults by degree and type of disability. Very different practices have been developed and are used at the county level in all stages of the implementation of the Romanian disability assessment system (from the information stage to the stages of preparation, submission, and registration of files, assessment for classification, classification decision, and determination of grade or various rights such as personal assistance, individual plans, appeals and complaints, and other institutional aspects). To ensure the best coverage of the diversity in the territory, the selection took into account the set of indicators in Table A.1, which Output 1 has shown to differentiate counties by most of the stages and activities of implementation of the disability assessment system. Table A. 1: Selection criteria Indicators Variable 1 Size of the officially registered adult Based on the national distribution according to the size of population with disabilities at the the officially registered adult population with disabilities, county level, according to the counties have been grouped into 4 categories: Statistical Bulletin 0 = Bucharest districts 1 = 6300- under 15 thousand people 2 = 15 thousand - under 20 thousand people 3 = 20 thousand - under 38 thousand persons 2 SECPAH/CEPAH workload - Total (a) Continuous variables on the total number of files number of cases assessed/classified evaluated/enrolled at the county level in 2019 and 2020 as disabled annually as reported by (b) Continuous variables on the average number of files SECPAH (in Q2A) and CEPAH (in assessed per SECPAH specialist in 2019 and 2020 Q3A) (c) Based on the nationwide distribution according to the ratio of SECPAH files/specialist/year, counties were grouped into the following categories: For 2019 For 2020 1 = 200-499 files/year 1 = 100-399 files/year 2 = 500-699 files/year 2 = 400-699 files/year 3 = 700-999 files/year 4 = 700+ files/year 4 = 1000+ files/year 3 Mode of work - Percentage of files Continuous variables share of files assessed by SECPAH assessed by SECPAH that did not through a combination of document analysis and involve face-to-face interaction with telephone, WhatsApp, or Skype interviews in November 2019 and 2020, respectively 69 Indicators Variable the assessed person, as reported by SECPAH (in Q2A) 4 Development region Region to which the county belongs 5 DGASPC institutional factors The willingness of the DGASPC specialists to participate in indicating the potential for active the project was estimated based on their participation in involvement and responsible the background research of the diagnostic study (Output implementation of the pilot study 1). Thus, the following situations were considered: - SECPAH and CEPAH are willing to participate (completed Q2A and Q3A, respectively) - SECPAH has completed Q2A, but CEPAH has not completed Q3A (so only SECPAH is interested and willing to participate) - SECPAH cooperates or not with SECC (they completed Q2A in cooperation or sent individual questionnaires) The selection universe comprises 31 counties and 4 sectors of the Bucharest municipality that provided data for all the indicators in the table above. The data are presented in Tables A.2, A.3, and A.4. The selection method started from two key variables (corresponding to indicators 1 and 2 in Table A.1), namely: • NrPAH = The size of the officially registered adult population with disabilities at the county level, grouped into 4 categories. • OM2_19rec = Average number of files assessed per SECPAH specialist in 2019, grouped into 4 categories. These two key variables were intersected and resulted in 16 theoretical sampling strata, of which 4 strata correspond to Bucharest sectors, and 12 strata correspond to counties. At the level of Bucharest municipality, the sector DGASPCs have similar situations in terms of key variables, which is why all 4 sectors are grouped in the same stratum. Distribution of counties in the selection Number of counties selected for pilot stud universe nrPAH (adults with disabilities) nrPAH (adults with disabilities) 1=6.300- 2 = 15k- 3 = 20k- 1=6.300- 3 = 20k- OM2_19rec Sect bellow bellow bellow Sect bellow 2 = 15k- bellow (files/year) B 15k 20k 38k Total B 15k bellow 20k 38k Total 1= 200-499 4 0 4 2 10 1 0 1 0 2 2= 500-699 0 3 3 2 8 0 1 1 0 2 3= 700-999 0 2 3 3 8 0 0 1 1 2 4= 1000+ 0 1 3 5 9 0 0 1 2 3 Total 4 6 13 12 35 1 1 4 3 9 Note: Each cell in the table represents a theoretical sampling layer. The colored cells indicate the selected sample layers. Data from the Diagnosis Study in Output 1, collected in January-March 2021. In contrast, at the county level, the heterogeneity also highlighted in Output 1 is very visible. Thus, the 31 counties are spread over 11 of the 12 theoretical sampling strata. Therefore, considering the distribution of 70 counties in the selection universe, the sample for the pilot study should cover at least 7 of the 11 theoretical strata, as shown in the table above. Sample: In summary, the sample for the pilot study contains 9 DGASPCs, as follows: 1) among the 4 sector DGASPCs in Bucharest, 1 DGASPC is selected; 2) among the 31 counties, 7 counties corresponding to the strata marked in the table above are selected; and 3) in addition, it is proposed to select DGASPC Olt, which is a particular case due to its large population of persons with disabilities and the highest workload per SECPAH/CEPAH specialist. It is essential to pilot the new work package for complex disability assessment in the county with the highest caseload in the country. Reserves: 13 reserve counties were selected on the selected strata, in addition to the sample counties, for cases of refusal of participation by DGASPC or inability to hire DGASPC specialists. The 13 reserve counties were selected from 6 regions of the country. They are: Nr. Nr. Region Reserve counties Region Reserve counties Crt. Crt. 1 S IALOMITA – 8 N-E VASLUI 2 S TELEORMAN 9 N-V BISTRITA NASAUD 3 N-E SUCEAVA 10 S ARGES 4 S-E GALATI 11 S-V MEHEDINTI 5 N-E NEAMT 12 Center MURES 6 S-E BUZAU 13 S-V VALCEA 7 N-V MARAMURES Note: Cells marked in grey indicate DGASPCs from which both SECPAH and CEPAH are willing to participate. Replacement rule: A county in the sample can only be replaced by a replacement county from the same sampling stratum. If a stratum runs out of reserves, the other counties can be used, a list of which is provided in Table A.4. Selection within the sampling stratum Within strata, the selection of sample counties, i.e., reserves, took into account the variables corresponding to indicators 3, 4, and 5 in Table A.1 according to the following rules: • The sample to include DGASPCs from all regions of the country for good geographical coverage • The sample should include DGASPCs using different ways of working • The sample should cover the diversity of institutional factors that may significantly influence the future reform of the disability assessment system in Romania, ranging from factors with potential for successful implementation of the new work package for a comprehensive assessment of adults (both SECPAH and CEPAH are keen to participate, and SECPAH is also collaborating with SECC), to neutral or more unclear situations that may highlight potential barriers caused by the attitudes of specialists within the DGASPCs (from SECPAH, CEPAH or both). Correction - Supplementing the sample: After consultation with the 9 DGASCs initially selected, DGASPC Giurgiu agreed to participate with the remark that they could only contribute with a small number of assessments due to the lack of human resources within SECPAH (at the time of concluding the protocols with ANPDPD, they had neither a specialist doctor nor a social worker). As a solution, DGASPC Ialomița was additionally selected from the reserve counties to ensure the piloting of the new package on a sufficient number of people in the South region. Thus, the sample ended up comprising 10 DGASPCs, as shown in Table A.2. 71 Table A. 2: Sample of the pilot study Ialomi Con- Bacău County B- S 3 Giurgiu Sibiu Dolj Sălaj Arad Olt ța stanța (*) (**) Cent Region B-Ilfov S S-V N-V V S-E S-V N-E S er nrPAH – Officially registered population of adults with 0 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 1 disabilities The volume of work: OM1_19 – Total number of files 5567 3629 3333 4725 5047 7589 6524 12807 3868 3029 evaluated in 2019 OM2_19 – Report of evaluated 278 605 476 525 721 1518 725 2135 430 505 files/specialist SECPAH in 2019 OM2_19rec 1 2 1 2 3 4 3 4 1 2 OM1_20 – Total number of files 4364 2067 2578 3367 3866 3794 5028 7459 3509 2245 evaluated in 2020 OM2_20 – Report of evaluated 218 345 368 374 552 759 559 1243 390 374 files/specialist SECPAH in 2020 OM2_20rec 1 1 1 1 2 4 2 4 1 1 Working mode - % files assessed without face-to-face interaction x19po - % files in November 2019 0 0 0 0 0 61 0 15 10 0 x20po - % files in November 2020 7 80 100 40 100 100 86 60 19 100 Institutional factors: SECPAH and CEPAH are keen to Da Da Da Da Da Da participate Only SECPAH (not CEPAH) is Da Da Da Da willing to participate SECPAH collaborates with SECC Da Da Da Da Da Da SECPAH staff - Total, of which: 20 6 7 9 7 5 9 6 9 6 Social worker with a university 8 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 degree Specialist doctor 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Psychologist 5 2 1 2 1 -1 1 2 4 1 Psycho-pedagogue 2 0 1 0 1 -1 2 0 0 1 Physiotherapist 0 0 1 1 1 -1 1 1 2 0 Education instructor 0 0 1 0 0 -1 0 0 0 1 Rehabilitation teacher 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 0 0 0 Others 0 2 1 4 2 0 0 1 0 1 No answer 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Sample stratum 0 12 21 22 23 24 33 34 21 12 Note: -1 = Non-response. Data from the Diagnosis Study in Output 1, collected in January-March 2021. Interpretation of the codes used on lines nrPAH, OM2_19rec, and OM2_20rec is available in Table 1. For the counties, the codes used for the sampling stratum consist of two digits, of which the first digit is the corresponding code for nrPAH and the second digit is the corresponding code for the variable OM2_19rec. (*) Initially, Suceava county was selected. In the context of the refugee crisis in Ukraine, Suceava county, as a border county with Ukraine, has been replaced by Bacău county, according to the substitution rule. (**) Selected additionally as a correction to the sample due to human resource problems reported by SECPAH Giurgiu. Data similar to that in Table A.2 for the reserve counties, as well as for all counties included in the selection universe, are available in Tables A.3 and A.4. 72 Table A. 3: Data on the 13 reserve counties for the pilot study 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 County IL TR SV GL NT BZ MM Selection priority 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 Region S S N-E S-E N-E S-E N-W nrPAH – Officially registered population of adults with 1 1 3 2 2 2 2 disabilities The volume of work: OM1_19 – Total number of files evaluated in 2019 3029 5074 6677 5297 5850 7204 6057 OM2_19 – Report of evaluated files/specialist SECPAH in 505 634 1335 353 418 655 757 2019 OM2_19rec 2 2 4 1 1 2 3 OM1_20 – Total number of files evaluated in 2020 2245 3849 5944 4162 3767 6718 5250 OM2_20 – Report of evaluated files/specialist SECPAH in 374 481 1189 277 269 611 656 2020 OM2_20rec 1 2 4 1 1 2 2 Working mode - % files assessed without face-to-face interaction x19po - % files in November 2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x20po - % files in November 2020 100 82 78 100 0 78 93 Institutional factors: SECPAH and CEPAH are keen to participate Da Da Da Da Only SECPAH (not CEPAH) is willing to participate Da Da Da SECPAH collaborates with SECC Da Da Da SECPAH staff - Total, of which: 6 8 5 15 14 11 8 Social worker with a university degree 1 1 1 8 6 2 3 Specialist doctor 1 0 0 1 6 1 2 Psychologist 1 3 3 2 1 4 2 Psycho-pedagogue 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 Physiotherapist 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Education instructor 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Rehabilitation teacher 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Others 1 1 0 4 0 4 0 No answer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sample stratum 12 12 34 21 21 22 23 Note: -1 = Non-response. Data from the Diagnosis Study in Output 1, collected in January-March 2021. Interpretation of the codes used on lines nrPAH, OM2_19rec, and OM2_20rec is available in Table 1. For the counties, the codes used for the sampling stratum consist of two digits, of which the first digit is the corresponding code for nrPAH and the second digit is the corresponding code for the variable OM2_19rec. (**) Already additionally selected in the piloting sample as a solution to the HR problems reported by SECPAH Giurgiu. 73 Table A.3 continued 8 9 10 11 12 13 County VS BN AG MH MS VL Selection priority 2 3 2 3 2 3 Region N-E N-V S S-V Center S-W nrPAH – Officially registered population of adults with 2 2 3 3 3 3 disabilities The volume of work: OM1_19 – Total number of files evaluated in 2019 7500 6072 6146 5967 6400 6418 OM2_19 – Report of evaluated files/specialist SECPAH in 1500 1214 878 746 1067 1070 2019 OM2_19rec 4 4 3 3 4 4 OM1_20 – Total number of files evaluated in 2020 -1 4347 6932 4738 4700 5190 OM2_20 – Report of evaluated files/specialist SECPAH in -1 869 990 592 783 865 2020 OM2_20rec -1 4 4 2 4 4 Working mode - % files assessed without face-to-face interaction x19po - % files in November 2019 -1 16 0 0 45 27 x20po - % files in November 2020 -1 100 -1 0 67 51 Institutional factors: SECPAH and CEPAH are keen to participate Da Da Da Only SECPAH (not CEPAH) is willing to participate Da Da Da SECPAH collaborates with SECC Da Da Da Da Da SECPAH staff - Total, of which: 5 5 7 8 6 6 Social worker with a university degree 2 2 3 1 2 0 Specialist doctor 0 1 1 2 2 2 Psychologist 3 1 1 1 2 1 Psycho-pedagogue 0 1 0 0 0 2 Physiotherapist 0 0 0 1 0 0 Education instructor 0 0 0 1 0 0 Rehabilitation teacher 0 0 0 1 0 0 Others 0 0 2 1 0 1 No answer 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sample stratum 24 24 33 33 34 34 Note: -1 = Non-response. Data from the Diagnosis Study in Output 1, collected in January-March 2021. Interpretation of the codes used on lines nrPAH, OM2_19rec, and OM2_20rec is available in Table 1. For the counties, the codes used for the sampling stratum consist of two digits, of which the first digit is the corresponding code for nrPAH and the second digit is the corresponding code for the variable OM2_19rec. 74 Table A. 4: Data on the other counties in the selection universe 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 County B-S1 B-S6 B-S5 HR CL BR BV Region B-Ilfov B-Ilfov B-Ilfov Center S S-E Center nrPAH – Officially registered population of adults with 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 disabilities The volume of work: OM1_19 – Total number of files evaluated in 2019 3543 4585 3846 4286 5060 6751 7715 OM2_19 – Report of evaluated files/specialist SECPAH in 236 208 385 714 723 1125 643 2019 OM2_19rec 1 1 1 3 3 4 2 OM1_20 – Total number of files evaluated in 2020 2847 2731 3568 3832 3390 3692 4500 OM2_20 – Report of evaluated files/specialist SECPAH in 190 124 357 639 484 615 375 2020 OM2_20rec 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 Working mode - % files assessed without face-to-face interaction x19po - % files in November 2019 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 x20po - % files in November 2020 0 91 71 -1 100 100 0 Institutional factors: SECPAH and CEPAH are keen to participate Da Da Only SECPAH (not CEPAH) is willing to participate Da Da Da Da Da SECPAH collaborates with SECC Da Da SECPAH staff - Total 15 22 10 6 7 6 12 Sample stratum 0 0 0 13 13 14 22 Note: -1 = Non-response. Data from the Diagnosis Study in Output 1, collected in January-March 2021. Interpretation of the codes used on lines nrPAH, OM2_19rec, and OM2_20rec is available in Table 1. For the counties, the codes used for the sampling stratum consist of two digits, of which the first digit is the corresponding code for nrPAH and the second digit is the corresponding code for the variable OM2_19rec. Table A.4 continued 8 9 10 11 12 13 County SM TM HD BH CJ IS Region N-W W W N-W N-W N-E nrPAH – Officially registered population of adults with 2 3 3 3 3 3 disabilities The volume of work: OM1_19 – Total number of files evaluated in 2019 5750 4800 5890 6700 8121 10091 OM2_19 – Report of evaluated files/specialist SECPAH in 821 436 421 609 541 1442 2019 OM2_19rec 3 1 1 2 2 4 OM1_20 – Total number of files evaluated in 2020 4527 4357 3952 4661 6483 8053 OM2_20 – Report of evaluated files/specialist SECPAH in 647 396 282 424 432 1150 2020 OM2_20rec 2 1 1 2 2 4 Working mode - % files assessed without face-to-face interaction x19po - % files in November 2019 0 0 0 0 0 -1 x20po - % files in November 2020 100 100 41 100 -1 100 Institutional factors: SECPAH and CEPAH are keen to participate Da Da Da Da 75 8 9 10 11 12 13 County SM TM HD BH CJ IS Only SECPAH (not CEPAH) is willing to participate Da Da SECPAH collaborates with SECC Da Da SECPAH staff - Total 7 11 14 11 15 7 Sample stratum 23 31 31 32 32 34 Note: -1 = Non-response. Data from the Diagnosis Study in Output 1, collected in January-March 2021. Interpretation of the codes used on lines nrPAH, OM2_19rec, and OM2_20rec is available in Table 1. For the counties, the codes used for the sampling stratum consist of two digits, of which the first digit is the corresponding code for nrPAH and the second digit is the corresponding code for the variable OM2_19rec. 76 Annex 2. Instruments for participation in the pilot study 77 Annex 2.1_FORM 00: Recruiting for the pilot study FORM 00. Recruitment for piloting new criteria, tools and procedures for assessment of the disability degree JUD County/sector: DATAGO Date of filling in |_z_| _z_|: |_l_|_l_|: |_a_|_a_|_a_|_a_| Automatically generated OMSGO SECPAH specialist Name and surname:* Cods. who received the file Profession: * Confidential information that will not be exported to the anonymized dataset for analysis. Dosar 1. SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC DATA DATA IMPORT FROM THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE FILE ADR Home address 1. UAT name: 1a. SIRUTA Automatically generated drop down list 2. Village/sector name: 2a. SIRUTA Automatically generated 3. Residential area: 1. Urban 0. Rural Automatically generated SEX Gender 1. M 2. F DN Date of birth* |_z_| _z_|: |_l_|_l_|: |_a_|_a_|_a_|_a_| AGE Age (in years of age) |__|__| years Automatically generated. COMPUTE AGE=DATAGO – DN. AFAM The person lives ... 1. In a family (APP included) 5. Another situation, namely ... 2. In a residential service (GD no. 867/2015) 3. In detention 4. Temporary treatment abroad/country 78 PTUT The person is... 1. Under the guardianship of a family 1. Yes 0. No member 2. Under the guardianship of local 1. Yes 0. No authorities 3. Under curatorship 1. Yes 0. No RCRT 2. RECRUITMENT OF THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE PILOT STUDY RCRT The person and the representative/accompanying person/family ... 1. ... were they informed of the pilot study and its objectives? 1. Yes 0. No 2. ... have they received the brochure/information form about the 1. Yes 0. No pilot study? 3. ... have agreed to participate in the pilot study (i.e., do they 1. Yes 0. No proceed to the registration of the disabled person)? Other information TIMEF0 a. How many minutes did the initial recruitment information and |__|__| Minutes discussion take? b. How many minutes did it take to fill in this form (F00) with the Estimat |__|__| Minutes data taken from the file? ed time 5+5 = Signatures Applicant: SECPAH specialist who received the file: 79 Annex 2.2_FORM 0: Pilot study registration data FORM 0. Registration for piloting new criteria, tools and procedures for assessment of the degree of disability JUD County/sector: DATE Date of filling in |_z_| _z_|: |_l_|_l_|: |_a_|_a_|_a_|_a_| Automatically generated WHO SECPAH specialist who Name and surname:* Cods. received the file Profession: * Confidential information that will not be exported to the anonymized dataset for analysis. Dosar 1. SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC DATA DATA TAKEN FROM O#3_F00. RECRUITMENT FORM AND FROM THE DOCUMENTS ON FILE NUMEP Assessed person a. Name:* b. First name 1:* c. First name 2:* ID Unique Identification Automatically generated Code ACTID Identity document a. CNP:* b.C.N./C.P./B.I./C.I.: Series* c. No.* d. issued by:* e. on:* dd/mm/yyy f. validity:* dd/mm/yyy ADR Home address 1. UAT name: 1a. SIRUTA Automatically generated drop down 2. Village/district name: 2a. SIRUTA Automatically generated 3. Residential area: 1. 0. Rural Automatically generated Urban ADRBI From the identity Str..... No. ..., bl. , sc. ap. ... document:* 80 Postal code... ADRDF De facto:* Str..... No. ..., bl. , sc. ap. ... Postal code... ADRCO Mailing address* 1. From the identity document 2. De facto (ADRDF) (ADRBI) ACCOUNT1 Contact info 1. Phone:* 2. Email:* ACCOUNT2 How he/she prefers to 1. Post Office 2. Telephone 3. E-mail 4. SPAS be contacted* SEX Gender 1. M 2. F DN Date of birth* |_z_| _z_|: |_l_|_l_|: |_a_|_a_|_a_|_a_| AGE Age (in years of age) |__|__| automatically generated years. TAKEN FROM F00. SCIV Marital status 1. Legally married | 2. Cohabitation | 3. Widowed | 4. Divorced 5. Separated in fact | 6. Never married AFAM The person lives ... 1. In a family (APP included) 5. Another situation, namely ... 2. In a residential service (GD no. 867/2015) 3. In detention 4. Temporary treatment abroad/country AINST1 If in AFAM=2 institution Name of service:* or in detention AFAM=3 AINST2 Type of residential service: 1. CIA 5. CabR 2. CITO 6. CPVI 3. CRRN/CRRNPH 7. Other types of centres 4. CRRPH/CRRPD/CRR 8. LP PASIST Does the person benefit 1. Yes, professional personal 2. Yes, personal assistant (AP) froma personal assistant (APP) 3. Yes, animal assistance assistance? 0. No PASIST2 The person has... APP or personal assistant 1. Yes 0. No IF PASIST=1 OR 2 THEN PASIST2=1 Automatically generated PTUT The person is... 1. Under the guardianship of a 1. Yes 0. No family member 2. Under the guardianship of local 1. Yes 0. No authorities 3. Under curatorship 1. Yes 0. No PRLEG Does the person have a legal 1. Yes 0. No representative? If YES 81 1. Gender: 1. M 2. F 2. Age in years of age: |__|__| Years 1. | spouse 2. son/daughter | 3. mother/father | 4. another 3. Relationship: relative, ... 5. another person (non-relatives), namely ... EDC 2. CERTIFICATE OF DISABILITY DEGREE DETERMINATION DATA TAKEN FROM THE CERTIFICATE OF DISABILITY, ACQUIRED BY THE APPLICANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES IN FORCE. EDC1 Type of assessment 1. First Assessment for determining the degree of disability, during the lifespan One answer 2. Assessment for renewing an existing certificate 3. Assessment as a result of a change of situation or of a health condition, or upon request, including the provisions of art. 58 or 59 of the Law 263/2010 on the public pension system EDC2 If ECD1=1 OR 4 The person does not have a valid certificate = > SWITCH TO Other information In the database, ECD2=0 If ECD1=2 OR 3 The person has a valid certificate and data below are filled in In the database, ECD2=1 EDC2 Disability certificate We refer to the previous certificate with which the person came to the assessment for determining the degree of disability a. Degree 1. Minor 2. Medium 3. Marked 4.Severe 5. Severe with personal assistant b. Type ... c. Validity 1= 12 months | 2 = 24 months | 3= Permanent Other information TIMEF0 c. How many minutes did it take to retrieve the data from the documents |__|__| Minutes on file to complete this form (F0)? Signatures Applicant: SECPAH specialist who received the file: Estimat ed time = 10 Min 82 Annex 2.3_INFORMED CONSENT Informed consent to participate in the pilot study for adults who have applied for determination of degree and type of disability You are kindly asked to read this form very carefully and ask any questions regarding your participation in this pilot study, before granting your consent. You are invited to participate in a study conducted within the project Modernizing the Disability Assessment System in Romania, implemented by The National Authority for Protecting the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, with the technical assistance provided by the World Bank Romania. This study aims to improve the current assessment process of determining the degree and type of disability, within ten pilot counties. In the current project phase, beneficiaries and direct participants in this process are involved, similar to your case. Your personal data from this informed consent will be kept confidential, and only the members of the project team will have access to it. The processing of personal data is carried out in accordance with the European legislation in the field (GDPR). All data collected will only be used for statistical research purposes. In case of data publication, no individual information will be disclosed. 77 Your participation in this study is voluntary, will not be remunerated, nor will it require costs on your part. Participation in this study does not involve any kind of risk to your health. You can withdraw from the research at any time without providing any explanation. This will not affect the results of your assessment for issuing/ renewal of the disability certificate. If you wish, this discussion may also be attended by the person who provides you with support in your care (personal assistant, professional personal assistant or any other family member and/or from the support network), especially if he/she accompanies you in the process of obtaining the disability certificate. If you want to find out more information about this study, you can contact the project manager – Crina Gîrleanu, at the e-mail address: crina.girleanu@anpd.gov.ro or phone: 0735053333, or you can ask questions to the SECPAH team participating in this study in your county. Your participation in this pilot study could bring improvements in the current assessment system for determining the degree and type of disability. These improvements could yield positive effects for all persons with disabilities in Romania. By signing this form, I confirm that:  I can ask questions about research  If requested, I have received the necessary clarifications  I agree to participate in this study  I have read and understood this consent form  I received a copy of this form 77 The project team undertakes to comply with ethical standards and ensure the confidentiality of data in accordance with Law no. 363 of 28 December 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the competent authorities for the purpose of preventing, discovering, investigating, prosecuting and combating crimes or the execution of penalties, educational and security measures. Your personal data will be kept by National Authority for Protecting the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, for the purpose of documenting the project for five years from the date of completion of the project, in accordance with the rules related to the program. After this period, the information will be destroyed. The information will be stored by the National Authority for Protecting the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, in a secure environment, in accordance with data protection standards (Law no. 190/2018). 83  I understand that I have the right to access, amend and request the deletion, at any time, in part or in full, of the personal data provided in the study. This does not retract my present agreement to use the information I provide for the purpose of the study. Once such a request has been received, it will be resolved within 15 days and I will be notified about it.  I understand that I can address the national data protection authority freely and free of charge at any time - National Supervisory Authority for Personal Data Processing - www.dataprotection.ro Name and surname _________________________________________________________ Locality ___________________________________________ Signature_______________ Date: _____________________________ 84 Annex 3. Preparing the pilot study Annex 3.1_List of county teams members participating in the pilot study County County Locality Institution Name code 2 Arad Arad SECPAH Bacoș Ana Cristina 2 Arad Arad SECPAH Bădiță Giana Lodeta 2 Arad Arad SECPAH Bejinariu Dumitru 2 Arad Arad SECPAH Deicean Simoan Maria 2 Arad Arad SECPAH Erdei Angelica 2 Arad Arad SECPAH Lucea Maria Stela 2 Arad Arad SECPAH Mechenici Tatiana Mihaela 2 Arad Arad SECPAH Moti Monica 2 Arad Arad SECPAH Rusu Daciana Alina 2 Arad Arad SECPAH Ungur Daniela Magdalena 2 Arad Arad CEPAH Iuhasz Edita 2 Arad Arad SECPAH Nady Claudia Simona 4 Bacău Bacău SECPAH (Dec 2022) Achivei Stela Maria Georgeta 4 Bacău Bacău SECPAH Dumitrascu Mihaela 4 Bacău Bacău SECPAH (Dec 2022) Marin Corina Petronela 4 Bacău Bacău SECPAH Miron Viorel-Ionel 4 Bacău Bacău SECPAH Pascal Liliana Gabriela 4 Bacău Bacău SECPAH (Dec 2022) Raducanu Mihaela 4 Bacău Bacău SECPAH Raileanu Catalina Mihaela 4 Bacău Bacău SECPAH (Dec 2022) Stoina Alexandra Elena 4 Bacău Bacău SECPAH (Dec 2022) Tugui Valentin 4 Bacău Bacău CEPAH Frant Cosmin Viorel 43 București - S 3 București - S 3 SECPAH Anghel Anisoara-Ioana 43 București - S 3 București - S 3 SECPAH Balan Diana Mihaela 43 București - S 3 București - S 3 SECPAH Cojocaru Dumitra 43 București - S 3 București - S 3 SECPAH Davidescu Mona 43 București - S 3 București - S 3 SECPAH Dima Carmen Mihaela 43 București - S 3 București - S 3 SECPAH Ene Nina Doina 43 București - S 3 București - S 3 SECPAH Geanta Florea 43 București - S 3 București - S 3 SECPAH Gogu Elena 43 București - S 3 București - S 3 SECPAH Ivan Mona Izabela 43 București - S 3 București - S 3 SECPAH Licudis Paulina-Tereza 43 București - S 3 București - S 3 SECPAH Man Ioana 43 București - S 3 București - S 3 SECPAH Masala Florentina Cornelia 43 București - S 3 București - S 3 SECPAH Mihăilescu Florența 43 București - S 3 București - S 3 SECPAH Popescu Cristina-Mihaela 43 București - S 3 București - S 3 SECPAH Stoian Daniela Natalia 43 București - S 3 București - S 3 SECPAH Troznay Daniela 43 București - S 3 București - S 3 SECPAH Tudor-Stefan Lidia Marilena 43 București - S 3 București - S 3 SECPAH Cristiana Huruiala 43 București - S 3 București - S 3 SECPAH Gabriela Pandelea 43 București - S 3 București - S 3 SECPAH Nicoleta Szasz 13 Constanța Constanța SECPAH Bechis Elena Geanina 13 Constanța Constanța SECPAH Bolos Sanda Mirela 13 Constanța Constanța SECPAH Ciobanu Gabriela-Ștefania 13 Constanța Constanța SECPAH Constantinescu (Aldea) Adina-Catalina 13 Constanța Constanța SECPAH Cosma Laura Mihaela 13 Constanța Constanța SECPAH Cristea Doina-Nastica 13 Constanța Constanța SECPAH Epure Marina 85 County County Locality Institution Name code 13 Constanța Constanța SECPAH Marin Ana 13 Constanța Constanța SECPAH Stasencu Alexandra 13 Constanța Constanța CEPAH Anton Violeta Neli 13 Constanța Constanța CEPAH Bratasanu Elena 13 Constanța Constanța CEPAH Dinu Iolanda 13 Constanța Constanța SECPAH Iacov Lidia 16 Dolj Craiova SECPAH Burtea Diana Nicoleta 16 Dolj Craiova SECPAH Ilie Dana-Elena 16 Dolj Craiova SECPAH Iovanescu Veronica Irina 16 Dolj Craiova SECPAH Maciuca Claudia Daniela 16 Dolj Craiova SECPAH Nicola Anișoara 16 Dolj Craiova SECPAH Păceană Nicoleta Carmen 16 Dolj Craiova SECPAH Tănasie Mădălina Maria 16 Dolj Craiova SECPAH Ungureanu-Ceausescu Filofteia 16 Dolj Craiova CEPAH Nicolae Elena Emanuela 16 Dolj Craiova CEPAH Tudor Carmen-Luminița 16 Dolj Craiova SECPAH Ciurea Aurora 52 Giurgiu Giurgiu SECPAH Bobe Mariana Diana 52 Giurgiu Giurgiu SECPAH Corbu Cristina Mirela 52 Giurgiu Giurgiu SECPAH Coscai Daniela 52 Giurgiu Giurgiu SECPAH Lixandru Mariana 52 Giurgiu Giurgiu CEPAH Bodeanu Adina 52 Giurgiu Giurgiu CEPAH Pirlog Ionela 52 Giurgiu Giurgiu CEPAH Nedelcu Nicoleta 52 Giurgiu Giurgiu SECPAH Otoiu Alina Adriana 21 Ialomița Slobozia SECPAH Antonescu Adina Nicoleta 21 Ialomița Slobozia SECPAH Bucnaru Stela 21 Ialomița Slobozia SECPAH Constantinescu Mariana 21 Ialomița Slobozia SECPAH Genunchi Madi Mihaela 21 Ialomița Slobozia SECPAH Radu Gladiola Nicoleta 21 Ialomița Slobozia SECPAH Slipenchi Cornelia 21 Ialomița Slobozia CEPAH Matcas Raluca Dorina 28 Olt Slatina SECPAH Buzatu - Matei Mihaela - Ilona 28 Olt Slatina SECPAH Croitoru Ana 28 Olt Slatina SECPAH Dorobănțoiu Loredana 28 Olt Slatina SECPAH Pene Alexandru 28 Olt Slatina SECPAH Ralita Florentina 28 Olt Slatina SECPAH Vilcea Marian Bogdan 28 Olt Slatina CEPAH Bubulinca Maria 28 Olt Slatina CEPAH Costache Camelia 31 Sălaj Zalău SECPAH Basa Alexandru 31 Sălaj Zalău SECPAH Bolfos-Ciupe Diana 31 Sălaj Zalău SECPAH Faur Daniela 31 Sălaj Zalău SECPAH Gabor Harosa Vladimir Ștefan 31 Sălaj Zalău SECPAH Maxim Bianca 31 Sălaj Zalău SECPAH Ortan Marioara 31 Sălaj Zalău SECPAH Talos Bianca-Giorgiana 31 Sălaj Zalău CEPAH Podar Florina-Silvia 31 Sălaj Zalău CEPAH Secretariat Viman Mariana 32 Sibiu Sibiu SECPAH Bratu Nicoleta Anca 32 Sibiu Sibiu SECPAH Cismaș Mihaela 32 Sibiu Sibiu SECPAH Munteanu Dorian 32 Sibiu Sibiu SECPAH Popa Cosmin 32 Sibiu Sibiu SECPAH Todea Oana 32 Sibiu Sibiu SECPAH Trailovic Carla 32 Sibiu Sibiu SECPAH Reche Marcela 32 Sibiu Sibiu CEPAH Tica Eliada Despina 86 Annex 3.2_Proposal for the visual identity of the project 87 Annex 3.3_WHODAS Cards 88 Annex 4. Description of the e-PLIN database Variable Label Tool Database interview__key Interview key (identifier in XX-XX-XX-XX format) interview__id Unique 32-character long identifier of the interview COD_UNIC COD UNIC COD_JUD COD_JUD F00 ADISAB JUD JUD F00 ADISAB ADR_NUME_UAT ADR_NUME_UAT F00 ADISAB SIRUTA_SUP SIRUTA_SUP F00 ADISAB LOC LOC F00 ADISAB SIRUTA_LOC SIRUTA_LOC F00 ADISAB URBRUR Urban/Rural F00 ADISAB NUMEP_a Nume NUMEP_b Prenume 1 NUMEP_c Prenume 2 ACTID_a1 CNP DATAGO DATAGO Data completării F00 F00 ADISAB OMSEGO_codeS OMSEGO Specialistul SECPAH care a primit dosarul. CodeS F00 ADISAB Sex SEX Sex F00 ADISAB DN DN Data nașterii F00 ADISAB AGE Varsta F00 ADISAB AFAM AFAM Persoana trăiește... F00 ADISAB AFAM_5 Altă situație, și anume F00 ADISAB PTUT_1 1. Sub tutela unui membru din familie F00 ADISAB PTUT_2 2. Sub tutela autorităților locale F00 ADISAB PTUT_3 3. Sub curatelă F00 ADISAB RCRT_1 RCRT Persoana și reprezentantul/însoțitorul/familia ... 1. ... au fost informați cu privire la studiul pilot F00 ADISAB și obiectivele acestuia? RCRT_2 RCRT Persoana și reprezentantul/însoțitorul/familia ... 2. ... au primit broșura/foaia informativă despre F00 ADISAB studiul pilot? RCRT_3 RCRT Persoana și reprezentantul/însoțitorul/familia ... 3. ... au acceptat să participe la studiul pilot F00 ADISAB (adică, se trece la înregistrarea persoanei cu dizabilități)? TIMEF00_a TIMEF00 a. Câte minute a durat informarea și discuția inițială de recrutare? F00 ADISAB TIMEF00_b b. Câte minute a durat completarea acestui formular (F00) cu datele preluate din dosar? F00 ADISAB DATA DATA Data completării F0 F0 ADISAB OMSE_codeS OMSE Specialistul SECPAH care a primit dosarul. CodeS F0 ADISAB RCRT4 Persoana și reprezentantul/ însoțitorul/ familia a semnat Consimțământul informat pentru participare F0 ADISAB la studiul pilot? EVN04 Este nevoie de interpret/traducător sau traducere de documente? F0 ADISAB EVN04_a a. Și anume, traducere în limba ... F0 ADISAB ACTID_b1 b. C.N./C.P./B.I./C.I.: Seria ACTID_c1 c. Nr. ACTID_d1 d. eliberat de: ACTID_e1 e. la data: ACTID_f1 f. valabilitatea: ADRBI_1 str. , nr. , bl. , sc. , ap. ADRBI_1a Cod poștal ADRDF_1 str. , nr. , bl. , sc. , ap. ADRDF_1a Cod poștal ADRCO ADRCO  Adresa de corespondență F0 ADISAB CONT1_1 1. Telefon CONT1_2 2. E-mail CONT2 CONT2  Cum preferă să fie contactat ? F0 ADISAB SCIV SCIV  Starea civilă F0 ADISAB AINST1 AINST1  Numele serviciului:* F0 ADISAB AINST2 AINST2  Tipul de serviciu rezidențial: F0 ADISAB AINST3 Serviciu rezidential este ... F0 ADISAB PASIST PASIST  Persoana beneficiază de asistență personală? F0 ADISAB PASIST2 PASIST2  Persoana are ... APP sau asistent personal F0 ADISAB PDZ20 PDZ20  Persoana are ...Pensie de invaliditate? F0 ADISAB PRLEG PRLEG  Persoana are reprezentant legal ? F0 ADISAB PRLEG_1 1. Sex F0 ADISAB PRLEG_2 2. Vârsta în ani împliniți F0 ADISAB PRLEG_3 3. Calitatea F0 ADISAB PRLEG_3_4 altă rudă,... F0 ADISAB PRLEG_3_5 altă persoană (nerudă), și anume ... F0 ADISAB ECD1 ECD1  Tipul de evaluare F0 ADISAB ECD2_a a. Gradul CERTIFICATULUI 2020-21 cu care a venit la evaluare. F0 ADISAB ECD2_b b. Tipul CERTIFICATULUI 2020-21 cu care a venit la evaluare. F0 ADISAB ECD2_c c. Valabilitatea CERTIFICATULUI 2020-21 cu care a venit la evaluare. F0 ADISAB TIMEF0 a. Câte minute a durat preluarea datelor din actele de la dosar pentru a completa acest formular (F0)? F0 ADISAB OMSM_1 OMSM1. Medicul SECPAH CodeS. F1 ADISAB DATLOG1 DATLOG1 Data completării F1 de catre medic F1 ADISAB OMSM_2 OMSM2. Psiholog SECPAH CodeS. F1 ADISAB DATLOG2 DATLOG2 Data completării F1 de catre psiholog F1 ADISAB OMSMalt La completarea F1 a mai participat alt reprezentant SECPAH (pe langa medic si psiholog)? F1 ADISAB OMSM_3 OMSM3. Alt specialist SECPAH CodeS. F1 ADISAB DATLOG3 DATLOG3 Data completării F1 de catre alt reprezentant SECPAH F1 ADISAB 89 Variable Label Tool Database INTM1 INTM1 Unde are loc interacțiunea? F1 ADISAB INTM1_4 4.1.Și anume: F1 ADISAB INTM3 INTM3 Limba în care se desfășoară interviul F1 ADISAB INTM3_5 5.1. Și anume: F1 ADISAB INTM2__1 INTM2 Participanți:a. Persoana care trebuie evaluată/Solicitantul F1 ADISAB INTM2__2 INTM2 Participanți:b. Responsabilul de caz desemnat F1 ADISAB INTM2__3 INTM2 Participanți:c. Reprezentant legal/însoțitor/familie* F1 ADISAB INTM2__4 INTM2 Participanți:d. Alte persoane care nu sunt specialiști SECPAH F1 ADISAB INTM2_e_1 e1. Și anume: F1 ADISAB EVM1_1a 1a. Denumire: F1 ADISAB EVM1_1b 1b. Cod CIM-10/DSM5: F1 ADISAB SMED1 Scorul corespunzător diagnosticului principal, în conformitate cu criteriile revizuite F1 ADISAB EVM1_2 2. Durata cunoscută a patologiei: F1 ADISAB EVM1_3 3. Caracterul afectărilor F1 ADISAB EVM2 Există diagnostice secundare care pot afecta încadrarea? F1 ADISAB EVM2_1a 1a. Denumire: F1 ADISAB EVM2_1b 1b. Cod CIM-10/DSM5: F1 ADISAB SMEDS1 Scorul corespunzător acestui diagnostic secundar, în conformitate cu criteriile revizuite F1 ADISAB EVM2_2a 2a. Denumire: F1 ADISAB EVM2_2b 2b. Cod CIM-10/DSM5: F1 ADISAB SMEDS2 Scorul corespunzător acestui diagnostic secundar, în conformitate cu criteriile revizuite F1 ADISAB EVM2_3a 3a. Denumire: F1 ADISAB EVM2_3b 3b. Cod CIM-10/DSM5: F1 ADISAB SMEDS3 Scorul corespunzător acestui diagnostic secundar, în conformitate cu criteriile revizuite F1 ADISAB SCORM SCORM SCORUL MEDICAL* care indică o afectare a funcțiilor și structurilor organismului ...: F1 ADISAB EVM3 EVM3 Valabilitatea certificatului: F1 ADISAB EVM30 EVM30  Tipul de dizabilitate menționat în criteriile revizuite: F1 ADISAB F1 ADISAB EVM4_9 evm4_9 EVM4_7 evm4_7 EVM4_8 evm4_8 EVM4_80 evm4_80 EVM4_5a__0 5a. Selectați din lista alăturată:0 F1 ADISAB EVM4_5a__1 5a. Selectați din lista alăturată:1 F1 ADISAB EVM4_5a__2 5a. Selectați din lista alăturată:2 F1 ADISAB EVM4_5a__3 5a. Selectați din lista alăturată:3 F1 ADISAB EVM4_5a__4 5a. Selectați din lista alăturată:4 F1 ADISAB EVM4_5a__5 5a. Selectați din lista alăturată:5 EVM4_5a__6 5a. Selectați din lista alăturată:6 EVM4_5a__7 5a. Selectați din lista alăturată:7 EVM4_5a__8 5a. Selectați din lista alăturată:8 EVM4_5a__9 5a. Selectați din lista alăturată:9 EVM4_5a__10 5a. Selectați din lista alăturată:10 EVM4_5a__11 5a. Selectați din lista alăturată:11 EVM4_5a__12 5a. Selectați din lista alăturată:12 EVM4_5a__13 5a. Selectați din lista alăturată:13 EVM4_5a__14 5a. Selectați din lista alăturată:14 EVM4_5a__15 5a. Selectați din lista alăturată:15 EVM4_5a__16 5a. Selectați din lista alăturată:16 EVM4_5a__17 5a. Selectați din lista alăturată:17 F1 ADISAB EVM6 EVM6  Persoana are nevoi medicale speciale, oricare dintre cele din tabelul de mai jos? F1 ADISAB EVM6_16_1 16.Altele F1 ADISAB EVM6_16_1_1 16.1. Și anume: F1 ADISAB F1 ADISAB EVM7 EVM7  Persoana are nevoi comportamentale speciale, oricare dintre cele din tabelul de mai F1 ADISAB jos? EVM7_14 EVM7_14. Alte probleme grave de comportament, și anume: F1 ADISAB EVM7_14_1 14.1. Și anume: F1 ADISAB F1 ADISAB C0_P C0_P Dosarul a conținut o evaluare psihologică pe lângă celelalte documente medicale? F1 ADISAB C1_M C1_M Documentele la dosar au fost suficiente sau a fost solicitată completarea dosarului cu F1 ADISAB investigaţii paraclinice sau documente suplimentare (de orice tip)? C1_P C1_P Documentele la dosar au fost suficiente sau a fost solicitată completarea dosarului cu F1 ADISAB investigaţii paraclinice sau documente suplimentare (de orice tip)? C2_M C2_M Documente au avut concluzii/diagnostice vagi sau neclare? F1 ADISAB C2_P C2_P Documente au avut concluzii/diagnostice vagi sau neclare? F1 ADISAB C3_M C3_M Documente au avut concluzii/diagnostice incomplete? F1 ADISAB C3_P C3_P Documente au avut concluzii/diagnostice incomplete? F1 ADISAB C4_M C4_M Documente au avut concluzii/ diagnostice contradictorii? F1 ADISAB C4_P C4_P Documente au avut concluzii/ diagnostice contradictorii? F1 ADISAB C5_M C5_M Au existat suspiciuni privind corectitudinea documentelor? F1 ADISAB C5_P C5_P Au existat suspiciuni privind corectitudinea documentelor? F1 ADISAB C0bis_M A fost solicitată completarea dosarului cu investigaţii paraclinice sau documente suplimentare (de F1 ADISAB orice tip)? C0bis_P A fost solicitată completarea dosarului cu investigaţii paraclinice sau documente suplimentare (de F1 ADISAB orice tip)? C6_M C6_M ... care a fost calitatea datelor din documentele de la dosar? F1 ADISAB C6_P C6_P ... care a fost calitatea datelor din documentele de la dosar? F1 ADISAB C9_M C9_M ... ... în ce măsură ați putut aplica criteriile medicale și psihologice revizuite folosind F1 ADISAB documentele existente la dosar? C9_P C9_P ... î... în ce măsură ați putut aplica criteriile medicale și psihologice revizuite folosind F1 ADISAB documentele existente la dosar? C7_M C7_M ... în ce măsură considerați că scorul medical și psihologic pe care l-ați acordat (conform F1 ADISAB criteriilor revizuite) reflectă situația reală a persoanei? 90 Variable Label Tool Database C7_P C7_P ... în ce măsură considerați că scorul medical și psihologic pe care l-ați acordat (conform F1 ADISAB criteriilor revizuite) reflectă situația reală a persoanei? C8_M C8_M Explicați care a fost problema sau dificultățile întâmpinate? F1 ADISAB C8_P C8_P Explicați care a fost problema sau dificultățile întâmpinate? F1 ADISAB EVN01 EVN01  Probleme de vedere F1 ADISAB EVN01_a a. Trebuie folosite cardurile adaptate pentru interviuri? F1 ADISAB EVN02 EVN02   Probleme de auz* F1 ADISAB EVN02_a a. Este necesară prezența unui interpret de limbajul semnelor în cadrul interviurilor? F1 ADISAB EVN03 EVN02   Probleme de înțelegere** Persoana are tulburări psihiatrice cu simptome F1 ADISAB psihotice sau dizabilități intelectuale, ca diagnostic primar sau asociat ? TIMEF1_b TIMEF1 a. Câte minute a durat analiza documentelor de la dosar și interviul cu persoana F1 ADISAB evaluată pentru a completa secțiunile 2 și 3 din acest formular? DATA_F2 DATA Data completării F2 F2 ADISAB OMSF_1 OMSF  Evaluator SECPAH: CodeS. F2 ADISAB OMSFalt La interviu, pe lângă evaluator, participă și alți membri SECPAH cu alte specializări** F2 ADISAB OMSF_0 OMSF  1. Membru 1_F2 F2 ADISAB OMSF_2 2. Membru 2_F2 F2 ADISAB INTW1 INTW1  Unde are loc interacțiunea? F2 ADISAB INTW1_4 4.1 Și anume: F2 ADISAB INTW3 INTW3  Unde are loc interacțiunea? F2 ADISAB INTW1_5 5.1 Și anume: F2 ADISAB INTW2__1 INTW2  Participanți:a. Persoana care trebuie evaluată F2 ADISAB INTW2__2 INTW2  Participanți:b. Responsabilul de caz desemnat F2 ADISAB INTW2__3 INTW2  Participanți:c. Reprezentant legal/însoțitor/familie* F2 ADISAB INTW2__4 INTW2  Participanți:e. Alte persoane care nu sunt specialiști SECPAH F2 ADISAB INTW2__5 INTW2  Participanți:e1. Și anume: ... F2 ADISAB INTW2_5 e1. Și anume F2 ADISAB F2 ADISAB F2 ADISAB F2 ADISAB F2 ADISAB F2 ADISAB D5_01 D5.01   În ultimele 30 de zile, în câte zile ați redus sau ați renunțat complet la munca F2 ADISAB casnică din cauza stării dumneavoastră de sănătate? OCED OCED  În prezent, persoana desfășoară orice formă de muncă plătită sau neplătită (chiar și F2 ADISAB pentru câteva ore pe săptămână) sau urmează o formă de învățământ sau de formare profesională (de orice tip)? F2 ADISAB D5_02 D5.02   În ultimele 30 de zile, în câte zile ați lipsit de la serviciu pentru o jumătate de zi F2 ADISAB sau mai mult din cauza stării dumneavoastră de sănătate? D5_9 D5.9   Ați fost nevoit să lucrați la un nivel inferior pregătirii pe care o aveți din cauza F2 ADISAB unei probleme de sănătate? D5_10 D5.10   Ați câștigat mai puțini bani ca urmare a unei probleme de sănătate? F2 ADISAB F2 ADISAB RD6_6 Results D6 FBOM1 Pe o scală de la 1 la 10 (ca la școală), cât de relevante considerați că au fost întrebările pentru situația F2 ADISAB Dvs.? FBOM2 Pe o scală de la 1 la 10 (ca la școală), ce notă dați pentru cât de respectuos a fost desfășurat interviul? F2 ADISAB FBEV1 Pe o scală de la 1 – deloc dificil la 10 – extrem de dificil, cât de greu a fost să aplicați WHODAS+RO? F2 ADISAB FBEV2 Ați întâmpinat dificultăți în atribuirea calificatorilor? F2 ADISAB FBEV2_a__0 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:0 F2 ADISAB FBEV2_a__1 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:1 F2 ADISAB FBEV2_a__2 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:2 F2 ADISAB FBEV2_a__3 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:3 F2 ADISAB FBEV2_a__4 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:4 F2 ADISAB FBEV2_a__5 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:5 F2 ADISAB FBEV2_a__6 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:6 FBEV2_a__7 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:7 FBEV2_a__8 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:8 FBEV2_a__9 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:9 FBEV2_a__10 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:10 FBEV2_a__11 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:11 FBEV2_a__12 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:12 FBEV2_a__13 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:13 FBEV2_a__14 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:14 FBEV2_a__15 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:15 FBEV2_a__16 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:16 FBEV2_a__17 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:17 FBEV2_a__18 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:18 FBEV2_a__19 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:19 FBEV2_a__20 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:20 FBEV2_a__21 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:21 FBEV2_a__22 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:22 FBEV2_a__23 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:23 FBEV2_a__24 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:24 FBEV2_a__25 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:25 FBEV2_a__26 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:26 FBEV2_a__27 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:27 FBEV2_a__28 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:28 FBEV2_a__29 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:29 FBEV2_a__30 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:30 FBEV2_a__31 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:31 FBEV2_a__32 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:32 FBEV2_a__33 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:33 FBEV2_a__34 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:34 91 Variable Label Tool Database FBEV2_a__35 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:35 FBEV2_a__36 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:36 FBEV2_a__37 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:37 FBEV2_a__38 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:38 FBEV2_a__39 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:39 FBEV2_a__40 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:40 FBEV2_a__41 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:41 FBEV2_a__42 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:42 FBEV2_a__43 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:43 FBEV2_a__44 a. Notați codurile itemilor...:44 FBEV3 FBEV3  Pe o scală de la 1 la 10, ce notă dați pentru acuratețea informațiilor oferite de F2 ADISAB solicitant? FBEV4 FBEV4  Pe o scală de la 1 la 10, în ce măsură ați resimțit un astfel de disconfort în timpul F2 ADISAB aplicării WHODAS+RO? FBEV5 FBEV5  Iar atunci când ați simțit disconfort, ați înregistrat răspunsul dat de solicitant sau l-ați F2 ADISAB modificat pentru ca informațiile să fie mai exacte (să reflecte corect realitatea)? FEI0M1 FEI0M1  MODUL 1. Nevoile în sfera educației și muncii F2 ANEED FEI0M2 MODUL 2. Sprijin pentru o viață independentă – Asistența personală F2 ANEED FEI0M3 MODUL 3. Sprijin pentru o viață independentă – Adaptarea locuinței F2 ANEED FEI0M4 MODUL 4. Nevoile de sprijin în luarea deciziei privind gestionarea resurselor economice F2 ANEED FEI0M5 MODUL 5. Inventar al nevoilor neacoperite de servicii pentru persoanele cu dizabilități F2 ANEED FEIEM FEIEM  Trebuie trimis emailul standard de solicitare de realizare a anchetei sociale de către F2 ANEED SPAS-ul din localitatea de reședință a solicitantului? TIMEF2_b TIMEF2 a.Câte minute a durat aplicarea WHODAS+RO (inclusiv secțiunea de feedback)? F2 ADISAB TIMEF2_c b. Câte minute a durat informarea privind evaluarea nevoilor și completarea FEI? F2 ANEED DATASS DATASS Data completării formularului ASoc în e-PLIN Asoc ANEED OMSS OMSS Specialistul SECPAH care introduce datele din ancheta socială existentă la dosar. CodeS Asoc ANEED DATAS DATAS Data realizării anchetei sociale pe teren Asoc ANEED OMSL_1 OMSL Asistent social/ reprezentant SPAS Asoc ANEED AsocYES Ancheta socială a fost completată ...? Asoc ANEED ACTID_a a. CNP: ACTID_b b. C.N./C.P./B.I./C.I.: Seria ACTID_c c. Nr. ACTID_d d. eliberat de: ACTID_e e. la data: ACTID_f f. valabilitatea: ADRAS_1 str. , nr. , bl. , sc. , ap. ADRAS_1a Cod poștal ADRCO1 ADRCO1   Adresa de corespondență Asoc ANEED CONT1AS_1 1. Telefon CONT1AS_2 2. E-mail CONT2AS CONT2AS   Cum preferă să fie contactat ? Asoc ANEED LMAT Limba maternă Asoc ANEED LMAT5 LMAT5   Și anume: Asoc ANEED RELG Religia Asoc ANEED RELG4 RLEG4   Și anume: Asoc ANEED AFAMAS AFAMAS   Persoana trăiește Asoc ANEED AFAMAS_5 5.1 Altă situație, și anume Asoc ANEED AGO_A A. adulți (18+ ani) Asoc ANEED AGO_K K. copii (0-17 ani) Asoc ANEED NPERS Total Number Asoc ANEED persoanele_list Persoanele din gospodărie Număr total membri în gospodărie: %NPERS% Asoc ANEED Asoc Asoc_HGRID PTUTAS_1 1. Sub tutela unui membru din familie Asoc ANEED PTUTAS_2 2. Sub tutela autorităților locale Asoc ANEED PTUTAS_3 3. Sub curatelă Asoc ANEED PRLEGAS PRLEGAS   Persoana are reprezentant legal ? Asoc ANEED PRLEGAS_1 1. Sex Asoc ANEED PRLEGAS_2 2. Vârsta în ani împliniți Asoc ANEED PRLEGAS_3 3. Calitatea Asoc ANEED PRLEGAS_3_4 3.4 altă rudă, ... Asoc ANEED PRLEGAS_3_5 3.5 altă persoană (nerudă), și anume ... Asoc ANEED PASISTAS Asistent personal Asoc ANEED PASISTAS_1 1. Sex Asoc ANEED PASISTAS_2 2. Vârsta în ani împliniți Asoc ANEED PASISTAS_3 3. Calitatea Asoc ANEED PASISTAS_3_5 3.5 altă persoană (nerudă), și anume ... Asoc ANEED PASISTAS_4 4. AP-ul locuiește cu persoana? Asoc ANEED SIM SIM   Familia beneficiază de servicii de îngrijiri la domiciliu? Asoc ANEED SIM2 SIM2   Familia beneficiază de servicii de îngrijiri la domiciliu? Asoc ANEED OUTSC OUTSC   În care dintre următoarele situații se află persoana evaluată? Asoc ANEED TIPSC__1 TIPSC   Ce tip de școală a urmat?:1. școală de masă Asoc ANEED TIPSC__2 Ce tip de școală a urmat?:2. școală specială Asoc ANEED TIPSC__3 Ce tip de școală a urmat?:3. A doua șansă Asoc ANEED TIPSC__4 Ce tip de școală a urmat?:4. educație la domiciliu Asoc ANEED TIPSC__5 Ce tip de școală a urmat?:5. cursuri de formare Asoc ANEED TIPSC__6 Ce tip de școală a urmat?:6. alte situații, și anume: Asoc ANEED TIPSC_6 6.1 alte situații, și anume:... Asoc ANEED CES Până să împliniți 18 ani ați avut un certificat de cerințe educaționale speciale (CES)? Asoc ANEED CES1 În prezent, mai aveți un certificat de orientare școlară (pentru CES) valabil? Asoc ANEED SFATE Persoana/familia își amintește să fi beneficiat vreodată de consiliere sau orientare școlară sau Asoc ANEED profesională? ABN1 ABN1   Care a fost motivul abandonului? Asoc ANEED ABN1_4 4.1 Alt motiv, și anume: ... Asoc ANEED SCH1 De-a lungul vieții, persoana a urmat orice formă de pregătire profesională finalizată cu o calificare Asoc ANEED sau un atestat? 92 Variable Label Tool Database SCH2 În prezent, persoana urmează vreo formă de pregătire profesională? (de orice tip și nivel, formal sau Asoc ANEED informal etc.) EDNOW În prezent, persoana urmează vreo formă de învățământ sau formare profesională? Asoc ANEED EDHO EDHO   Persoana studiază acasă? Asoc ANEED OUTLM În care dintre următoarele situații se află persoana evaluată? Asoc ANEED OCUP1 Totuși, indiferent de statutul ocupațional principal, persoana a desfășurat în ultimele 12 luni, chiar și Asoc ANEED ocazional, o formă de muncă (orice formă, inclusiv muncă casnică), pentru cel puțin o oră/săptămână? OCNOW În prezent, persoana desfășoară o formă de muncă (de orice tip)? Asoc ANEED OCUP2 Mai precis, ce a muncit persoana cel mai recent? Asoc ANEED OCUP2_1 Munca a constat în ... Asoc ANEED OCHO Persoana lucrează (de) acasă? Asoc ANEED OCUP4 Per total, de-a lungul vieții, ce experiență în muncă a acumulat persoana? Asoc ANEED D155 Indicaţii Asoc ANEED D160 Abilitatea de concentrare Asoc ANEED D177 Luarea deciziilor legate de gestionarea resursele economice Asoc ANEED D230 Realizarea programului zilnic obișnuit Asoc ANEED D2304 A face față circumstanțelor schimbătoare Asoc ANEED D240 A face față situațiilor stresante Asoc ANEED D330 Comunicarea Asoc ANEED D410_15 Schimbarea și menținerea poziției corpului Asoc ANEED D420a Folosirea toaletei și transferarea Asoc ANEED D420b Transferul în pat sau în scaunul rulant Asoc ANEED D4551 Folosirea scărilor Asoc ANEED D450_60_65 Mersul, deplasarea Asoc ANEED D4708 A-şi găsi drumul în comunitatea locală Asoc ANEED D510_20_40 Îngrijirea personală Asoc ANEED D530 Igiena intimă Asoc ANEED D550 Hrănire Asoc ANEED D570 Îngrijirea sănătății și administrarea medicației Asoc ANEED D620 Efectuarea cumpărăturilor Asoc ANEED D630 Pregătirea hranei Asoc ANEED D640 Activitățile casnice Asoc ANEED D710 Relații sociale Asoc ANEED D720 Controlul trăirilor Asoc ANEED D860 Utilizarea banilor Asoc ANEED D865_70 Gestionarea resurselor economice/ Independența economică Asoc ANEED NX1 Persoana are afecțiuni cognitive și se întâmplă/are obiceiul să plece de acasă/din zona imediată fără Asoc ANEED să informeze alte persoane? NX2 Persoana are comportamente de auto-rănire? Asoc ANEED NX3 Persoana are comportamente ofensive sau violente faţă de alte persoane? Asoc ANEED NX4 Persoana este la risc de abuz de alcool? Asoc ANEED NX5 Factori de risc de abuz și neglijare a persoanei cu dizabilități de către membrii familiei, vecini, colegi Asoc ANEED sau alte persoane din comunitate? NX6 Rețeaua de sprijin a persoanei evaluate este ...? Asoc ANEED LOCYES Persoana (sau familia sa) are o locuință? Asoc HOUSE LOCTIP Tip locuință Asoc HOUSE LOCAN Anul în care a fost construită clădirea? Asoc HOUSE ETJ La ce etaj se află locuința în cadrul clădirii? Asoc HOUSE ETJ_1 La etajul Asoc HOUSE ETJL Număr etaje în locuință? Asoc HOUSE ETJD În cadrul locuinței, la ce etaj, se află dormitorul persoanei cu dizabilități? Asoc HOUSE ETJD_1 La etajul Asoc HOUSE ETJB În cadrul locuinței, la ce etaj, se află baia persoanei cu dizabilități? Asoc HOUSE ETJB_1 La etajul Asoc HOUSE USAS De la carosabil/stradă și până în interiorul locuinței, există borduri, podeț, scări sau alte tipuri de Asoc HOUSE praguri? USA USA   Intrarea în locuință este la: Asoc HOUSE USA_1 La etajul Asoc HOUSE USAA Accesul la intrare este: Asoc HOUSE LIFT Clădirea este dotată cu: Asoc HOUSE GEOL__1 Persoană cu dizabilități deosebit de vulnerabilă în caz de urgență:1. Persoană cu dizabilități motorii Asoc HOUSE care locuiește la etaj într-o zonă cu risc de cutremur GEOL__2 Persoană cu dizabilități deosebit de vulnerabilă în caz de urgență:2. Persoană imobilizată la pat care Asoc HOUSE locuiește la parter într-o zonă inundabilă GEOL__3 Persoană cu dizabilități deosebit de vulnerabilă în caz de urgență:3. Persoană care locuiește pe o Asoc HOUSE stradă greu accesibilă de către serviciile de transport de urgență GEOL__4 Persoană cu dizabilități deosebit de vulnerabilă în caz de urgență:4. Alte situații problematice în ceea Asoc HOUSE ce privește asistența în caz de dezastre naturale sau în situații de urgență GEOL__0 Persoană cu dizabilități deosebit de vulnerabilă în caz de urgență:0. Nu există vulnerabilități în caz de Asoc HOUSE urgență MP Suprafața locuibilă totală- m²: Asoc HOUSE MPOM m²/persoană Asoc HOUSE CAM Număr camere în locuință: Asoc HOUSE CAMN Familia consideră că numărul de camere din locuință satisface nevoile sale specifice? Asoc HOUSE RISCH Locuința prezintă oricare dintre următoarele probleme: scurgeri prin acoperiș, pereți umezi, Asoc HOUSE ferestre/dușumele putrede/ deteriorate? OBSL Locuința este întreținută, este păstrată igiena? Asoc HOUSE UTILL__1 Locuința este conectată la::1. electricitate Asoc HOUSE UTILL__2 Locuința este conectată la::2. canalizare Asoc HOUSE UTILL__3 Locuința este conectată la::3. gaze Asoc HOUSE UTILL__4 Locuința este conectată la::4. apă curentă Asoc HOUSE UTILL__5 Locuința este conectată la::5. rețea TV prin cablu Asoc HOUSE UTILL__6 Locuința este conectată la::6. Internet Asoc HOUSE DTRI Familia are datorii la plata utilităților (electricitate, apă, gaze etc.) și/ sau a chiriei (dacă este cazul)? Asoc HOUSE APA Familia are acces la sursă de apă necontaminată? Asoc HOUSE 93 Variable Label Tool Database BUC Locuința are spațiu special amenajat pentru prepararea și păstrarea hranei? Asoc HOUSE ARGZ Locuința are aparatura necesară (aragaz, plită, frigider) pentru prepararea și păstrarea hranei? Asoc HOUSE PAT În ultimele 6 luni s-a întâmplat ca un membru al gospodăriei să doarmă în altă parte (pe podea, pe o Asoc HOUSE laviță, în grajd etc.) din cauză că nu are loc într-un pat? PATC Fiecare pat este dotat cu toate echipamentele necesare (cearceafuri, pături, perne etc.)? Asoc HOUSE LIZ Locuința se află într-o zonă izolată, greu accesibilă? Asoc HOUSE GEOZM Locuința este situată într-o zonă marginalizată (care concentrează populație săracă, cu un nivel redus Asoc HOUSE de educație și ocupare și care trăiește în locuințe improprii) WC WC-ul este situat: Asoc HOUSE HEAT Încălzirea locuinței este: Asoc HOUSE PROPL Proprietate asupra locuinței în care trăiește familia Asoc HOUSE HACT Familia are acte pe locuință? Asoc HOUSE TACT Familia are acte pe terenul pe care este construită Asoc HOUSE LOCB1 Familia beneficiază de scutirea de la impozitul pe teren/locuință? Asoc HOUSE LOCB2 Familia beneficiază de scutirea de la plata chiriei în locuințe sociale? Asoc HOUSE Asoc HOUSE Asoc HOUSE PA12 Altele, și anume: Asoc HOUSE TRA1 Cât de aproape locuiește persoana de o stație de autobuz/microbuz, de o gară sau alt mijloc de Asoc ANEED transport? TRA2 De obicei, cum se deplasează persoana? Asoc ANEED D470_75 Și, de obicei, ce mijloc folosește? Asoc ANEED OUTH De obicei, cât de des iese persoana din casă? Asoc ANEED OUTH1 De obicei, cât de des iese persoana din casă? Asoc ANEED OUTT1 Persoana beneficiază de gratuitate pentru transportul urban de suprafață și metrou, pentru Asoc ANEED persoanele cu handicap grav și accentuat? OUTT2 Persoana beneficiază de gratuitatea transportului interurban, la alegere, cu orice tip de tren, în limita Asoc ANEED costului unui bilet la tren interregio IR cu regim de rezervare la clasa a II-a, cu autobuzele sau cu navele pentru transport fluvial, pentru 12 călătorii dus-întors pe an calendaristic (handicap grav) și 6 călătorii (handicap accentuat)? RAB1 Persoana a beneficiat ]n ultimele 12 luni de bilete de intrare la spectacole, muzee, manifestări Asoc ANEED artistice? SAL În luna trecută, suma totală de bani obținută din salarii, pensii, alocații, prestații, vânzări, muncă cu Asoc ANEED ziua etc. de către toți membrii gospodăriei (inclusiv persoana cu dizabilități), a fost de aproximativ SALDZ În luna trecută, suma totală de bani obținută de persoana cu dizabilități evaluată, din orice surse, a Asoc ANEED fost de ...lei/persoană VPP lei/persoană Asoc ANEED RISC1a Familie aflată la risc de sărăcie monetară Asoc ANEED FRG În iarna trecută, familia nu și-a permis să încălzească locuința cel puțin de câteva ori pe lună și au Asoc ANEED dormit în frig (include zilnic, săptămânal)? HNGR În ultimele 6 luni, familia nu a avut hrană suficientă pentru toți membrii și unii membri au rămas Asoc ANEED nemâncați cel puțin de câteva ori pe lună (include zilnic, săptămânal)? RISC1b Familie aflată la risc de sărăcie extremă Asoc ANEED VMG ... ajutor social (venit minim garantat) Asoc ANEED ASF ... alocație pentru susținerea familiei Asoc ANEED URG ... ajutor de urgență Asoc ANEED LMN ... ajutor pentru încălzirea locuinței (subvenție căldură, lemne) Asoc ANEED ALUE ... a primit alimente de la primărie (UE) Asoc ANEED MEAL ... de serviciile unei cantine sociale, masă caldă, masă pe roți Asoc ANEED RISC1c Familie cu venituri reduse care nu primește beneficii adresate sărăciei, din diferite motive Asoc ANEED BDZ1 Indemnizație lunară pentru persoanele cu dizabilități Asoc ANEED BDZ2 Buget personal complementar pentru persoanele cu dizabilități Asoc ANEED BDZ3 Salariu asistent personal Asoc ANEED BDZ4 Indemnizație lunară (în locul asistentului personal - AP) pentru grad de handicap grav cu AP, alții Asoc ANEED decât nevăzătorii BDZ5 Indemnizație de însoțitor pentru adultul cu handicap vizual grav Asoc ANEED PDZ1 Pensie de încadrare în grad de handicap Asoc ANEED PDZ2 Pensie de invaliditate Asoc ANEED BBDZ Stimulent de integrare socială oferit de primăria municipiului București Asoc ANEED SAL_AS În luna trecută, suma totală de bani cheltuită de către toți membrii gospodăriei (inclusiv persoana cu Asoc ANEED dizabilități), pentru hrană, plata utilităților, servicii de sănătate/medicamente, orice alte bunuri și servicii (de orice fel, inclusiv tutun și alcool), a fost de aproximativ … SALDZ_AS În luna trecută, suma totală de bani cheltuită special pentru îngrijirea sănătății și funcționării Asoc ANEED persoanei cu dizabilități evaluate a fost de aproximativ ... SDZ Scutire impozit pe venit pentru persoanele cu handicap grav sau accentuat, pentru veniturile din Asoc ANEED activități independente, salarii, pensii, veniturile din activități agricole, silvicultură și piscicultură? CARD Persoana cu dizabilități are un card/cont bancar? Asoc ANEED DEPDZ Există membri adulți ai familiei care nu au venituri proprii și depind economic de persoana cu Asoc ANEED dizabilități? CRED1 Familia are de plătit rate de credit ipotecar pentru locuință? Asoc ANEED CRED11 Familia a luat un credit pentru persoanele cu handicap grav sau accentuat, pentru adaptarea locuinței Asoc ANEED (de max 10.000 euro, cu dobândă subvenționată plătită de DGASPC)? CRED2 Dar rate bancare, altele decât credit imobiliar? Asoc ANEED DTRIOM Familia are datorii altele decât cele la utilități/chirie și decât ratele bancare (spre exemplu, datorii Asoc ANEED către rude, prieteni, vecini, cămătari etc.)? ECON Familia are economii? Asoc ANEED ECON_2 1. Cu aproximație, ce sumă este economisită? Asoc ANEED PROP Familia are proprietăți precum alte case, firme, acțiuni, terenuri, vii, păduri, turme de animale, utilaje Asoc ANEED agricole etc.? PROP_2 1. Persoana cu dizabilități evaluată este proprietar sau co-proprietar la una sau mai multe dintre Asoc ANEED proprietățile familiei? CAR Familia deține unul sau mai multe automobile? Asoc ANEED CAR_1 1. Persoana cu dizabilități evaluată este proprietar sau co-proprietar al automobilului? Asoc ANEED CAR_2 2. Automobilul familiei (sau unul dintre acestea) este adaptat? Asoc ANEED CAR_3 3. Familia beneficiază de scutirea de la impozitul pe mașină? Asoc ANEED CAR_4 4. Familia beneficiază de cardul-legitimație de parcare pentru persoane cu dizabilități? Asoc ANEED 94 Variable Label Tool Database LTG Există litigii, conflicte, interese contrare între persoana cu dizabilități și familia cu care locuiește? Asoc ANEED Asoc ANEED e360_1 a. Și anume … Dacă Alți profesioniști=-1 (Barieră) sau Alți profesioniști=1 (Facilitator) Asoc ANEED e350_1 a. Și anume … Dacă Animale domestice care asigură sprijin fizic, emoţional sau psihologic=-1 Asoc ANEED (Barieră) sau Facilitator e1201a E1201a. Și anume ... to be filled in if e1201=-1. Barieră sau e1201=1. Facilitator Asoc ANEED e1251a E1251a. Și anume ... to be filled in if e1251=-1. Barieră sau e1251=1. Facilitator Asoc ANEED TIMEAS_a a. Câte minute a durat completarea datelor existente deja în birou? Asoc ANEED TIMEAS_b b. Câte minute a durat drumul dus-întors la locuința persoanei? Asoc ANEED TIMEAS_c c. Câte minute a durat vizita/discuția cu persoana evaluată și familia sa? Asoc ANEED DATA_M1 DATA   Data completării M1 M1 ANEED OMS_M1 OMS   Responsabilului de caz CodeS M1 ANEED INT11 Unde are loc interacțiunea ? M1 ANEED INT11_a Și anume: M1 ANEED INT13 Limba în care se desfășoară interviul M1 ANEED INT13_a Și anume: M1 ANEED INT12__1 Participanți:a. Persoana care trebuie evaluată/Solicitantul M1 ANEED INT12__2 Participanți:b. Responsabilul de caz desemnat M1 ANEED INT12__3 Participanți:c. Reprezentant legal/însoțitor/familie M1 ANEED INT12__4 Participanți:e. Alte persoane care nu sunt specialiști SECPAH M1 ANEED INT12_a e1. Și anume: M1 ANEED OMS1 Echipa de interviu - La interviu, pe lângă responsabilul de caz, participă și alți membri SECPAH cu alte M1 ANEED specializări OMS11_a CodS 1_M1 M1 ANEED OMS12_a CodS 2_M1 M1 ANEED MOT1 Acest modul este completat ... M1 ANEED MOT10 Există acordul scris al persoanei evaluate? M1 ANEED MOT11 Cine a depus cererea ? M1 ANEED MOT11_1 Și anume M1 ANEED MOT12 Motivul pentru care a fost solicitată evaluarea ? M1 ANEED MOT12_1 3.Și anume M1 ANEED NIVE_var NIVE variable M1 ANEED VF1a Întrebați persoana ce s-a întâmplat – a terminat sau abandonat cursurile / a pierdut sau a renunțat la M1 ANEED muncă? AVED Persoana este interesată/și-ar dori/s-a gândit vreodată să înceapă sau să continue educația sau orice M1 ANEED formă de formare profesională ? AVED_1 Ce anume ar vrea să învețe ? M1 ANEED AVED_2 De obicei, are nevoie de ajutor pentru a învăța lucruri noi ? M1 ANEED AVED_3 Are/ar avea cine să îl/o ajute ? M1 ANEED AVED_4 Cum învață cel mai bine ? M1 ANEED AVW Persoana este interesată/și-ar dori/s-a gândit vreodată să caute un (nou) loc de muncă (de orice tip, M1 ANEED formală sau informală, voluntariat, chiar și numai câteva ore sau zile pe săptămână, ori doar în vacanțe) ? AVW_1 1. De ce ai vrea să muncești ? M1 ANEED AVW_1_5 Și anume M1 ANEED AVW_2 2. Ce anume ar vrea/i-ar plăcea să lucreze ? M1 ANEED AVW_3 3. De obicei, are nevoie de ajutor pentru găsi sau păstra un loc de muncă ? M1 ANEED AVW_4 4. Are/ar avea cine să îl/o ajute ? M1 ANEED PP1 PP1 M1 ANEED PP2 PP2 M1 ANEED PP3 PP3 M1 ANEED PP4 PP4 M1 ANEED PP5 PP5 M1 ANEED PP6 PP6 M1 ANEED PP7 PP7 M1 ANEED PP8 PP8 M1 ANEED PP9 PP9 M1 ANEED PP10 PP10 M1 ANEED PP11 PP11 M1 ANEED PP12 PP12 M1 ANEED PPTotal PPTotal M1 ANEED Ppalone No. of activities that can be done by the person alone M1 ANEED Pphelp No. of activities that can be done only with support M1 ANEED Ppno No. of activities out of scope M1 ANEED Ppscor Hofstede index for Vocational potential M1 ANEED M1 ANEED NSA__1 Orice fel de ajutoare și adaptări care ar putea sprijini persoana în instruire şi în activităţile M1 ANEED profesionale, dintre următoarele::1. Scaun special NSA__2 Orice fel de ajutoare și adaptări care ar putea sprijini persoana în instruire şi în activităţile M1 ANEED profesionale, dintre următoarele::2. Echipament care te ajută să vezi ecranul computerului. NSA__3 Orice fel de ajutoare și adaptări care ar putea sprijini persoana în instruire şi în activităţile M1 ANEED profesionale, dintre următoarele::3. Telefon special NSA__4 Orice fel de ajutoare și adaptări care ar putea sprijini persoana în instruire şi în activităţile M1 ANEED profesionale, dintre următoarele::4. Birou special NSA__5 Orice fel de ajutoare și adaptări care ar putea sprijini persoana în instruire şi în activităţile M1 ANEED profesionale, dintre următoarele::5. Preparator de muncă (cineva care te ajută să înveți sarcinile de lucru) NSA__6 Orice fel de ajutoare și adaptări care ar putea sprijini persoana în instruire şi în activităţile M1 ANEED profesionale, dintre următoarele::6. Interpret pentru limbajul semnelor NSA__7 Orice fel de ajutoare și adaptări care ar putea sprijini persoana în instruire şi în activităţile M1 ANEED profesionale, dintre următoarele::7. Alte ajutoare și adaptări NSA__8 Orice fel de ajutoare și adaptări care ar putea sprijini persoana în instruire şi în activităţile M1 ANEED profesionale, dintre următoarele::8. Modificarea și/sau adaptarea programului de lucru în conformitate cu potențialul funcțional al persoanei cu handicap (cf. art. 5, pct. 4. din Legea nr. 448/2006) NSA1 7.Și anume M1 ANEED 95 Variable Label Tool Database FM1 MODULUL 1 a fost completat? M1 ANEED FM11 Persoana a primit Profilul de potențial profesional? M1 ANEED TIME1_b a. Câte minute a durat interviul cu solicitantul? M1 ANEED DATA_M2 Data completării M2 M2 ANEED OMS_M2 Specialistul SECPAH       CodeS M2 ANEED INT21 Unde are loc interacțiunea ? M2 ANEED INT21_a Și anume M2 ANEED INT23 Limba în care se desfășoară interviul M2 ANEED INT23_a Și anume M2 ANEED INT22__1 Participanți:a. Persoana care trebuie evaluată/Solicitantul M2 ANEED INT22__2 Participanți:b. Responsabilul de caz desemnat M2 ANEED INT22__3 Participanți:c. Reprezentant legal/însoțitor/familie M2 ANEED INT22__4 Participanți:e. Alte persoane care nu sunt specialiști SECPAH M2 ANEED INT22_e e1. Și anume: ... M2 ANEED OMS2 OMS2 Echipa de interviu - La interviu, pe lângă responsabilul de caz, participă și alți membri SECPAH M2 ANEED cu alte specializări*** OMS21 OMS2_1 Membru 1_M2 M2 ANEED OMS22 OMS2_2 Membru 2_M2 M2 ANEED BTZ_A Ora de trezire dimineața M2 ANEED BTZ_B Ora de culcare seara M2 ANEED BTZ1 BTZ1 - Igienă corporală și intimă/ îmbrăcare/dezbrăcare - ORELE 6-14 M2 ANEED BTZ1_2 BTZ1_2 - Igienă corporală și intimă/ îmbrăcare/dezbrăcare - ORELE 14-22 M2 ANEED BTZ1_3 BTZ1_3 - Igienă corporală și intimă/ îmbrăcare/dezbrăcare - ORELE 22-6 M2 ANEED BTZ2 BTZ2 M2 ANEED BTZ2_2 BTZ2_2 M2 ANEED BTZ2_3 BTZ2_3 M2 ANEED BTZ9 BTZ9 M2 ANEED BTZ9_2 BTZ9_2 M2 ANEED BTZ9_3 BTZ9_3 M2 ANEED BTZ5 BTZ5 M2 ANEED BTZ5_2 BTZ5_2 M2 ANEED BTZ5_3 BTZ5_3 M2 ANEED BTZ4 BTZ4 M2 ANEED BTZ4_2 BTZ4_2 M2 ANEED BTZ4_3 BTZ4_3 M2 ANEED BTZ7 BTZ7 M2 ANEED BTZ7_2 BTZ7_2 M2 ANEED BTZ7_3 BTZ7_3 M2 ANEED BTZ12 BTZ12 M2 ANEED BTZ12_2 BTZ12_2 M2 ANEED BTZ12_3 BTZ12_3 M2 ANEED BTZ13 BTZ13 M2 ANEED BTZ13_2 BTZ13_2 M2 ANEED BTZ13_3 BTZ13_3 M2 ANEED BTZ10 BTZ10 M2 ANEED BTZ10_2 BTZ10_2 M2 ANEED BTZ10_3 BTZ10_3 M2 ANEED BTZ11 BTZ11 M2 ANEED BTZ11_2 BTZ11_2 M2 ANEED BTZ11_3 BTZ11_3 M2 ANEED BTZ8 BTZ8 M2 ANEED BTZ8_2 BTZ8_2 M2 ANEED BTZ8_3 BTZ8_3 M2 ANEED BTZ6 Odihnă/somn - ORELE 6-14 M2 ANEED BTZ6_2 Odihnă/somn - ORELE 14-22 M2 ANEED BTZ6_3 Odihnă/somn - ORELE 22-6 M2 ANEED M2 ANEED & M2_T3.1 PASIST_M2 Persoana beneficiază de asistență personală ? M2 ANEED PASIST_M2_1 1. Sex: M2 ANEED PASIST_M2_2 2. Vârsta în ani împliniți: M2 ANEED PASIST_M2_3 3. Calitatea: M2 ANEED PASIST_M2_3_4 4. altă rudă, ... M2 ANEED PASIST_M2_3_5 5. altă persoană (nerudă), și anume M2 ANEED PASIST_4 4. APP/AP-ul locuiește cu persoana ? M2 ANEED M2 ANEED NP1 Persoana are nevoie de ajutor/sprijin în ceea ce privește igiena corporală ? M2 ANEED M2 ANEED NP1A Altele M2 ANEED NP1a_A Și anume M2 ANEED NP13 FRECVENȚA cu care este necesar ajutorul: M2 ANEED NP2 Persoana are nevoie de ajutor/sprijin în ceea ce privește igiena intimă și folosirea toaletei ? M2 ANEED M2 ANEED NP2b Altele M2 ANEED NP2b_b Și anume M2 ANEED NP23 FRECVENȚA cu care este necesar ajutorul: M2 ANEED NP3 Persoana are nevoie de ajutor/sprijin în ceea ce privește îmbrăcarea/dezbrăcarea ? M2 ANEED M2 ANEED NP3a Altele M2 ANEED NP3a_a Și anume M2 ANEED NP33 FRECVENȚA cu care este necesar ajutorul: M2 ANEED NP4 Persoana are nevoie de ajutor/sprijin în ceea ce privește hrănirea ? M2 ANEED M2 ANEED NP4a Altele M2 ANEED NP4a_a Și anume M2 ANEED NP43 FRECVENȚA cu care este necesar ajutorul: M2 ANEED 96 Variable Label Tool Database NP5 Persoana are nevoie de ajutor/sprijin în ceea ce privește schimbarea/menținerea poziției corpului și M2 ANEED deplasarea ? M2 ANEED NP5a Altele M2 ANEED NP5a_a Și anume M2 ANEED NP53 FRECVENȚA cu care este necesar ajutorul: M2 ANEED NP6 Persoana are nevoie de ajutor/sprijin în ceea ce privește comunicarea ? M2 ANEED NP6_a a. Persoana folosește vreun mijloc de comunicare? M2 ANEED NP6_a_a Și anume M2 ANEED NP6_b b. Este nevoie de o a treia persoană pentru a face posibilă comunicarea? M2 ANEED NP6_c c. Alte nevoi de sprijin M2 ANEED NP6_c_c Și anume M2 ANEED NP63 FRECVENȚA cu care este necesar ajutorul: M2 ANEED NPALL NEVOI PERSONALE M2 ANEED NC1 Persoana are nevoie de ajutor/sprijin în ceea ce privește cumpărăturile? M2 ANEED M2 ANEED NC1b Altele M2 ANEED NC1b_b Și anume M2 ANEED NC13 FRECVENȚA cu care este necesar ajutorul: M2 ANEED NC2 Persoana are nevoie de ajutor/sprijin în ceea ce privește prepararea hranei? M2 ANEED M2 ANEED NC2a Altele M2 ANEED NC2a_b Și anume M2 ANEED NC23 FRECVENȚA cu care este necesar ajutorul: M2 ANEED NC3 Persoana are nevoie de ajutor/sprijin în ceea ce privește treburile casnice ? M2 ANEED M2 ANEED NC3a Altele M2 ANEED NC3a_a Și anume M2 ANEED NC33 FRECVENȚA cu care este necesar ajutorul: M2 ANEED NC4 Persoana are nevoie de ajutor/sprijin în ceea ce privește îngrijirea sănătății ? M2 ANEED M2 ANEED NC4a Altele M2 ANEED NC4a_a Și anume M2 ANEED NC43 FRECVENȚA cu care este necesar ajutorul: M2 ANEED NC5 Persoana are nevoie de ajutor/sprijin pentru a-și îndeplini rolul de părinte ? M2 ANEED M2 ANEED NC5a Altele M2 ANEED NC5a_a Și anume M2 ANEED NC53 FRECVENȚA cu care este necesar ajutorul: M2 ANEED NCALL NEVOI CASNICE M2 ANEED NS1 Persoana are nevoie de ajutor/sprijin în desfășurarea activității de muncă sau în finalizarea studiilor ? M2 ANEED M2 ANEED NS1a Altele M2 ANEED NC1a_b Și anume M2 ANEED NS13 FRECVENȚA cu care este necesar ajutorul: M2 ANEED NS2 Persoana are nevoie de ajutor/sprijin în gestionarea propriilor venituri și resurse economice ? M2 ANEED M2 ANEED NS2a Altele M2 ANEED NS2a_b Și anume M2 ANEED NS23 FRECVENȚA cu care este necesar ajutorul: M2 ANEED NS3 Persoana are nevoie de ajutor/sprijin în participarea la activități de timp liber sau activități sociale în M2 ANEED comunitate ? M2 ANEED NS3a Altele M2 ANEED NS3a_a Și anume M2 ANEED NS33 FRECVENȚA cu care este necesar ajutorul: M2 ANEED NS4 Persoana are nevoie de ajutor/sprijin în ceea ce privește îngrijirea sănătății ? M2 ANEED NS4_a a. Persoana folosește vreun mijloc de transport (public sau privat)? M2 ANEED NS4_a_a Și anume M2 ANEED NS4_b b. Persoana are nevoie de însoțitor pentru a se putea deplasa în afara locuinței? M2 ANEED NS4_c c. Alte nevoi de sprijin M2 ANEED NS4_c_a Și anume M2 ANEED NS43 FRECVENȚA cu care este necesar ajutorul: M2 ANEED NS5 Persoana are nevoie de ajutor/sprijin în participarea la interacțiuni interpersonale ? M2 ANEED M2 ANEED NS5a Altele M2 ANEED NS5a_a Și anume M2 ANEED NS53 FRECVENȚA cu care este necesar ajutorul: M2 ANEED NSALL NEVOI SOCIALE M2 ANEED OTHN OTHN   Solicitantul are nevoie de alte forme de ajutor, care nu au fost menționate M2 ANEED anterior și sunt importante pentru bunăstarea sa?%NX1% OTHN_1 1 M2 ANEED OTHN_2 2 M2 ANEED OTHN_3 3 M2 ANEED CLDAP1_M2 Decizia echipei SECPAH 1. Solicitantul are nevoie de asistență personală …, cf SECPAH M2 ANEED CLDAP2_M2 Decizia echipei SECPAH 2. Numărul de ore de asistență personală estimate …, cf SECPAH M2 ANEED CLDAP3_M2 Decizia echipei SECPAH 3. Pe parcursul unei zile, asistența este necesară cu precădere …, cf SECPAH M2 ANEED CLDAP3_M2_1 Decizia echipei SECPAH 3. Pe parcursul unei zile, asistența este necesară ... 1. DIMINEAȚA M2 ANEED CLDAP3_M2_2 Decizia echipei SECPAH 3. Pe parcursul unei zile, asistența este necesară ... 2. DUPĂ-AMIAZA M2 ANEED CLDAP3_M2_3 Decizia echipei SECPAH 3. Pe parcursul unei zile, asistența este necesară ... 3. NOAPTEA M2 ANEED CLDAP4_M2 Decizia echipei SECPAH 4. Solicitantul are nevoie de asistență personală M2 ANEED CLDAP4_M2_1 Decizia echipei SECPAH 4. Solicitantul are nevoie de asistență personală …- 1. NEVOI PERSONALE, cf M2 ANEED SECPAH CLDAP4_M2_2 Decizia echipei SECPAH 4. Solicitantul are nevoie de asistență personală …- 2. NEVOI CASNICE, cf M2 ANEED SECPAH 97 Variable Label Tool Database CLDAP4_M2_3 Decizia echipei SECPAH 4. Solicitantul are nevoie de asistență personală …- 3. NEVOI SOCIALE, cf M2 ANEED SECPAH M2 ANEED ORGAP1 Solicitantul are o rețea de îngrijire în comunitate care este adecvată și nu prezintă factori de risc de M2 ANEED abuz și neglijare a persoanei cu dizabilități? ORGAP2 Familia (un membru al familiei) sau cineva din rețeaua de îngrijire dorește să ofere îngrijire persoanei M2 ANEED solicitante, până la următoarea evaluare a nevoilor de asistență personală? ORGAP3 Persoana solicitantă dorește să fie îngrijită de familie (un membru al familiei) sau cineva din rețeaua M2 ANEED de îngrijire? ORGAP4 Persoana solicitantă dorește să trăiască în locuința unei persoane atestate ca asistent personal M2 ANEED profesionist de la care să primească îngrijire și asistență? DECAP DECAP   În urma analizei tuturor datelor, specialiștii SECPAH recomandă ca asistența M2 ANEED personală să fie furnizată să fie acordată prin: DECAP_b__1 Pentru îmbunătățirea procedurii de potrivire se poate ține cont de preferințele solicitantului cu privire M2 ANEED la::1. Contează dacă asistentul dvs. personal este femeie, bărbat sau o familie (cu sau fără copii) ? DECAP_b__2 Pentru îmbunătățirea procedurii de potrivire se poate ține cont de preferințele solicitantului cu privire M2 ANEED la::2. Contează vârsta pe care o are APP-ul? Dacă da, care ar fi intervalul de vârstă preferat ? DECAP_b__3 Pentru îmbunătățirea procedurii de potrivire se poate ține cont de preferințele solicitantului cu privire M2 ANEED la::3. Contează dacă APP-ul fumează ? DECAP_b__4 Pentru îmbunătățirea procedurii de potrivire se poate ține cont de preferințele solicitantului cu privire M2 ANEED la::4. Este important pentru dvs. să fie ordine în casă ? DECAP_b__5 Pentru îmbunătățirea procedurii de potrivire se poate ține cont de preferințele solicitantului cu privire M2 ANEED la::5. Vă place să fie liniște în casă ? DECAP_b__6 Pentru îmbunătățirea procedurii de potrivire se poate ține cont de preferințele solicitantului cu privire M2 ANEED la::6. Există anumite programe la televizor pe care țineți să le urmăriți ? DECAP_b__7 Pentru îmbunătățirea procedurii de potrivire se poate ține cont de preferințele solicitantului cu privire M2 ANEED la::7. Este importantă religia pentru dvs.? DECAP_b__8 Pentru îmbunătățirea procedurii de potrivire se poate ține cont de preferințele solicitantului cu privire M2 ANEED la::8. Sunteți dispus/ă să delegați anumite sarcini ? DECAP_b__9 Pentru îmbunătățirea procedurii de potrivire se poate ține cont de preferințele solicitantului cu privire M2 ANEED la::9. Preferați să aveți o rutină prestabilită ? DECAP_b__10 Pentru îmbunătățirea procedurii de potrivire se poate ține cont de preferințele solicitantului cu privire M2 ANEED la::10. Doriți să vă treziți mereu la aceeași oră ? DECAP_b__11 Pentru îmbunătățirea procedurii de potrivire se poate ține cont de preferințele solicitantului cu privire M2 ANEED la::11. Vă place să planificați mesele ? DECAP_b__12 Pentru îmbunătățirea procedurii de potrivire se poate ține cont de preferințele solicitantului cu privire M2 ANEED la::12. Dezaprobați consumul de carne ? DECAP_b__13 Pentru îmbunătățirea procedurii de potrivire se poate ține cont de preferințele solicitantului cu privire M2 ANEED la::13. În mod normal, preferați să mâncați singur/ă ? DECAP_b__14 Pentru îmbunătățirea procedurii de potrivire se poate ține cont de preferințele solicitantului cu privire M2 ANEED la::14. Vă place să alegeți hainele cu care vă îmbrăcați ? DECAP_b__15 Pentru îmbunătățirea procedurii de potrivire se poate ține cont de preferințele solicitantului cu privire M2 ANEED la::15. Este aspectul personal important pentru dvs.? DECAP_b__16 Pentru îmbunătățirea procedurii de potrivire se poate ține cont de preferințele solicitantului cu privire M2 ANEED la::16. Vă deranjează dacă alți oameni vă folosesc obiectele personale ? DECAP_b__17 Pentru îmbunătățirea procedurii de potrivire se poate ține cont de preferințele solicitantului cu privire M2 ANEED la::17. Doriți să primiți musafiri ? DECAP_b__18 Pentru îmbunătățirea procedurii de potrivire se poate ține cont de preferințele solicitantului cu privire M2 ANEED la::18. Doriți ca prietenii dvs. să rămână peste noapte ? FM2 MODULUL 2 a fost completat ? M2 ANEED TIME4_M2_a TIME4 a. Câte minute a durat preluarea datelor din diferitele surse pentru a completa datele din acest M2 ANEED formular? TIME4_M2_b a. Câte minute a durat interviul cu solicitantul? M2 ANEED DATA_M3 DATA   Data completării M3 M3 HOUSE OMS_M3 OMS   Responsabilului de caz CodeS M3 HOUSE INT31 Unde are loc interacțiunea ? M3 HOUSE INT31_a Și anume M3 HOUSE INT33 Limba în care se desfășoară interviul M3 HOUSE INT33_a Și anume M3 HOUSE INT32__1 Participanți:a. Persoana care trebuie evaluată/Solicitantul M3 HOUSE INT32__2 Participanți:b. Responsabilul de caz desemnat M3 HOUSE INT32__3 Participanți:c. Reprezentant legal/însoțitor/familie M3 HOUSE INT32__4 Participanți:d. Alți specialiști SECPAH INT32__5 Participanți:e. Alte persoane care nu sunt specialiști SECPAH M3 HOUSE INT32_e e1. Și anume: ... M3 HOUSE OMS3 Echipa de interviu M3 AHOUSE OMS31 Membru 1 OMS31_a Specializare OMS31_b Membru 1_M3 M3 AHOUSE OMS32 Membru 2 OMS32_a Specializare OMS32_b Membru 2_M3 M3 AHOUSE AVL1 Persoana este mulțumită de situația curentă privind locuirea sau și-ar dori să se mute? M3 AHOUSE AVL1_a a. Ar dori să se mute: M3 AHOUSE AVL1_a_4 Altă variantă M3 AHOUSE AVL2 Care ar fi preferința tutorelui/ familiei cu privire la aranjamentele de locuire pentru persoana M3 AHOUSE evaluată? AVL3 Familia intenționează să facă un credit cu dobândă subvenționată pentru a crește gradul de adaptare M3 AHOUSE a locuinței la nevoile specifice ale persoanei cu dizabilități? AVL4 Familia intenționează să facă un credit cu dobândă subvenționată pentru a crește gradul de adaptare M3 AHOUSE a locuinței la nevoile specifice ale persoanei cu dizabilități? AVL5_a Dintre toate problemele de accesibilitate, ce ați schimba la casa Dvs. în primul rând? SCHIMBARE 1 M3 AHOUSE AVL5_b Dintre toate problemele de accesibilitate, ce ați schimba la casa Dvs. în primul rând? SCHIMBARE 2 M3 AHOUSE AVL5_c Dintre toate problemele de accesibilitate, ce ați schimba la casa Dvs. în primul rând? SCHIMBARE 3 M3 AHOUSE e515 Credeți că ați găsi un arhitect sau constructor care să va ajute să realizați adaptările în regie proprie? M3 AHOUSE CL1 CONCLUZIILE ECHIPEI SECPAH: Solicitantul are nevoie de sprijin în adaptarea locuinței? M3 AHOUSE & ANEED 98 Variable Label Tool Database CL2__1 Solicitantul are nevoie de sprijin în adaptarea locuinței?:1. Modificări structurale M3 AHOUSE CL2__2 Solicitantul are nevoie de sprijin în adaptarea locuinței?:2. Dotarea locuinței cu echipamente și M3 AHOUSE sisteme de accesibilizare CL2__3 Solicitantul are nevoie de sprijin în adaptarea locuinței?:3. Servicii de proiectare și construcție M3 AHOUSE CL2__4 Solicitantul are nevoie de sprijin în adaptarea locuinței?:4. Adaptarea mașinii M3 AHOUSE CL2__5 Solicitantul are nevoie de sprijin în adaptarea locuinței?:5. Altele, și anume M3 AHOUSE FM3 MODULUL 3 a fost completat? M3 AHOUSE & ANEED FM31 Persoana a primit Profilul de potențial profesional? M3 AHOUSE & ANEED CL2_5 4. Altele, și anume ... M3 AHOUSE TIME3_b a. Câte minute a durat interviul cu solicitantul? M3 AHOUSE & ANEED DATA_M4 Data completării M4 M4 ANEED OMS_M4_1 Responsabilului de caz CodeS M4 ANEED INT41 Unde are loc interacțiunea ? M4 ANEED INT41_a Și anume M4 ANEED INT43 Limba în care se desfășoară interviul M4 ANEED INT43_a Și anume M4 ANEED INT42__1 Participanți:a. Persoana care trebuie evaluată/Solicitantul M4 ANEED INT42__2 Participanți:b. Responsabilul de caz desemnat M4 ANEED INT42__3 Participanți:c. Reprezentant legal/însoțitor/familie M4 ANEED INT42__4 Participanți:e. Alte persoane care nu sunt specialiști SECPAH M4 ANEED INT42_e e1. Și anume: ... M4 ANEED OMS4 OMS4 Echipa de interviu. La interviu, pe lângă responsabilul de caz, participă și alți membri SECPAH M4 ANEED cu alte specializări*** OMS41 OMS41 Membru 1 Specializare: OMS41_code Membru 1_M4 M4 ANEED OMS42 OMS42 Membru 2 Specializare: OMS42_code Membru 2_M4 M4 ANEED MOT4 Acest modul este completat ... M4 ANEED MOT40 Există acordul scris al persoanei evaluate? M4 ANEED MOT41 Cine a depus cererea ? M4 ANEED MOT41_a Și anume M4 ANEED MOT42 Motivul pentru care a fost solicitată evaluarea ? M4 ANEED MOT42_a Și anume M4 ANEED MOT43 Persoana/instituția care a solicitat evaluarea a adus dovezi concrete care să arate că persoana nu este M4 ANEED capabilă să își gestioneze resursele financiare / proprietăţile ? MOT43_a a. În ce constau dovezile prezentate ? M4 ANEED MOT43_a_3 Și anume M4 ANEED D860_M4 D860  Utilizarea banilor D620_M4 D620  Efectuarea cumpărăturilor D865_70_M4 D865_70  Gestionarea resurselor economice/ Independența economică D177_M4 D177  Luarea deciziilor legate de gestionarea resursele economice EXP11 Recunoaște bancnotele? M4 ANEED EXP12 Recunoaște monedele? M4 ANEED EXP13 Știe să spună câți bani sunt în total? M4 ANEED EXP14 Are vreo idee ce poate cumpăra cu suma respectivă? M4 ANEED D172 Abilităţile de calcul M4 ANEED D860_a Utilizarea banilor - CONCLUZIE Scorul conform anchetei sociale SPAS (Secțiunea 3) D860_aa A. Scorul conform echipei SECPAH (concluzie interviu) M4 ANEED EXP21 Persoana își face singură cumpărăturile? M4 ANEED EXP21_a a. Știe să spună când a fost ultima dată la cumpărături în ultima săptămână, ce a cumpărat și ce sumă M4 ANEED a plătit? EXP21_b b. Știe să spună cum a selectat produsele cumpărate și cum le-a transportat acasă? M4 ANEED EXP22 Persoana își plătește singură facturile lunare? M4 ANEED EXP22_a a. Știe să enumere ce facturi trebuie să plătească lunar? M4 ANEED EXP22_b b. Știe să spună suma aproximativă pe care o plătește pe facturile lunare (oricare ar fi acestea)? M4 ANEED EXP22_c c. Știe să spună ce se întâmplă dacă nu plătești facturile? M4 ANEED EXP23_a a. Care este perioada acoperită de factură ? M4 ANEED EXP23_b b. Ce sumă trebuie plătită ? M4 ANEED EXP23_c c. Până când trebuie plătită factura (data scadentă) ? M4 ANEED EXP23_d d. Dacă are reclamaţii în legătură cu consumul sau cu suma de plată, cui anume se poate adresa ? M4 ANEED D620_a Efectuarea cumpărăturilor - CONCLUZIE Scorul conform anchetei sociale SPAS (Secțiunea 3) EXP23_bb A. Scorul conform echipei SECPAH (concluzie interviu) M4 ANEED EXP31_a a. Știe să spună care sunt veniturile sale din luna trecută? M4 ANEED EXP31_b b. Știe să spună cum primește veniturile? M4 ANEED EXP31_c c. Își amintește data la care încasează de obicei banii? M4 ANEED EXP32 Persoana are o sumă de bani pe o gestionează singură, după cum crede de cuviință, sau banii se duc M4 ANEED în bugetul familiei/plata serviciului care este gestionat de altcineva? EXP33_a a. Are/înțelege ce este un card/cont bancar? M4 ANEED EXP33_b b. Înțelege că există o diferență între cardul de debit și cardul de credit și care este aceasta? M4 ANEED EXP33_c c. Folosește/știe să folosească un bancomat? M4 ANEED EXP34 Știe să spună dacă familia sa are rate bancare? M4 ANEED EXP35_a a. Știe să spună dacă familia sa are datorii? M4 ANEED EXP35_b b. Înțelege ce înseamnă a avea datorii? M4 ANEED EXP35_c c. Înțelege ce înseamnă a da/a lua bani cu împrumut? M4 ANEED EXP36_a a. Știe să spună dacă familia sa are economii? M4 ANEED EXP36_b b. Înțelege ce înseamnă a avea datorii? M4 ANEED EXP41_a a. Știe să spună dacă locuința este în proprietatea familiei ? M4 ANEED EXP41_b b. Știe să spună despre sine dacă este proprietar/co-proprietar al locuinței ? M4 ANEED EXP41_c c. Știe să spună dacă familia are acte pe locuință? M4 ANEED EXP41_d d. Știe să spună dacă familia beneficiază de scutire de la impozitul pe teren/locuință M4 ANEED EXP41_e e. Știe dacă familia are rate de credit ipotecar pentru locuință sau dacă plătește chirie, după caz? M4 ANEED EXP41_f f. Aproximează rezonabil rata ipotecară/chiria lunară M4 ANEED EXP41_g g. Aproximează rezonabil cât valorează locuința pe piața liberă M4 ANEED EXP42_a a. Știe să spună dacă familia are în proprietatea unul sau mai multe automobile ? M4 ANEED EXP42_b b. Știe să spună despre sine dacă este proprietar/co-proprietar al automobilului ? M4 ANEED EXP42_aa c. Aproximează rezonabil cât valorează automobilul pe piața liberă M4 ANEED 99 Variable Label Tool Database EXP43_a a. Știe să spună dacă familia deține proprietăți și știe să le numească (măcar pe unele dintre acestea)? M4 ANEED EXP43_b b. Știe să spună despre sine dacă este proprietar/co-proprietar al unei/unor proprietăți? M4 ANEED D865_70_a Gestionarea resurselor economice - CONCLUZIE Scorul conform anchetei sociale SPAS (Secțiunea 3) D865_70_b A. Scorul conform echipei SECPAH (concluzie interviu) M4 ANEED EXP51 Să spunem că persoana evaluată primește din partea unei persoane care pare de încredere M4 ANEED propunerea de a cumpăra o ”antenă minune care captează din aer semnale TV pe care nici o altă antenă nu le-a putut capta până acum și ... primești peste 100 de canale TV complet gratuit și legal, pentru doar 100 de lei”. Ce ar face persoana? EXP52 Să spunem că persoana evaluată primește din partea unei persoane care pare de încredere M4 ANEED propunerea de a cumpăra o ”lampă cu culori care vindecă toate bolile, care costă doar 500 de lei și poate fi plătită în cinci rate”. Ce ar face persoana? EXP53 Să spunem că persoana evaluată primește din partea unei persoane care pare de încredere M4 ANEED propunerea de a investi ”cu doar 100 de lei și actul de la casă poate primi pe loc 2.000 de lei”. Ce ar face persoana? EXP54 Să spunem că în ziua în care primește banii, un vecin ar veni și l-ar ruga să îi împrumute jumătate din M4 ANEED suma pe care a primit-o, pentru o lună. Ce ar face persoana? EXP55 Ce îi place persoanei să facă în timpul liber? Printre activitățile menționate se regăsesc cumva ”jucat M4 ANEED la păcănele”, pariuri sau jocuri de noroc? EXP_C A. Scorul conform echipei SECPAH (concluzie interviu) M4 ANEED EXP61 În următoarele 12 luni, persoana dorește să vândă/cumpere o proprietate sau un bun de valoare? M4 ANEED EXP62 În următoarele 12 luni, persoana dorește să investească o sumă de bani mai mare de trei venituri M4 ANEED totale lunare? EXP63 În următoarele 12 luni, persoana dorește să întocmească acte notariale pentru a primi sau lăsa o M4 ANEED moștenire? EXP64 În următoarele 12 luni, persoana dorește să cumpere produse sau servicii cu o valoare mai mare de M4 ANEED trei venituri totale lunare? EXP65 În următoarele 12 luni, persoana dorește să facă un credit bancar sau să ia un împrumut de la o M4 ANEED instituție financiară sau de la rude/prieteni/vecini etc.? M4 ANEED M4 ANEED D177_1 D177   Scorul conform anchetei sociale SPAS (Secțiunea 3) D177_A A. Scorul conform echipei SECPAH (concluzie interviu) M4 ANEED EXP71 În ultimele 12 luni, cum evaluează persoana că au evoluat lucrurile cu privire la luarea deciziilor legate M4 ANEED de gestionarea resurselor economice? EXP72 În următoarele 12 luni, persoana ar dori/ar fi de acord să primească sprijin în gestionarea resurselor M4 ANEED economice? EXP72_a a. În ce ar consta sprijinul necesar? M4 ANEED EXP72_b b. Cine ar putea/dori persoana să ofere sprijinul necesar? M4 ANEED CLDA1_M4 Înțelege informațiile relevante în legătură cu propria situație ? M4 ANEED CLDA2_M4 Reţine informațiile relevante ? M4 ANEED CLDA3_M4 Utilizează și evaluează informațiile relevante pentru a ajunge la o alegere în cunoștință de cauză ? M4 ANEED CLDA4_M4 Comunică această alegere ? M4 ANEED CLDA1_a DECIZIA ECHIPEI SECPAH Solicitantul are nevoie de sprijin în luarea deciziilor privind gestionarea M4 ANEED resurselor economice? CLDA2_a__1 Sprijinul necesar are în vedere ...?:1. Înțelegerea și utilizarea banilor M4 ANEED CLDA2_a__2 Sprijinul necesar are în vedere ...?:2. Cumpărăturile de zi cu zi M4 ANEED CLDA2_a__3 Sprijinul necesar are în vedere ...?:3. Plățile lunare (facturi, rate etc.) M4 ANEED CLDA2_a__4 Sprijinul necesar are în vedere ...?:4. Gestionarea unui budget personal (nu al familiei) M4 ANEED CLDA2_a__5 Sprijinul necesar are în vedere ...?:5. Gestionarea unui buget al familiei (și pentru alte persoane) M4 ANEED CLDA2_a__6 Sprijinul necesar are în vedere ...?:6. Administrarea conturilor bancare (venituri, economii) M4 ANEED CLDA2_a__7 Sprijinul necesar are în vedere ...?:7. Administrarea proprietăților și a bunurilor de valoare M4 ANEED CLDA2_a__8 Sprijinul necesar are în vedere ...?:8. Plata taxelor și impozitelor M4 ANEED CLDA2_a__9 Sprijinul necesar are în vedere ...?:9. Altele, și anume... M4 ANEED CLDA2_a_9 Altele, și anume M4 ANEED alte_rekomandari_M ALTE RECOMANDĂRI M4 ANEED 4 alte_rekomandari_M ALTE RECOMANDĂRI, și anume M4 ANEED 4_1 FM4 MODULUL 4 a fost completat ? M4 ANEED TIME4_b a. Câte minute a durat interviul cu solicitantul? M4 ANEED DATA_PL Data completării PLIN PLIN ANEED & PLIN OMS_PL_1 Responsabilului de caz CodeS PLIN ANEED & PLIN ECD3a a. Gradul CERTIFICATULUI 2022 obtinut in paralel cu pilotul. PLIN ANEED & PLIN ECD3b b. Tipul CERTIFICATULUI 2022 obtinut in paralel cu pilotul. PLIN ANEED & PLIN ECD3c c. Valabilitatea CERTIFICATULUI 2022 obtinut in paralel cu pilotul. PLIN ANEED & PLIN INT01_PI INT01  Unde are loc interacțiunea? PLIN ANEED & PLIN INT03_PI INT03  Limba în care se desfășoară interviul PLIN ANEED & PLIN INT03_PI_5 Și anume PLIN ANEED & PLIN INT02_PI__1 INT02  Participanți:a. Persoana care trebuie evaluată/Solicitantul PLIN ANEED & PLIN INT02_PI__2 INT02  Participanți:b. Responsabilul de caz desemnat PLIN ANEED & PLIN INT02_PI__3 INT02  Participanți:c. Reprezentant legal/însoțitor/familie PLIN ANEED & PLIN INT02_PI__4 INT02  Participanți:d. Alți specialiști SECPAH INT02_PI__5 INT02  Participanți:e. Alte persoane care nu sunt specialiști SECPAH PLIN ANEED & PLIN CODS_PI CodS. E1_PI e1  Și anume PLIN ANEED & PLIN FM1_PLIN MODULUL 1 a fost completat? PLIN ANEED & PLIN FM2_PLIN MODULUL 2 a fost completat? PLIN ANEED & PLIN FM3_PLIN MODULUL 3 a fost completat? PLIN ANEED & PLIN FM4_PLIN MODULUL 4 a fost completat? PLIN ANEED & PLIN alte_rekomandari_M ALTE RECOMANDĂRI M1 PLIN ANEED & PLIN 1_PLIN alte_rekomandari_M ALTE RECOMANDĂRI M1, și anume ... PLIN ANEED & PLIN 1_PLIN_1 CLDAP1 Decizia echipei SECPAH 1. Solicitantul are nevoie de asistență personală ... CLDAP2 Decizia echipei SECPAH 2. Numărul de ore de asistență personală estimate ... 100 Variable Label Tool Database CLDAP3 Decizia echipei SECPAH 3. Pe parcursul unei zile, asistența este necesară cu precădere ... CLDAP4 Decizia echipei SECPAH 4. Solicitantul are nevoie de asistență personală ... alte_rekomandari_M ALTE RECOMANDĂRI PLIN ANEED & PLIN 2_PLIN alte_rekomandari_M ALTE RECOMANDĂRI PLIN ANEED & PLIN 2_PLIN_1 alte_rekomandari_M ALTE RECOMANDĂRI PLIN ANEED & PLIN 3_PLIN alte_rekomandari_M ALTE RECOMANDĂRI PLIN ANEED & PLIN 3_PLIN_1 alte_rekomandari_M ALTE RECOMANDĂRI PLIN ANEED & PLIN 4_PLIN alte_rekomandari_M ALTE RECOMANDĂRI PLIN ANEED & PLIN 4_PLIN_1 RAS10_a a. Alte servicii care sprijină viața independentă PLIN ANEED & PLIN RAS10_b b. Alte servicii care sprijină viața independentă PLIN ANEED & PLIN RAS10_c c. Alte servicii care sprijină viața independentă PLIN ANEED & PLIN SDZ_A A. RECOMANDARE/DREPT - Scutire impozit pe venit pentru persoanele cu handicap grav sau PLIN ANEED & PLIN accentuat, pentru veniturile din activități independente, salarii, pensii, veniturile din activități agricole, silvicultură și piscicultură? SDZ_PL C. PERSOANA DORESTE? - Scutire impozit pe venit pentru persoanele cu handicap grav sau PLIN ANEED & PLIN accentuat, pentru veniturile din activități independente, salarii, pensii, veniturile din activități agricole, silvicultură și piscicultură? CRED11_A A. RECOMANDARE/DREPT - Credit pentru persoanele cu handicap grav sau accentuat pentru PLIN ANEED & PLIN adaptarea locuinței (de max 10.000 euro, cu dobândă subvenționată plătită de DGASPC)? CRED11_PL C. PERSOANA DORESTE? - Credit pentru persoanele cu handicap grav sau accentuat pentru PLIN ANEED & PLIN adaptarea locuinței (de max 10.000 euro, cu dobândă subvenționată plătită de DGASPC)? CAR3_A A. RECOMANDARE/DREPT - Scutirea de la impozitul pe mașină? PLIN ANEED & PLIN CAR3_PL C. PERSOANA DORESTE? - Scutirea de la impozitul pe mașină? PLIN ANEED & PLIN CAR4_A A. RECOMANDARE/DREPT - Cardul-legitimație de parcare pentru persoane cu dizabilități? PLIN ANEED & PLIN CAR4_PL C. PERSOANA DORESTE? - Cardul-legitimație de parcare pentru persoane cu dizabilități? PLIN ANEED & PLIN OUTT1_A A. RECOMANDARE/DREPT - Gratuitate pentru transportul urban de suprafață și metrou, pentru PLIN ANEED & PLIN persoanele cu handicap grav și accentuat? OUTT1_PL C. PERSOANA DORESTE? - Gratuitate pentru transportul urban de suprafață și metrou, pentru PLIN ANEED & PLIN persoanele cu handicap grav și accentuat? OUTT2_A A. RECOMANDARE/DREPT - Gratuitatea transportului interurban, la alegere, cu orice tip de tren, în PLIN ANEED & PLIN limita costului unui bilet la tren interregio IR cu regim de rezervare la clasa a II-a, cu autobuzele sau cu navele pentru transport fluvial. (handicap accentuat)? OUTT2_PL C. PERSOANA DORESTE? - Gratuitatea transportului interurban, la alegere, cu orice tip de tren, în PLIN ANEED & PLIN limita costului unui bilet la tren interregio IR cu regim de rezervare la clasa a II-a, cu autobuzele sau cu navele pentru transport fluvial. (handicap accentuat)? LOCB1_A A. RECOMANDARE/DREPT - Scutire de la impozitul pe teren/locuință? PLIN ANEED & PLIN LOCB1_PL C. PERSOANA DORESTE? - Scutire de la impozitul pe teren/locuință? PLIN ANEED & PLIN LOCB2_A A. RECOMANDARE/DREPT - Scutire de la plata chiriei în locuințe sociale? PLIN ANEED & PLIN LOCB2_PL C. PERSOANA DORESTE? - Scutire de la plata chiriei în locuințe sociale? PLIN ANEED & PLIN RAB1_A A. RECOMANDARE/DREPT - Bilete de intrare la spectacole, muzee, manifestări artistice? PLIN ANEED & PLIN RAB1_PL C. PERSOANA DORESTE? - Bilete de intrare la spectacole, muzee, manifestări artistice? PLIN ANEED & PLIN TIMEPLIN_a TIMEF00 a. Câte minute a durat preluarea datelor din diferitele surse pentru a completa datele din acest formular? TIMEPLIN_b b. Câte minute a durat interviul cu solicitantul? PLIN ANEED & PLIN sssys_irnd Random number in the range 0..1 associated with interview has__errors Errors count in the interview interview__status Status of the interview ADISAB & ANEED & HOUSE assignment__id Assignment id (identifier in numeric format) 101 Annex 5. Monitoring sessions, examples September 12, 2022 102 November 21, 2022 103 December 5, 2022 104 Annex 6. WHODAS training 105 106 107 108 109 Annex 7. Informative fiche 110 Annex 8. Syntaxes used to produce indicators and tables with sensitivity analysis and preliminary results STATA to do file (1) (2) continued do "_globals.do" } use "$results_stata/ePLIN_extra_Var1_Var7_merged.dta", clear global dom4 D4_1 D4_2 D4_3 D4_4 D4_5 local i = 31 //correcting sirsup when possible foreach var of varlist $dom4 { tab ADR_NUME_UAT JUD if SIRUTA_SUP >=., mi recode `var' (0=.) replace SIRUTA_SUP = ADR_NUME_UAT if SIRUTA_SUP >=. & ADR_NUME_UAT <. local label: var label `var' replace SIRUTA_SUP = 179169 if SIRUTA_SUP >=. & JUD == 40 & di "`label'" ADR_NUME_UAT >=. putexcel A`i' = "`label'" table ()`var', statistic(frequency) **#getting the urban/rural residence collect style header, title(hide) merge m:1 SIRUTA_SUP using "$wd/Originals/siruta" collect style header, level(hide) drop if _m == 2 collect style cell, border( all, pattern(nil) ) drop _m collect preview gen test = (JUD_bzsir == COD_JUD) collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", tab test, mi sheet("Distributii_WHODAS&other scores") cell(B`i') modify list JUD_bzsir COD_JUD if test == 0 local i = `i' + 1 drop test JUD_bzsir UAT } **#getting professions of specialists global dom51 D5_1 D5_2 D5_3 D5_4 desc OMSF_1 OMSF_0 OMSF_2 local i = 37 tab1 OMSF_1 OMSF_0 OMSF_2, mi foreach var of varlist $dom51 { tab OMSF_0 if OMSF_1 >=. recode `var' (0=.) tab OMSF_2 if OMSF_1 >=. local label: var label `var' replace OMSF_1 = OMSF_0 if OMSF_1 >=. & OMSF_0 <. di "`label'" destring OMSF_2, gen(numeric_OMSF_2) force putexcel A`i' = "`label'" replace OMSF_1 = numeric_OMSF_2 if OMSF_1 >=. & numeric_OMSF_2 <. table ()`var', statistic(frequency) tab OMSF_1, mi collect style header, title(hide) merge m:1 OMSF_1 using "$wd/Originals/profesie evaluator" collect style header, level(hide) tab OMSF_1 _m if _m < 3 collect style cell, border( all, pattern(nil) ) tab Profesia if _m <3 collect preview drop if _m == 2 collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", drop _m sheet("Distributii_WHODAS&other scores") cell(B`i') modify tab Profesia profesie, mi //de verificat la urmatoarele runde pentru modificarea local i = `i' + 1 etichetelor, daca este cazul } lab def profesie 2 "Medic" /// 3 "Psiholog/Psihopedagog" /// global dom52 D5_5 D5_6 D5_7 D5_8 4 "Alți specialiști (kinetoterapeut, jurist, consilier vocațional etc.)", local i = 42 modify foreach var of varlist $dom52 { tab Profesia profesie2, mi recode `var' (0=.) lab def profesie2 2 "Medic" /// local label: var label `var' 3 "Psiholog/Psihopedagog" /// di "`label'" 4 "Kinetoterapeut" /// putexcel A`i' = "`label'" 5 "Alți specialiști (jurist, consilier vocațional, economist, sociolog.)", table ()`var', statistic(frequency) modify collect style header, title(hide) collect style header, level(hide) collect drop _all collect style cell, border( all, pattern(nil) ) **#Fila descriptive stats_N collect preview **#JUD x MED collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", table JUD MED, statistic(frequency) sheet("Distributii_WHODAS&other scores") cell(B`i') modify collect style header, title(hide) local i = `i' + 1 collect style header MED, level(hide) } collect preview collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", sheet("descriptive global dom6 D6_1 D6_2 D6_3 D6_4 D6_5 D6_6 D6_7 D6_8 D6_9 stats_N") cell(A4) modify local i = 47 foreach var of varlist $dom6 { tab JUD MED, mi recode `var' (0=.) local label: var label `var' **#JUD x Sex di "`label'" label list Sex putexcel A`i' = "`label'" table JUD Sex, statistic(frequency) table ()`var', statistic(frequency) collect style header, title(hide) collect style header, title(hide) collect style header Sex, level(hide) collect style header, level(hide) collect style header JUD, level(hide) collect style cell, border( all, pattern(nil) ) collect preview collect preview collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", sheet("descriptive collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", stats_N") cell(E4) modify sheet("Distributii_WHODAS&other scores") cell(B`i') modify tab JUD Sex local i = `i' + 1 111 } **#JUD x AGE cat recode AGE (0/35=1 "<36")(36/64=2 "36-64")(65/120=3 "65+")(* = .), gen(AGE_rec) **#WHODAS - distributie % tab AGE AGE_rec, mi local i = 5 table JUD AGE_rec, statistic(frequency) foreach var of varlist $dom1 { collect style header, title(hide) table ()`var', stat(percent) collect style header AGE_rec, level(hide) collect style header, title(hide) collect style header JUD, level(hide) collect style header, level(hide) collect preview collect style cell, border( all, pattern(nil) ) collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", sheet("descriptive collect preview stats_N") cell(H4) modify collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", tab JUD AGE_rec sheet("Distributii_WHODAS&other scores") cell(H`i') modify local i = `i' + 1 **#JUD x ECD1 } lab list ECD1 table JUD ECD1, statistic(frequency) global dom2 D2_1 D2_2 D2_3 D2_4 D2_5 D2_6 D2_7 D2_8 collect style header, title(hide) local i = 15 collect style header ECD1, level(hide) foreach var of varlist $dom2 { collect style header JUD, level(hide) table ()`var', stat(percent) collect preview collect style header, title(hide) collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", sheet("descriptive collect style header, level(hide) stats_N") cell(L4) modify collect style cell, border( all, pattern(nil) ) tab JUD ECD1, mi collect preview collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", **#JUD x ECD2_a sheet("Distributii_WHODAS&other scores") cell(H`i') modify lab list ECD2_a local i = `i' + 1 table JUD ECD2_a, statistic(frequency) } collect style header, title(hide) collect style header ECD2_a, level(hide) global dom3 D3_1 D3_2 D3_3 D3_4 D3_5 D3_6 collect style header JUD, level(hide) local i = 24 collect preview foreach var of varlist $dom3 { collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", sheet("descriptive table ()`var', stat(percent) stats_N") cell(P4) modify collect style header, title(hide) tab JUD ECD2_a, mi collect style header, level(hide) collect style cell, border( all, pattern(nil) ) **#JUD x ECD2_c collect preview lab list ECD2_c collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", table JUD ECD2_c, statistic(frequency) sheet("Distributii_WHODAS&other scores") cell(H`i') modify collect style header, title(hide) local i = `i' + 1 collect style header ECD2_c, level(hide) } collect style header JUD, level(hide) collect preview global dom4 D4_1 D4_2 D4_3 D4_4 D4_5 collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", sheet("descriptive local i = 31 stats_N") cell(V4) modify foreach var of varlist $dom4 { tab JUD ECD2_c, mi putexcel A`i' = "`label'" table ()`var', stat(percent) **# JUD x AFAM collect style header, title(hide) tab AFAM AFAMAS, mi collect style header, level(hide) //I use AFAM because it has fewer missings collect style cell, border( all, pattern(nil) ) tab AFAM, mi collect preview lab list AFAM collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", table JUD AFAM, statistic(frequency) sheet("Distributii_WHODAS&other scores") cell(H`i') modify collect style header, title(hide) local i = `i' + 1 collect style header, level(hide) } collect preview collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", sheet("descriptive global dom51 D5_1 D5_2 D5_3 D5_4 stats_N") cell(Z4) modify local i = 37 tab JUD AFAM, mi foreach var of varlist $dom51 { putexcel A`i' = "`label'" **# PTUT table ()`var', stat(percent) tab1 PTUT_1 PTUT_2 PTUT_3, mi collect style header, title(hide) tab PTUT_1 PTUT_2, mi collect style header, level(hide) tab PTUT_1 PTUT_3, mi collect style cell, border( all, pattern(nil) ) tab PTUT_2 PTUT_3, mi collect preview //fiindca nu se suprapun variabilele, le pun pe toate intr-una singura collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", gen PTUT = 4 //cand niciuna dintre PTUT_* nu este 1 sheet("Distributii_WHODAS&other scores") cell(H`i') modify replace PTUT = 1 if PTUT_1 == 1 local i = `i' + 1 replace PTUT = 2 if PTUT_2 == 1 } replace PTUT = 3 if PTUT_3 == 1 replace PTUT = . if PTUT_1 >=. & PTUT_2 >=. & PTUT_3 >= . global dom52 D5_5 D5_6 D5_7 D5_8 tab PTUT PTUT_1, mi local i = 42 tab PTUT PTUT_2, mi foreach var of varlist $dom52 { tab PTUT PTUT_3, mi putexcel A`i' = "`label'" lab def PTUT 1 "Sub tutela unui membru din familie" /// table ()`var', stat(percent) 2 "Sub tutela autorităților locale" /// collect style header, title(hide) 3 "Sub curatelă" /// collect style header, level(hide) 4 "Nu este sub tutela sau curatela" collect style cell, border( all, pattern(nil) ) lab val PTUT PTUT collect preview tab PTUT, mi collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", table PTUT sheet("Distributii_WHODAS&other scores") cell(H`i') modify collect style header, title(hide) local i = `i' + 1 collect style header, level(hide) } collect preview collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", sheet("descriptive global dom6 D6_1 D6_2 D6_3 D6_4 D6_5 D6_6 D6_7 D6_8 D6_9 stats_N") cell(B17) modify local i = 47 foreach var of varlist $dom6 { 112 **# JUD x tip dizabilitate putexcel A`i' = "`label'" lab def tip_diz 1 "fizic" 2 "somatic" 3 "auditiv" /// table ()`var', stat(percent) 4 "vizual" 5 "mintal" 6 "psihic" 7 "asociat" /// collect style header, title(hide) 8 "HIV/SIDA" 9 "boli rare" 10 "surdocecitate" collect style header, level(hide) collect style cell, border( all, pattern(nil) ) tab ECD2_b, mi collect preview replace ECD2_b = lower(ECD2_b) collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", gen tip_diz = . sheet("Distributii_WHODAS&other scores") cell(H`i') modify replace tip_diz = 1 if regexm(ECD2_b, "fizic") | inlist(ECD2_b, "1", "m05") local i = `i' + 1 replace tip_diz = 2 if regexm(ECD2_b, "soma") | ECD2_b == "2" } replace tip_diz = 3 if regexm(ECD2_b, "auditiv") | ECD2_b == "3" replace tip_diz = 4 if regexm(ECD2_b, "nevazator") | inlist(ECD2_b, "4", "nevĂzĂtor", **#SCORM "oftalmologie", "vizual") desc SCORM replace tip_diz = 5 if regexm(ECD2_b, "mintal") | regexm(ECD2_b, "mental") | lab list SCORM ECD2_b == "5" global sd MED Sex AGE_rec replace tip_diz = 6 if regexm(ECD2_b, "psihic") | inlist(ECD2_b, "6", "f33.2", "tipul 6") local i = 60 replace tip_diz = 7 if regexm(ECD2_b, "asociat") | inlist(ECD2_b, "7", "fizic + mental") foreach var of varlist $sd{ replace tip_diz = 8 if regexm(ECD2_b, "sida") | regexm(ECD2_b, "hiv") | table `var', statistic(fvpercent SCORM) nototals inlist(ECD2_b, "8") collect style header, title(hide) replace tip_diz = 9 if regexm(ECD2_b, "boli rare") | ECD2_b == "9" collect style header SCORM, level(hide) lab val tip_diz tip_diz collect style header var, level(hide) tab ECD2_b tip_diz, mi collect style cell, border( all, pattern(nil) ) tab tip_diz collect preview collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", table JUD tip_diz, statistic(frequency) sheet("Distributii_WHODAS&other scores") cell(A`i') modify collect style header, title(hide) local i = `i' + 2 collect style header, level(hide) } collect preview tab MED SCORM, row collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", sheet("descriptive tab Sex SCORM, row stats_N") cell(AF4) modify tab AGE_rec SCORM, row tab JUD tip_diz, mi *Totals **#Număr de persoane care au completat diferite module, pe sexe și grupe de local i = 60 vârstă foreach var of varlist $sd{ desc FM1 TIME1_b //Modulul 1 table `var' if SCORM <., nototals desc FM2 TIME4_M2_b //Modulul 2 collect style header, title(hide) desc FM3 TIME3_b //Mpdulul 3 collect style header, level(hide) desc FM4 TIME4_b //Modului 4 collect style cell, border( all, pattern(nil) ) desc TIMEPLIN_b collect preview collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", label list FM1 FM2 FM3 FM4 sheet("Distributii_WHODAS&other scores") cell(G`i') modify recode FM1 FM2 FM3 FM4 (1/2 = 1)(-7=.) local i = `i' + 2 tab1 FM1 FM2 FM3 FM4, mi } lab def FM1 1 "Da, complet & partial", modify lab def FM2 1 "Da, complet & partial", modify table ()SCORM, statistic(percent) nototals lab def FM3 1 "Da, complet & partial", modify collect style header, title(hide) lab def FM4 1 "Da, complet & partial", modify collect style header, level(hide) collect style cell, border( all, pattern(nil) ) global FM FM1 FM2 FM3 FM4 collect preview local i = 19 collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", foreach var of varlist $FM{ sheet("Distributii_WHODAS&other scores") cell(B67) modify table (`var')(Sex), statistic(frequency) collect style autolevels `var' 1 putexcel set "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", collect style autolevels Sex 1 2 sheet("Distributii_WHODAS&other scores") modify collect style header, title(hide) su SCORM if SCORM < . collect style header, level(hide) local value = r(N) collect style cell, border( all, pattern(nil) ) putexcel G67 = `value' collect preview collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate **#CLDAP1_M2 preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", sheet("descriptive stats_N") cell(M`i') modify desc CLDAP1_M2 local i = `i' + 1 lab list CLDAP1_M2 } local i = 60 tab FM1 Sex, mi foreach var of varlist $sd{ tab FM2 Sex, mi table `var', statistic(fvpercent CLDAP1_M2) nototals tab FM3 Sex, mi collect style header, title(hide) tab FM4 Sex, mi collect style header, level(hide) collect style cell, border( all, pattern(nil) ) local i = 19 collect preview foreach var of varlist $FM{ collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", table (`var')(AGE_rec), statistic(frequency) sheet("Distributii_WHODAS&other scores") cell(H`i') modify collect style autolevels `var' 1 local i = `i' + 2 collect style header, title(hide) } collect style header, level(hide) tab MED CLDAP1_M2, row collect style cell, border( all, pattern(nil) ) tab Sex CLDAP1_M2, row collect preview tab AGE_rec CLDAP1_M2, row collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", sheet("descriptive stats_N") cell(O`i') modify *Totals local i = `i' + 1 local i = 60 } foreach var of varlist $sd{ table `var' if CLDAP1_M2 <., nototals local i = 19 collect style header, title(hide) foreach var of varlist $FM{ collect style header, level(hide) table `var', statistic(frequency) collect style cell, border( all, pattern(nil) ) collect style autolevels `var' 1 collect preview collect style header, title(hide) collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", collect style header, level(hide) sheet("Distributii_WHODAS&other scores") cell(L`i') modify collect style cell, border( all, pattern(nil) ) local i = `i' + 2 113 collect preview } collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", sheet("descriptive stats_N") cell(R`i') modify table () CLDAP1_M2, statistic(percent) nototals local i = `i' + 1 collect style header, title(hide) } collect style header, level(hide) collect style cell, border( all, pattern(nil) ) collect preview su TIME1_b TIME4_M2_b TIME3_b TIMEPLIN_b collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", gen FM1_time = (TIME1_b > 0 & TIME1_b <.) sheet("Distributii_WHODAS&other scores") cell(H67) modify gen FM2_time = (TIME4_M2_b > 0 & TIME4_M2_b <.) gen FM3_time = (TIME3_b > 0 & TIME3_b <.) putexcel set "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", gen FM4_time = (TIME4_b > 0 & TIME4_b <.) sheet("Distributii_WHODAS&other scores") modify gen eplin_time = (TIMEPLIN_b > 0 & TIMEPLIN_b <.) su CLDAP1_M2 if CLDAP1_M2 < . tab TIME1_b FM1_time, mi local value = r(N) tab TIME3_b FM3_time, mi putexcel L67 = `value' tab TIMEPLIN_b eplin_time, mi **# Fila Medii_WHODAS&other scores global FM_time FM1_time FM2_time FM3_time FM4_time eplin_time **#scoruri totale local i = 23 **whodas foreach var of varlist $FM_time{ egen D1_total = rowtotal(D1_1 D1_2 D1_3 D1_4 D1_5 D1_6 D1_7 D1_8 D1_9), mi table (`var')(Sex), statistic(frequency) su D1_total collect style autolevels `var' 1 tab1 D2_1 D2_2 D2_3 D2_4 D2_5 D2_6 D2_7 D2_8, mi collect style autolevels Sex 1 2 egen D2_total = rowtotal(D2_1 D2_2 D2_3 D2_4 D2_5 D2_6 D2_7 D2_8), mi collect style header, title(hide) egen D3_total = rowtotal(D3_1 D3_2 D3_3 D3_4 D3_5 D3_6), mi collect style header, level(hide) egen D4_total = rowtotal(D4_1 D4_2 D4_3 D4_4 D4_5), mi collect style cell, border( all, pattern(nil) ) egen D51_total = rowtotal(D5_1 D5_2 D5_3 D5_4), mi collect preview egen D52_total = rowtotal(D5_5 D5_6 D5_7 D5_8), mi collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate egen D6_total = rowtotal(D6_1 D6_2 D6_3 D6_4 D6_5 D6_6 D6_7 D6_8 D6_9), mi preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", sheet("descriptive stats_N") cell(M`i') modify egen whodas_tot = rowtotal(D1_total D2_total D3_total D4_total D51_total local i = `i' + 1 D52_total D6_total), mi } su D1_total D2_total D3_total D4_total D51_total D52_total D6_total whodas_tot tab FM1_time Sex, mi tab FM2_time Sex, mi **asist pers tab FM3_time Sex, mi tab NP1, mi tab FM4_time Sex, mi tab NP1, mi nolab tab eplin_time Sex, mi egen NP = rowtotal(NP1 NP2 NP3 NP4 NP5 NP6), mi tab NP, mi local i = 23 egen NC = rowtotal(NC1 NC2 NC3 NC4 NC5), mi foreach var of varlist $FM_time{ tab NC, mi table (`var')(AGE_rec), statistic(frequency) tab1 NS1 NS2 NS3 NS4 NS5, mi collect style autolevels `var' 1 recode NS1 (-7=.), gen(NS1_nomis) collect style header, title(hide) egen NS = rowtotal(NS1_nomis NS2 NS3 NS4 NS5), mi collect style header, level(hide) tab NS, mi collect style cell, border( all, pattern(nil) ) egen scor_asistpers = rowtotal(NP NC NS), mi collect preview tab scor_asistpers, mi collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", sheet("descriptive stats_N") cell(O`i') modify putexcel set "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", local i = `i' + 1 sheet("Medii_WHODAS&other scores") modify } global scores whodas_tot D1_total D2_total D3_total D4_total D51_total D52_total D6_total scor_asistpers local i = 23 global sd1 MED Sex foreach var of varlist $FM_time{ global sd2 AGE_rec ECD2_c table `var', statistic(frequency) collect style autolevels `var' 1 **by MED | Sex collect style header, title(hide) local i = 4 collect style header, level(hide) local j = 5 collect style cell, border( all, pattern(nil) ) foreach var of varlist $scores { collect preview local letter = 68 //D collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate foreach col of varlist $sd1 { preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", sheet("descriptive stats_N") cell(R`i') modify ttest `var', by(`col') local i = `i' + 1 local mean1 = r(mu_1) } di `mean1' local mean2 = r(mu_2) **#Fila descriptive stats_% di `mean2' **#JUD x MED local sample1 = r(N_1) table JUD, statistic(fvpercent MED) di `sample1' collect style header var, level(hide) local sample2 = r(N_2) collect style header, title(hide) di `sample2' collect preview local sig = r(p) collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", sheet("descriptive di `sig' stats_%") cell(A4) modify local e = `letter' + 1 tab JUD MED, row nofreq local f = `letter' + 2 local D = char(`letter') **#JUD x Sex local E = char(`e') label list Sex local F = char(`f') table JUD, statistic(fvpercent Sex) putexcel `D'`i' = `mean1' collect style header, title(hide) putexcel `D'`j' = `sample1' collect style header, level(hide) putexcel `E'`i' = `mean2' collect preview putexcel `E'`j' = `sample2' collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", sheet("descriptive putexcel `F'`i' = `sig' stats_%") cell(E4) modify tab JUD Sex, row nofreq local letter = `letter' + 3 } **#JUD x AGE cat local i = `i' + 2 table JUD, statistic(fvpercent AGE_rec) local j = `j' + 2 collect style header, title(hide) } collect style header, level(hide) ttest whodas_tot, by(MED) 114 collect preview local mean1 = r(mu_1) collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", sheet("descriptive di `mean1' stats_%") cell(H4) modify local mean2 = r(mu_2) tab JUD AGE_rec, row nofreq di `mean2' local sample1 = r(N_1) **#JUD x ECD1 di `sample1' lab list ECD1 local sample2 = r(N_2) table JUD, statistic(fvpercent ECD1) di `sample2' collect style header, title(hide) local sig = r(p) collect style header, level(hide) di `sig' collect preview collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", sheet("descriptive **total stats_%") cell(L4) modify local i = 4 tab JUD ECD1, row nofreq local j = 5 foreach var of varlist $scores { **#JUD x ECD2_a su `var' if `var' <. lab list ECD2_a local mean = r(mean) table JUD, statistic(fvpercent ECD2_a) di `mean' collect style header, title(hide) local sample = r(N) collect style header, level(hide) di `sample' collect preview putexcel C`i' = `mean' collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", sheet("descriptive putexcel C`j' = `sample' stats_%") cell(P4) modify local i = `i' + 2 tab JUD ECD2_a, row nofreq local j = `j' + 2 **#JUD x ECD2_c } lab list ECD2_c table JUD, statistic(fvpercent ECD2_c) su whodas collect style header, title(hide) su D1_total collect style header, level(hide) su scor_asist collect preview oneway whodas_tot AGE_rec, tab bonf collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", sheet("descriptive stats_%") cell(V4) modify **f(AGE_rec | ECD2_c) tab JUD ECD2_c, row nofreq local a = 4 local b = 5 **# JUD x AFAM foreach var of varlist $scores { tab AFAM AFAMAS, mi local letter = 74 //J //I use AFAM because it has fewer missings foreach col of varlist $sd2 { tab AFAM, mi forvalues x = 1/3 { lab list AFAM su `var' if `col' == `x' //e.g., su whodas_tot table JUD, statistic(fvpercent AFAM) if AGE_rec == 1 collect style header, title(hide) local mean = r(mean) collect style header, level(hide) di `mean' collect preview local N = r(N) collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", sheet("descriptive di `N' stats_%") cell(Z4) modify local j = `letter' + `x' - 1 tab JUD AFAM, row nofreq local J = char(`j') putexcel `J'`a' = `mean' table JUD, statistic(fvpercent tip_diz) putexcel `J'`b' = `N' collect style header, title(hide) } collect style header, level(hide) oneway `var' `col', tab bonf collect preview collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", sheet("descriptive local letter = `letter' + 10 stats_%") cell(AF4) modify } tab JUD tip_diz, row nofreq local a = `a' + 2 local b = `b' + 2 **#Fila Distributii_WHODAS&other scores } putexcel set "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", **by ECD2_a sheet("Total_WHODAS&other scores") modify desc ECD2_a tab ECD2_a, mi **#WHODAS - distributie N lab list ECD2_a tab1 D1_1 D1_2 D1_3 D1_4 D1_5 D1_6 D1_7 D1_8 D1_9, mi local a = 4 global dom1 D1_1 D1_2 D1_3 D1_4 D1_5 D1_6 D1_7 D1_8 D1_9 local b = 5 local i = 5 foreach var of varlist $scores { foreach var of varlist $dom1 { local letter = 78 //N recode `var' (0=.) forvalues x = 1/5 { local label: var label `var' su `var' if ECD2_a == `x' //e.g., su whodas_tot if AGE_rec di "`label'" == 1 putexcel A`i' = "`label'" local mean = r(mean) table ()`var', statistic(frequency) di `mean' collect style header, title(hide) local N = r(N) collect style header, level(hide) di `N' collect style cell, border( all, pattern(nil) ) local j = `letter' + `x' - 1 collect preview local J = char(`j') collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", putexcel `J'`a' = `mean' sheet("Distributii_WHODAS&other scores") cell(B`i') modify putexcel `J'`b' = `N' local i = `i' + 1 } } oneway `var' ECD2_a, tab bonf global dom2 D2_1 D2_2 D2_3 D2_4 D2_5 D2_6 D2_7 D2_8 local i = 15 local a = `a' + 2 foreach var of varlist $dom2 { local b = `b' + 2 recode `var' (0=.) } local label: var label `var' di "`label'" bysort ECD2_a: sort whodas_tot putexcel A`i' = "`label'" bysort ECD2_a: sort D52_total table ()`var', statistic(frequency) oneway whodas_tot ECD2_a, tab bonf 115 collect style header, title(hide) collect style header, level(hide) **Profesia evaluatorului collect style cell, border( all, pattern(nil) ) bysort profesie: su whodas_tot collect preview bysort profesie2: su whodas_tot collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", tab profesie, mi sheet("Distributii_WHODAS&other scores") cell(B`i') modify tab profesie2, mi local i = `i' + 1 global prof_eval profesie profesie2 } local a = 4 global dom3 D3_1 D3_2 D3_3 D3_4 D3_5 D3_6 local b = 5 local i = 24 foreach var of varlist $scores { foreach var of varlist $dom3 { local letter = 65 //A recode `var' (0=.) foreach col of varlist $prof_eval { local label: var label `var' forvalues x = 1/5 { di "`label'" su `var' if `col' == `x' putexcel A`i' = "`label'" local mean = r(mean) table ()`var', statistic(frequency) di `mean' collect style header, title(hide) local N = r(N) collect style header, level(hide) di `N' collect style cell, border( all, pattern(nil) ) local j = `letter' + `x' - 1 collect preview local J = char(`j') collect export "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", if `N' > 0 { sheet("Distributii_WHODAS&other scores") cell(B`i') modify putexcel A`J'`a' = `mean' local i = `i' + 1 putexcel A`J'`b' = `N' } } oneway `var' `col', tab bonf local letter = `letter' + 5 } local a = `a' + 2 local b = `b' + 2 } bysort profesie: su whodas_tot bysort profesie: su D52_total oneway whodas_tot profesie **#histograms putexcel set "$wd\Tabele/Rezultate preliminare_V1&V7.xlsx", sheet("Histograme") modify global scores whodas_tot D1_total D2_total D3_total D4_total D51_total D52_total D6_total scor_asistpers local i = 3 foreach var of varlist $scores { hist `var' graph export "$wd/hist.png", width(300) height(200) replace putexcel C`i' = picture("$wd/hist.png") erase "$wd/hist.png" local i = `i' + 6 } lab def Sex 1 "Bărbați" 2 "Femei", modify lab var whodas_tot "WHODAS, scor total" histogram whodas_tot, by(Sex, col(1) note("")) graph export "$wd/hist.png", width(400) height(400) replace putexcel G3 = picture("$wd/hist.png") erase "$wd/hist.png" lab var SCORM "SCORUL MEDICAL care indică o afectare a funcțiilor și structurilor organismului..." histogram whodas_tot, by(SCORM, col(1) note("")) graph export "$wd/hist.png", width(400) height(800) replace putexcel L3 = picture("$wd/hist.png") erase "$wd/hist.png" histogram whodas_tot, by(SCORM, note("")) graph export "$wd/hist.png", width(400) height(400) replace putexcel P3 = picture("$wd/hist.png") erase "$wd/hist.png" histogram whodas_tot, by(AGE_rec, col(1) note("")) graph export "$wd/hist.png", width(400) height(600) replace putexcel X3 = picture("$wd/hist.png") erase "$wd/hist.png" 116 Annex 9. Preliminary results Table A. 5: Pilot sample per county (percentages) County AR BC CT DJ IL OT SJ SB B_S3 GR Total Total % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Number 67 175 291 371 187 222 372 182 158 150 2175 Residence Rural 48 34 29 53 53 53 55 35 0 71 44 Urban 52 66 71 47 47 47 45 65 100 29 56 Sex Men 46 50 46 50 46 42 47 46 46 47 47 Women 54 50 54 50 54 58 53 54 54 53 53 Age <36 10 5 23 9 8 9 9 23 10 12 12 36-64 30 31 48 35 49 56 49 46 46 47 45 65+ 60 64 30 56 42 36 41 31 44 41 43 Assessment First-lifetime assessment for 58 38 23 51 54 51 32 39 59 49 42 type disability classification Assessment for renewal of 41 58 74 45 38 44 65 57 37 39 53 an existing certificate Assessment following a change of situation, health 2 4 3 4 9 4 3 4 4 12 5 condition, or on request Disability 1. mild 0 0 4 3 4 3 0 0 4 1 2 classification: Disability 2. medium 4 18 26 6 21 30 12 33 13 14 18 degree 3. marked 68 53 54 55 51 64 71 41 54 50 57 4. severe 11 14 8 14 1 0 2 10 8 18 8 5. severe with personal 18 15 8 21 24 3 15 15 21 17 15 assistant Disability certificate: 12 months 54 47 45 41 45 30 56 83 67 4 48 Validity 24 months 43 43 49 50 39 60 39 7 20 82 43 permanent 4 10 6 9 16 10 6 10 12 14 9 AFAM The Single person 6 24 14 8 17 10 14 21 13 7 13 person lives... In a family (including APP) 91 67 85 89 82 87 84 75 80 91 84 In a residential service (HG 3 6 0 2 1 1 2 3 6 1 2 nr. 867/2015) Temporarily abroad/country 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 for treatment Other situation 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 Disability Physical 21 41 29 38 27 40 24 22 27 21 30 certificate: Disability type Somatic 43 34 34 30 41 32 59 47 36 42 41 Hearing 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 Visual 4 0 2 3 9 6 6 5 0 1 4 Mental 11 0 8 15 11 6 6 9 11 21 9 Psychological 11 24 14 7 4 0 2 5 14 14 9 Associated 7 0 8 6 7 13 2 6 11 1 6 HIV/AIDS 4 1 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 Rare Diseases 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 Source: World Bank, MODDiz Pilot, e-PLIN data. Note: Provisional data for August 1 - December 31, 2022, N=2,180 persons assessed. 117 Figure A. 1: Pilot sample by gender and age group (percentages) Source: World Bank, MODDiz Pilot, e-PLIN data. Note: Provisional data for August 1 – December 31, 2022, N=2,180 persons assessed, total sample; non-responses are recorded for 5 cases. Table A. 6: WHODAS+RO scores and personal care score by residence Total Residence Sig. Rural Urban WHODAS, total score Mean 104.7 107.2 102.6 0.0088 N 2103 934 1167 Domain 1 - Cognition – understanding and communicating Mean 21.5 22.4 20.7 0.0003 N 2090 934 1154 Domain 2 – Mobility – moving and getting around Mean 19.4 19.8 19.1 0.0817 N 2082 925 1155 Domain 3 – Self-care – attending to one’s hygiene, dressing, Mean 13.5 14.0 13.2 0.0069 eating and staying alone N 2079 927 1150 Domain 4 – Getting along – interacting with other people Mean 11.0 11.2 10.9 0.1545 N 2086 929 1155 Domain 5 – Life activities: 5(1) Domestic responsibilities Mean 13.3 13.7 13.0 0.0034 N 1994 887 1105 Domain 5 – Life activities: 5(2) Professional or educational Mean 9.1 8.9 9.2 0.6306 activities N 228 78 150 Domain 6 – Joining in community activities, participating in Mean 26.7 27.0 26.4 0.1107 society N 2069 916 1151 Personal assistance score (NP+NC+NS) Mean 8.0 8.2 7.8 0.0878 N 926 449 477 Source: World Bank, MODDiz Pilot, e-PLIN data. Note: Provisional data for the period August 1 - December 31, 2022, N=2,180 persons assessed, total sample. WHODAS+RO total score constructed as a summative index of all 45 items. Specific scores by WHODAS+RO ICF domains constructed as a summative index of the corresponding items. Total personal care score constructed as a summative index of all types of needs (personal, domestic and social) in module M2 (with values from zero to 14). 118 Table A. 7: WHODAS+RO scores and personal care score by sex Total Sex Sig. Men Women WHODAS, total score Mean 104.7 103.9 105.3 0.4403 N 2103 992 1109 Domain 1 - Cognition – understanding and communicating Mean 21.5 20.9 22.0 0.0208 N 2090 987 1101 Domain 2 – Mobility – moving and getting around Mean 19.4 19.0 19.7 0.0651 N 2082 979 1101 Domain 3 – Self-care – attending to one’s hygiene, dressing, eating Mean 13.5 13.5 13.5 0.9063 and staying alone N 2079 976 1101 Domain 4 – Getting along – interacting with other people Mean 11.0 11.0 11.1 0.6622 N 2086 984 1100 Domain 5 – Life activities: 5(1) Domestic responsibilities Mean 13.3 13.5 13.1 0.0458 N 1994 938 1054 Domain 5 – Life activities: 5(2) Professional or educational activities Mean 9.1 9.4 8.9 0.4399 N 228 106 122 Domain 6 – Joining in community activities, participating in society Mean 26.7 26.9 26.5 0.3588 N 2069 974 1093 Personal assistance score (NP+NC+NS) Mean 8.0 7.9 8.1 0.4967 N 926 448 477 Source: World Bank, MODDiz Pilot, e-PLIN data. Note: Provisional data for the August 1 - December 31, 2022, N=2,180 persons assessed, total sample. WHODAS+RO total score constructed as a summative index of all 45 items. Specific scores by WHODAS+RO ICF domains constructed as a summative index of the corresponding items. Total personal care score constructed as a summative index of all types of needs (personal, domestic and social) in module M2 (with values from zero to 14). Table A. 8: WHODAS+RO scores and personal care score by age group Total Age Sig. <35 35-64 65+ WHODAS, total score Mean 104.7 91.9 94.8 118.3 p<0,001 N 2103 251 939 900 Domain 1 - Cognition – understanding and communicating Mean 21.5 20.0 18.6 24.9 p<0,001 N 2090 251 937 889 Domain 2 – Mobility – moving and getting around Mean 19.4 13.7 17.4 23.0 p<0,001 N 2082 251 935 883 Domain 3 – Self-care – attending to one’s hygiene, dressing, eating Mean 13.5 10.5 11.5 16.4 p<0,001 and staying alone N 2079 251 935 880 Domain 4 – Getting along – interacting with other people Mean 11.0 10.1 9.7 12.7 p<0,001 N 2086 251 936 886 Domain 5 – Life activities: 5(1) Domestic responsibilities Mean 13.3 11.2 12.1 15.2 p<0,001 N 1994 245 912 824 Domain 5 – Life activities: 5(2) Professional or educational activities Mean 9.1 8.7 9.5 7.2 0.2 N 228 74 143 10 Domain 6 – Joining in community activities, participating in society Mean 26.7 24.1 24.8 29.3 p<0,001 N 2069 250 928 878 119 Total Age Sig. <35 35-64 65+ Personal assistance score (NP+NC+NS) Mean 8.0 6.7 6.4 9.2 p<0,001 N 926 72 328 520 Source: World Bank, MODDiz Pilot, e-PLIN data. Note: Provisional data for the August 1 - December 31, 2022, N=2,180 persons assessed, total sample. WHODAS+RO total score constructed as a summative index of all 45 items. Specific scores by WHODAS+RO ICF domains constructed as a summative index of the corresponding items. Total personal care score constructed as a summative index of all types of needs (personal, domestic and social) in module M2 (with values from zero to 14). Table A. 9: WHODAS+RO scores and personal care score by existing disability degree Total Disability certificate: Disability degree Sig. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. mild medium marked sever severe e with personal assistant WHODAS, total score Mean 104.7 99.6 86.8 97.8 108.6 128.9 p<0,0 01 N 2103 25 217 677 94 170 Domain 1 - Cognition – understanding and Mean 21.5 20.7 17.1 20.2 20.6 27.3 p<0,0 communicating 01 N 2090 25 217 676 94 170 Domain 2 – Mobility – moving and getting Mean 19.4 17.6 16.8 17.4 20.1 23.5 p<0,0 around 01 N 2082 25 217 677 94 170 Domain 3 – Self-care – attending to one’s Mean 13.5 12.3 10.0 11.9 14.1 19.0 p<0,0 hygiene, dressing, eating and staying alone 01 N 2079 25 217 677 94 170 Domain 4 – Getting along – interacting with Mean 11.0 11.6 8.7 10.2 11.1 13.9 p<0,0 other people 01 N 2086 25 217 677 94 170 Domain 5 – Life activities: 5(1) Domestic Mean 13.3 10.4 10.8 12.1 14.1 14.7 p<0,0 responsibilities 01 N 1994 25 217 677 94 170 Domain 5 – Life activities: 5(2) Professional or Mean 9.1 5.3 7.3 7.9 8.5 12.3 p<0,0 educational activities 1 N 228 3 40 79 2 12 Domain 6 – Joining in community activities, Mean 26.7 26.2 22.0 25.3 28.4 29.7 p<0,0 participating in society 01 N 2069 25 217 676 94 170 Personal assistance score (NP+NC+NS) Mean 8.0 8.2 6.1 6.7 7.3 10.4 p<0,0 01 N 926 9 41 260 65 126 Source: World Bank, MODDiz Pilot, e-PLIN data. Note: Provisional data for the period August 1 - December 31, 2022, N=2,180 persons assessed, total sample. WHODAS+RO total score constructed as a summative index of all 45 items. Specific scores by WHODAS+RO ICF domains constructed as a summative index of the corresponding items. Total personal assistance score calculated as a summative index of all types of needs (personal, domestic and social) in module M2 (with values from zero to 14). Existing disability certificate with which the person came for renewal. 120 Table A. 10: WHODAS+RO scores and personal care score by validity of the existing certificate Total Disability certificate: Validity Sig. 12 24 permanent months months WHODAS, total score Mean 104.7 101.4 96.7 129.3 p<0,001 N 2103 563 513 102 Domain 1 - Cognition – understanding and Mean 21.5 20.6 20.0 27.3 p<0,001 communicating N 2090 562 509 100 Domain 2 – Mobility – moving and getting around Mean 19.4 18.8 17.3 24.3 p<0,001 N 2082 561 507 101 Domain 3 – Self-care – attending to one’s hygiene, Mean 13.5 12.7 12.1 18.3 p<0,001 dressing, eating and staying alone N 2079 561 508 100 Domain 4 – Getting along – interacting with other Mean 11.0 10.5 10.2 14.0 p<0,001 people N 2086 561 508 101 Domain 5 – Life activities: 5(1) Domestic Mean 13.3 13.1 12.1 16.7 p<0,001 responsibilities N 1994 541 494 96 Domain 5 – Life activities: 5(2) Professional or Mean 9.1 8.8 7.8 9.3 0,3984 educational activities N 228 69 58 4 Domain 6 – Joining in community activities, Mean 26.7 25.6 25.5 31.3 p<0,001 participating in society N 2069 555 508 100 Personal assistance score (NP+NC+NS) Mean 8.0 7.9 7.0 9.0 p<0,01 N 926 246 189 66 Source: World Bank, MODDiz Pilot, e-PLIN data. Note: Provisional data for the period August 1 - December 31, 2022, N=2,180 persons assessed, total sample. WHODAS+RO total score constructed as a summative index of all 45 items. Specific scores by WHODAS+RO ICF domains constructed as a summative index of the corresponding items. Total personal assistance score calculated as a summative index of all types of needs (personal, domestic and social) in module M2 (with values from zero to 14). Existing disability certificate with which the person came for renewal. Table A. 11: WHODAS+RO scores and personal care score by assessor specialization Total SECPAH assessor specialization Sig. Social Medic Psychologist/ Other specialists assistant Psycho (physiotherapist, pedagogue lawyer, etc.) WHODAS, total score Mean 104.7 109.5 114.5 106.3 90.5 p<0,001 N 2103 358 351 447 548 Domain 1 - Cognition – understanding Mean 21.5 21.9 24.1 21.5 17.5 p<0,001 and communicating N 2090 358 350 447 548 Domain 2 – Mobility – moving and Mean 19.4 20.9 20.2 19.1 17.3 p<0,001 getting around N 2082 358 351 447 548 Domain 3 – Self-care – attending to Mean 13.5 14.0 14.2 13.7 11.7 p<0,001 one’s hygiene, dressing, eating and staying alone N 2079 358 349 447 548 Domain 4 – Getting along – interacting Mean 11.0 11.0 12.8 11.6 8.5 p<0,001 with other people 121 Total SECPAH assessor specialization Sig. Social Medic Psychologist/ Other specialists assistant Psycho (physiotherapist, pedagogue lawyer, etc.) N 2086 358 350 447 548 Domain 5 – Life activities: 5(1) Mean 13.3 12.9 14.0 12.9 10.9 p<0,001 Domestic responsibilities N 1994 358 350 446 548 Domain 5 – Life activities: 5(2) Mean 9.1 8.4 10.5 8.6 7.2 0,077 Professional or educational activities N 228 43 19 67 61 Domain 6 – Joining in community Mean 26.7 27.7 29.0 26.4 23.9 p<0,001 activities, participating in society N 2069 358 348 446 548 Personal assistance score Mean 8.0 7.5 7.6 7.1 8.7 p<0,01 (NP+NC+NS) N 926 128 115 156 284 Source: World Bank, MODDiz Pilot, e-PLIN data. Note: Provisional data for the August 1 - December 31, 2022, N=2,180 persons assessed, total sample. WHODAS+RO total score constructed as a summative index of all 45 items. Specific scores by WHODAS+RO ICF domains constructed as a summative index of the corresponding items. Total personal assistance score calculated as a summative index of all types of needs (personal, domestic and social) in module M2 (with values from zero to 14). Other specialists include: physiotherapist, vocational counsellor, sociologist, lawyer, economist and public administration specialist. Table A. 12: Proxy score for personal assistance and its components according to the types of needs for which the person needs help/assistance Personal needs Domestic needs Social needs Personal care proxy score Personal needs Pearson Correlation 1 .495** .582** .922** Sig. (2-tailed) <.001 <.001 0 N 882 847 842 Domestic needs Pearson Correlation 1 .472** .693** Sig. (2-tailed) <.001 <.001 N 846 842 Social needs Pearson Correlation 1 .809** Sig. (2-tailed) <.001 N 842 Personal care proxy score Pearson Correlation 1 Sig. (2-tailed) N 842 Source: World Bank, MODDiz Pilot, e-PLIN data. Note: Provisional data for the period 1 August-31 December 2022, N=2,180 persons assessed, total sample. Personal assistance proxy score constructed as a summative index of 16 types of needs. Specific scores by types of needs constructed as summative index of corresponding items. 122 Table A. 13: Personal assistance proxy score by county and type of need (average scores) NP NC NS County Personal assistance proxy score N Personal needs Domestic needs Social needs ARAD 3.6 3.9 2.5 10.0 39 BACAU 1.9 3.2 1.2 6.2 150 CONSTANTA 2.3 3.6 1.9 7.7 66 DOLJ 3.5 3.6 2.2 9.4 308 IALOMITA 3.0 3.5 1.8 8.2 133 OLT 2.6 3.9 2.0 8.1 22 SALAJ 3.0 3.8 1.8 8.6 66 SIBIU 2.2 3.5 1.1 6.7 89 SECTOR 3 2.7 3.3 1.0 7.3 3 GIURGIU 1.2 2.7 1.7 5.3 11 Total sample 2.9 3.6 1.8 8.2 887 Sig. One-Way Anova p < 0,001 p < 0,001 p < 0,001 p < 0,001 Source: World Bank, MODDiz Pilot, e-PLIN data. Note: Provisional data for the period 1 August-31 December 2022, N=2,180 persons assessed, total sample. Personal assistance proxy score constructed as a summative index of 16 types of needs. Specific scores by types of needs constructed as summative index of corresponding items. Figure A. 2: Distribution of cases assessed with the M2 module according to SECPAH decision and county (number of persons) Source: World Bank, MODDiz Pilot, e-PLIN data. Note: Provisional data for the period August 5-December 31, 2022, N=840 persons for whom the M2 assessment module was applied. Differences in the graph are statistically significant (p<0.001). 123 Annex 10. Syntaxes used to identify errors STATA to do file (1) (2) continued do "_globals.do" **#CES desc CES CES1 use "$workingdb/ePLIN_extra", clear tab CES na_CES, mi replace na_CES = cond(CES >= . & AGE <= 64 & PDZ20<2 & DATAS != **# 1. Generate error variables "##N/A##", "Miss, dar DATAS completat", "") **# 1.1. String variables tab PDZ20 CES, mi tab AGE CES, mi ds, has(type string) gen err_CES = "AGE>=65" if CES <. & AGE >=65 & AGE <. global stringvars `r(varlist)' replace err_CES = "PDZ grad I/II" if CES <. & PDZ20==2 replace err_CES = "AGE>=65 & PDZ grad I/II" if CES <. & PDZ20==2 & AGE **#export a list with string variables names and labels >=65 & AGE <. preserve tab CES err_CES, mi describe $stringvars, replace clear drop position format vallab isnumeric tab CES CES1, mi export excel using "$workingdb/eplin_stringvars.xlsx", first(var) replace replace na_CES1 = "" restore gen err_CES1 = "AGE>=65" if CES1 <. & AGE >=65 & AGE <. replace err_CES1 = "PDZ grad I/II" if CES1 <. & PDZ20==2 **# inspect string variables, check missings replace err_CES1 = "AGE>=65 & PDZ grad I/II" if CES1 <. & PDZ20==2 & foreach var of varlist $stringvars { AGE >=65 & AGE <. describe `var' tab CES err_CES1, mi tab `var' gen na_`var' = "" **#SFATE lab var na_`var' "`var' - err valori lipsa" desc SFATE } tab SFATE na_SFATE, mi replace na_SFATE = cond(SFATE >= . & AGE <= 64 & PDZ20<2 & DATAS != **# for each string variable, use the na_* variable generated "##N/A##", "Miss, dar DATAS completat", "") above to record if it has missings tab PDZ20 SFATE, mi foreach var of varlist $stringvars { tab AGE SFATE, mi replace na_`var' = "Raspunsul este N/A" if regexm(`var', "N/A") gen err_SFATE = "AGE>=65" if SFATE <. & AGE >=65 & AGE <. == 1 replace err_SFATE = "PDZ grad I/II" if SFATE <. & PDZ20==2 } replace err_SFATE = "AGE>=65 & PDZ grad I/II" if SFATE <. & PDZ20==2 & AGE >=65 & AGE <. **# for each string variable replace na_* = "The answer iS N/A" tab SFATE err_SFATE, mi if the variable has the value "not the case" or similar foreach var of varlist $stringvars { **OUTLM. ERROR OUTLM by OCUP1: IF OUTLM=2 THEN OCUP1>0 gen temp = strlower(`var') **!!!OUTLM == 2 must be checked against OCUP_P0 from HGRID replace temp = stritrim(temp) tab OUTLM na_OUTLM, mi replace temp = trim(temp) replace na_OUTLM = cond(OUTLM >= . & inrange(AGE, 16, 64) & PDZ20<2 replace na_`var' = "Raspunsul este N/A" if inlist(temp, "nu e & DATAS != "##N/A##", "Miss, dar DATAS completat", "") cazul", "nu este cazul", "nc") == 1 drop temp **OCUP1 } tab OCUP1 na_OCUP1, mi foreach var of varlist $stringvars { replace na_OCUP1 = cond(OCUP1 >= . & inrange(AGE, 16, 64) & PDZ20<2 replace na_`var' = "In loc de N/A este trecut -/0" if inlist(`var', "- & DATAS != "##N/A##", "Miss, dar DATAS completat", "") ", "0", "o") } **OCNOW. IF OCUP_P0 = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 sau 6 OR OCUP1>0 THEN OCNOW=1 ***!!!***de verificat dupa adaugarea bazei HGRID **# 1.1.1. String variables which cannot be missing tab OCNOW na_OCNOW, mi **for the var NUMEP_c (Prenume 2), N/A should be allowed replace na_OCNOW = cond(OCNOW >= . & inrange(AGE, 16, 64) & describe NUMEP_c PDZ20<2 & DATAS != "##N/A##", "Miss, dar DATAS completat", "") replace na_NUMEP_c = "" **# CONT1_2 tab OCUP1 OCNOW, mi describe CONT1_2 replace na_OCNOW = "Miss, dar OCUP1 = 1, 2 sau 3" if inlist(OCUP1, 1,2,3) replace CONT1_2 = trim(CONT1_2) & OCNOW >=. replace na_CONT1_2 = "" if CONT1_2 == "0" //here, 0 means no e-mail replace na_OCNOW = "" if OCNOW == .a & OCUP1 == 0 //& address, according to instructions given to operators !inrange(OCUP_P0, 1, 6) - !!!activat dupa adaugarea HGRID tab na_OCNOW, mi **# names gen err_NUMEP_a = . **OCUP4. ERROR: IF OCUP4>0 THEN OUTLM>0; IF OUTLM>0 THEN replace err_NUMEP_a = 1 if regexm(NUMEP_a, "sters") == 1 OCUP4>0. gen err_NUMEP_b = . tab OCUP4 na_OCUP4, mi replace err_NUMEP_b = 1 if regexm(NUMEP_b, "sters") == 1 replace na_OCUP4 = cond(OCUP4 >= . & inrange(AGE, 16, 64) & PDZ20<2 & DATAS != "##N/A##", "Miss, dar DATAS completat", "") **# date of birth gen err_OCUP4 = "Eroare introducere date" if OCUP4 > 100 & OCUP4 <. gen day_birth = substr(DN, -2, 2) destring day_birth, force replace tab OCUP4 err_OCUP4 if inlist(OUTLM,1,2), mi tab OCUP4 na_OCUP4 if inlist(OUTLM,1,2), mi gen month_birth = substr(DN, -5, 2) replace na_OCUP4 = "Mis, desi OUTLM e 1 sau 2" if inlist(OUTLM,1,2) & destring month_birth, force replace OCUP4 >=. tab OCUP4 OUTLM if !inlist(OUTLM,1,2), mi 124 gen year_birth = substr(DN, 1, 4) tab err1_OUTLM err1_OCUP4 if OCUP4 > 0 & OCUP4<. & OUTLM == 0, mi destring year_birth, force replace replace err1_OUTLM = "OUTLM = 0, dar OCUP4 > 0" if err1_OUTLM == "" & OCUP4 > 0 & OCUP4<. & OUTLM == 0 **err_day replace err1_OCUP4 = "OUTLM = 0, dar OCUP4 > 0" if err1_OCUP4 == "" & gen err_daybirth = "" OCUP4 > 0 & OCUP4<. & OUTLM == 0 replace err_daybirth = "Ziua de nastere nu este trecuta corect" if month_birth == 1 & !inrange(day_birth, 1, 31) **#Ds - nevoi de sprijin replace err_daybirth = "Ziua de nastere nu este trecuta corect" if month_birth desc D155 D160 D177 D230 D2304 D240 D330 D410_15 D420a D420b == 2 & !inrange(day_birth, 1, 29) D4551 D450_60_65 D4708 D510_20_40 D530 D550 D570 D620 D630 D640 replace err_daybirth = "Ziua de nastere nu este trecuta corect" if month_birth D710 D720 D860 D865_70 == 3 & !inrange(day_birth, 1, 31) global Ds_sprijin D155 D160 D177 D230 D2304 D240 D330 D410_15 D420a replace err_daybirth = "Ziua de nastere nu este trecuta corect" if month_birth D420b D4551 D450_60_65 D4708 D510_20_40 D530 D550 D570 D620 D630 == 4 & !inrange(day_birth, 1, 30) D640 D710 D720 D860 D865_70 replace err_daybirth = "Ziua de nastere nu este trecuta corect" if month_birth foreach var of varlist $Ds_sprijin { == 5 & !inrange(day_birth, 1, 31) tab `var' na_`var', mi replace err_daybirth = "Ziua de nastere nu este trecuta corect" if month_birth replace na_`var' = cond(`var' >= . & DATAS != "##N/A##", == 6 & !inrange(day_birth, 1, 30) "Miss, dar DATAS completat", "") replace err_daybirth = "Ziua de nastere nu este trecuta corect" if month_birth } == 7 & !inrange(day_birth, 1, 31) replace err_daybirth = "Ziua de nastere nu este trecuta corect" if month_birth tab D160 na_D160, mi == 8 & !inrange(day_birth, 1, 31) lab list D160 D2304 D330 D720 replace err_daybirth = "Ziua de nastere nu este trecuta corect" if month_birth tab D240 na_D240, mi == 9 & !inrange(day_birth, 1, 30) tab1 D630 D640, mi replace err_daybirth = "Ziua de nastere nu este trecuta corect" if month_birth lab list D4551 D450_60_65 D4708 == 10 & !inrange(day_birth, 1, 31) lab list D710 replace err_daybirth = "Ziua de nastere nu este trecuta corect" if month_birth == 11 & !inrange(day_birth, 1, 30) **# NX* nevoie comportamentale replace err_daybirth = "Ziua de nastere nu este trecuta corect" if month_birth desc NX1 NX2 NX3 NX4 NX5 NX6 == 12 & !inrange(day_birth, 1, 31) tab1 NX1 NX2 NX3 NX4 NX5 NX6, mi global NX NX1 NX2 NX3 NX4 NX5 **err_month foreach var of varlist $NX { gen err_monthbirth = "" tab `var' na_`var', mi replace err_monthbirth = "Luna nasterii nu este trecuta (corect)" if replace na_`var' = cond(`var' >= . & DATAS != "##N/A##", (month_birth < 1 | month_birth >12) "Miss, dar DATAS completat", "") } **err_year gen err_yearbirth = "" **NX6: Nu se aplică pentru persoanele cu dizabilități care trăiesc într-un replace err_yearbirth = "Anul nasterii nu este trecut (corect)" if year_birth < serviciu rezidențial (conform HG nr. 867/2015). 1910 | year_birth > 2022 tab NX6 na_NX6, mi replace na_NX6 = cond(NX6 >= . & AFAMAS !=2 & DATAS != "##N/A##", **# ID "Miss, dar DATAS completat", "") **series tab AFAMAS na_NX6, mi gen err_ACTID_b1 = "" tab AFAMAS NX6, mi replace err_ACTID_b1 = "Seria ID nu este trecuta corect (e.g., are alte semne gen err_NX6 = "NX6 e completat, desi AFAMAS = 2" if AFAMAS == 2 & NX6 grafice sau litere mici)" if regexm(ACTID_b1, "[.,:a-z]+") //+ means match 1 <. or more of the expression between brackets tab err_NX6, mi tab AFAMAS_5 if NX6 <. & AFAMAS == 5 /* **valid ID //in case the var ACTID_f1 won't be deleted **#Date despre locuinta describe ACTID_f1 **# LOCYES gen day_validID = substr(ACTID_f1, -2, 2) desc LOCYES destring day_validID, force replace tab LOCYES na_LOCYES, mi replace na_LOCYES = cond(LOCYES >= . & DATAS != "##N/A##", "Miss, dar gen month_validID = substr(ACTID_f1, -5, 2) DATAS completat. Dupa corectare, vezi sectiunea 5.Locuinta", "") destring month_validID, force replace **!!!**after merging with Asoc5.2, check if the items are conditioned on locyes. They should not be gen year_validID = substr(ACTID_f1, 1, 4) destring year_validID, force replace **# LOCTIP: daca LOCYES = 1 desc LOCTIP gen err_ACTID_f1 = "" tab LOCTIP LOCYES, mi replace err_ACTID_f1 = "CI expirat" if year_validID < 2022 | (year_validID == replace na_LOCTIP = cond(LOCYES == 1 & LOCTIP >=., "Miss, dar LOCYES 2022 & month_validID <8) = 1", "") */ lab list LOCTIP gen err_LOCTIP = "Nu exista varianta de raspouns 0. De revazut optiunile de **# OMSM // the three members in the assessment team raspuns" if LOCTIP == 0 tab1 OMSM_*, mi **# LOCAN: daca LOCYES = 1 **error variables for incorrect codes (e.g., text instead of code) desc LOCAN destring OMSM_1, gen(temp) force tab LOCAN na_LOCAN, mi gen err_OMSM_1 = "Codul OMSM1 nu este trecut corect" if temp == . & replace na_LOCAN = cond(LOCYES == 1 & LOCAN >=., "Miss, dar LOCYES na_OMSM_1 == "" = 1", "") *tab OMSM_1 err_OMSM_1, mi replace err_OMSM_1 = "double check the codes; they look like years" **# ETJ*: daca LOCYES = 1 if inrange(temp, 2000, 2011) desc ETJ ETJ_1 ETJL ETJD ETJD_1 ETJB ETJB_1 drop temp global etaje ETJ ETJL ETJD ETJB destring OMSM_2, gen(temp) force foreach var of varlist $etaje{ gen err_OMSM_2 = "Codul OMSM2 nu este trecut corect" if temp == . & replace na_`var' = cond(LOCYES == 1 & `var' >=., "Miss, dar na_OMSM_2 == "" LOCYES = 1", "") *tab OMSM_2 err_OMSM_2, mi } 125 replace err_OMSM_2 = "double check the codes; they look like years" **ETJ if inrange(temp, 2000, 2011) tab ETJ na_ETJ, mi drop temp tab ETJ_1 ETJ, mi destring OMSM_3, gen(temp) force gen err_ETJ = "ETJ = -9, dar ETJ_1 = 0. Corect: ETJ = 0" if ETJ == -9 & ETJ_1 gen err_OMSM_3 = "Codul OMSM3 nu este trecut corect" if temp == . & == 0 na_OMSM_3 == "" gen err_ETJ_1 = "ETJ = -9, dar ETJ_1 = 0. Corect: ETJ_1 = ." if ETJ == -9 & replace err_OMSM_3 = "Codul OMSM3 nu este trecut corect" if OMSM_3 == ETJ_1 == 0 "1" tab err_ETJ err_ETJ_1, mi tab OMSM_3 err_OMSM_3, mi **ETJL replace err_OMSM_3 = "double check the codes; they look like years" tab ETJL na_ETJL, mi if inrange(temp, 2000, 2011) gen err_ETJL = "Probabil nu exista, deci ETJL = 0" if ETJL == -1 | inrange(ETJL, drop temp 5, 10) replace err_ETJL = "Check again. Locuinta sau cladirea are 4 etaje?" if ETJL **NAs == 4 tab OMSM_1 na_OMSM_1, mi tab ETJL err_ETJL, mi tab OMSM_2 na_OMSM_2, mi **ETJD. IF ETJL>0 ASK ETJD. ELSE SKIP ETJD. replace na_OMSM_2 = "" if inlist(OMSM_2, "0", "-") tab ETJD na_ETJD, mi replace err_OMSM_2 = "- e probabil in loc de 0" if OMSM_2 == "-" tab ETJL ETJD, mi tab OMSM_3 na_OMSM_3, mi gen err_ETJD = "Skip fiindca ETJL = 0" if ETJL == 0 & ETJD <. replace na_OMSM_3 = "" if inlist(OMSM_3, "0", "-") replace err_ETJD = "Vezi dupa corectarea ETJL. Acum ETJL = -1" if ETJL == - replace err_OMSM_3 = "- e probabil in loc de 0" if OMSM_3 == "-" 1 & ETJD <. replace err_ETJD = "Vezi dupa corectarea ETJL. Acum ETJL >= 4" if **# DATLOG* // date when the assessment took place inrange(ETJL, 4, 10) & ETJD <. tab1 DATLOG*, mi tab ETJL err_ETJD, mi **#EVM1 //primary diagnosis tab ETJD_1 ETJD, mi tab1 EVM1_1a EVM1_1b, mi tab ETJD_1 na_ETJD_1, mi gen err_EVM1_1b = "Cod posibil gresit" if regexm(EVM1_1b, "!") == 1 | replace na_ETJD_1 = cond(ETJD == -9 & ETJD_1 >=., "Miss, dar ETJD = -9", inlist(EVM1_1b, "C34/") "") replace err_EVM1_1b = "Denumire in loc de cod" if inlist(EVM1_1b, "ALTE gen err_ETJD_1 = "Vezi dupa corectarea ETJL. Acum ETJL = -1" if ETJL == -1 SINDROAME PARALITICE.", "Functii mentale 1.10", "HEMIPLEGIE STANGA", & ETJD_1 <. "TAHICARDIA PAROXISTICA", "Tulburare schizo afectiva") replace err_ETJD_1 = "Vezi dupa corectarea ETJL. Acum ETJL >= 4" if gen temp = ustrregexra(EVM1_1b,"[^a-zA-Z]","") //keep only letters inrange(ETJL, 4, 10) & ETJD_1 <. tab temp replace err_EVM1_1b = "Multiple coduri" if err_EVM1_1b == "" & **ETJB. IF ETJL>0 ASK ETJB. ELSE SKIP ETJD. na_EVM1_1b == "" & length(temp) >=2 tab ETJB na_ETJB, mi drop temp tab ETJL ETJB, mi replace err_EVM1_1b = "" if regexm(EVM1_1b, "-") == 1 gen err_ETJB = "Skip fiindca ETJL = 0" if ETJL == 0 & ETJB <. replace err_ETJB = "Vezi dupa corectarea ETJL. Acum ETJL = -1" if ETJL == - **#EVM30 1 & ETJB <. tab EVM30, mi replace err_ETJB = "Vezi dupa corectarea ETJL. Acum ETJL >= 4" if gen err_EVM30 = "Numai cod, fara denumire" if regexm(EVM30, "[a-zA-Z]") inrange(ETJL, 4, 10) & ETJB <. !=1 tab ETJL err_ETJB, mi gen temp = lower(EVM30) tab EVM30 if regexm(temp, "scor") == 1 tab ETJB_1 ETJB, mi replace err_EVM30 = "Scor, nu tip" if regexm(temp, "scor") == 1 tab ETJB_1 na_ETJB_1, mi tab EVM30 if ustrregexm(temp, ["(^tip(ul)?)\s?([0-9])((?!ps|so).)*$"])== 1 replace na_ETJB_1 = cond(ETJB == -9 & ETJB_1 >=., "Miss, dar ETJB = -9", replace err_EVM30 = "Numai cod, fara denumire" if ustrregexm(temp, "") ["(^tip(ul)?)\s?([0-9])((?!ps|so).)*$"])== 1 gen err_ETJB_1 = "Check again. Now ETJB_1 = -2" if ETJB == -9 & ETJB_1 <0 tab EVM30 if ustrregexm(temp, ["(^capitol(ul)?)"]) replace err_ETJB_1 = "ETJB_1 = 0. Probabil ETJB_1 = miss & ETJB = 0" if replace err_EVM30 = "Posibil neclar, capitol in loc de tip(?)" if ETJB_1 == 0 & ETJB == -9 ustrregexm(temp, ["(^capitol(ul)?)"]) replace err_ETJB_1 = "Vezi dupa corectarea ETJL. Acum ETJL >= 4" if drop temp inrange(ETJL, 4, 10) & ETJB_1 <. tab ETJB_1 err_ETJB_1, mi **#DATA_F2 //date F2 form tab DATA_F2, mi **# USA* tab na_DATA_F2, mi desc USAS USA USA_1 USAA tab1 USAS USA USA_1 USAA, mi **#DATAS, DATASS tab LOCYES USAS, mi desc DATASS DATAS replace na_USAS = cond(LOCYES == 1 & USAS >= ., "Raspuns lipsa", "") tab1 DATASS DATAS, mi tab USA LOCYES , mi tab na_DATASS na_DATAS, mi replace na_USA = cond(LOCYES == 1 & USA >= ., "Raspuns lipsa", "") tab DATAS if na_DATASS != "" replace na_DATASS = "DATASS missing, dar DATAS valid" if na_DATASS != tab USA_1, mi "" & DATAS != "##N/A##" gen err_USA_1 = "-2 eroare" if USA_1 == -2 tab DATASS if na_DATAS != "" replace err_USA_1 = "0, dar USA = -9" if USA_1 == 0 & USA == -9 replace na_DATAS = "DATAS missing, dar DATASS valid" if na_DATAS != "" tab USA_1 ETJ, mi & DATASS != "##N/A##" tab ETJ_1 USA_1, mi replace na_DATAS = "DATAS & DATASS missing, dar sunt variable tab ETJ_1 USA_1 if USA_1 > ETJ_1 & USA_1 <. completate" if DATAS == "##N/A##" & DATASS == "##N/A##" & PTUTAS_1 replace err_USA_1 = "Intrarea e la un etaj > etajul locuintei" if USA_1 > ETJ_1 <. & USA_1 <. replace na_DATASS = "DATAS & DATASS missing, dar sunt variable tab USA_1 USA , mi completate" if DATAS == "##N/A##" & DATASS == "##N/A##" & PTUTAS_1 replace na_USA_1 = cond(USA == -9 & USA_1 >= ., "Raspuns lipsa", "") <. replace na_USA_1 = cond(USA == .a & USA_1 >= ., "Raspuns lipsa. Revezi dupa corectarea miss USA", "") **#OMSL_1 //mixed variable - some names, some profession, some code tab USAA LOCYES , mi desc OMSL_1 replace na_USAA = cond(LOCYES == 1 & USAA >= ., "Raspuns lipsa", "") tab OMSL_1, mi **# LIFT 126 **#ID desc LIFT desc ACTID_b ACTID_d ACTID_e ACTID_f tab LIFT, mi tab1 ACTID_b ACTID_d, mi replace na_LIFT = cond(LOCYES == 1 & LIFT >= ., "Raspuns lipsa", "") replace na_ACTID_b = "Eroare de introducere (?)" if inlist(lower(substr(ACTID_b, 1, 2)), "ci", "c.", "se", "bi") **# GEOL*. IF (GEOL_1=1 OR GEOL_2=1 OR GEOL_3=1 OR tab ACTID_b na_ACTID_b, mi GEOL_4=1) THEN GEOL_0=0 replace na_ACTID_d = "Eroare de introducere" if inlist(ACTID_d, "0", "1") desc GEOL__1 GEOL__2 GEOL__3 GEOL__4 GEOL__0 tab ACTID_e, mi global GEOL GEOL__1 GEOL__2 GEOL__3 GEOL__4 GEOL__0 gen temp_an = substr(ACTID_e, 1, 4) foreach var of varlist $GEOL { destring temp_an, replace force tab `var' LOCYES, mi gen err_ACTID_e = "Anul emiterii CI este > 2022" if temp_an > 2022 & replace na_`var' = cond(LOCYES == 1 & `var' >= ., "Raspuns temp_an <. lipsa", "") drop temp_an } tab ACTID_f, mi tab GEOL__1 na_GEOL__1, mi gen temp_an = substr(ACTID_f, 1, 4) egen test_geol = rowtotal(GEOL__1 GEOL__2 GEOL__3 GEOL__4), mi destring temp_an, replace force tab test_geol GEOL__0, mi gen err_ACTID_f = "CI expirat sau eroare introducere" if temp_an < 2022 list GEOL* if test_geol == 1 & GEOL__0 == 1 drop temp_an gen err_GEOL__0 = "1, dar GEOL_1=1 OR GEOL_2=1 OR GEOL_3=1 OR GEOL_4=1" if test_geol == 1 & GEOL__0 == 1 **# 1.2. Numeric variables drop test_geol ds, has(type numeric) global numvars `r(varlist)' **NAs for the rest of the variables in 5.Locuinta which have as only filter LOCYES == 1 **#export a list with string variables names and labels global vars_locuinta MP MPOM CAM CAMN RISCH OBSL UTILL* DTRI APA preserve BUC ARGZ /// describe $numvars, replace clear PAT* WC LIZ GEOZM HEAT PROPL drop position isnumeric format foreach var of varlist $vars_locuinta { export excel using "$workingdb/eplin_numericvars.xlsx", first(var) replace tab `var' LOCYES, mi restore replace na_`var' = cond(LOCYES == 1 & `var' >= ., "Raspuns lipsa", "") **# inspect numeric variables, check missings } foreach var of varlist $numvars { describe `var' **# MP, MPOM tab `var' desc MP* gen na_`var' = "" tab MP, mi lab var na_`var' "`var' - err valori lipsa" gen err_MP = "Suprafata < 5m2. Double check" if MP < 5 } su MP NPERS MPOM tab MPOM LOCYES, mi **# for each numeric variable, use the na_* variable generated gen err_MPOM = "Completat, desi LOCYES = 0" if MPOM <. & LOCYES == above to record if it has missings 0 foreach var of varlist $numvars { replace err_MPOM = "Completat, desi LOCYES = miss" if MPOM <. & replace na_`var' = "Raspuns lipsa" if `var' >= . LOCYES >=. } replace err_MPOM = "Check again dupa verificarea err_NPERS" if err_NPERS != "" & err_MPOM == "" **# 1.2.1. Numeric variables which cannot be missing tab MPOM, mi desc COD_JUD JUD ADR_NUME_UAT SIRUTA_SUP LOC SIRUTA_LOC tab err_MPOM,mi URBRUR gen test_MPOM = MP/NPERS if LOCYES == 1 *tab LOC na_LOC, mi gen diff_MPOM = MPOM - test_MPOM if err_MPOM == "" & LOCYES == 1 tab na_LOC, mi su diff_MPOM //ok tab LOC if na_LOC == "" drop test_MPOM diff_MPOM tab URBRUR if na_URBRUR == "", mi nolab ***!!!**** the URBRUR variable is not generated correctly. Instead of values **# CAM*, RISCH, OBSL "0" & "1", the values are the same as for SIRUTA_LOC and only the labels are desc CAM CAMN RISCH OBSL "Urban"/"Rural", except for SIRUTA_LOC 179169, which has the label "0". tab CAM na_CAM, mi tab CAMN na_CAMN, mi **# OMSEGO_codeS tab CAM CAMN, mi desc OMSEGO_codeS tab OMSEGO_codeS, mi tab RISCH na_RISCH, mi gen err_OMSEGO_codeS = "double check the codes; they look like years" if tab OBSL na_OBSL, mi inrange(OMSEGO_codeS, 2001,2011) **# UTILL* **#OMSE_codeS desc UTILL* desc OMSE_codeS forvalues i=1/6 { tab OMSE_codeS, mi tab UTILL__`i' na_UTILL__`i', mi gen err_OMSE_codeS = "double check the codes; they look like years" if } inrange(OMSE_codeS, 2001,2011) **# DTRI, APA, BUC, ARGZ, PAT*, WC **# AGE desc DTRI APA BUC ARGZ PAT* WC tab AGE, mi tab DTRI na_DTRI, mi gen err_AGE = cond(AGE<0 | AGE>120, "Valoare nevalida", "") // negative tab APA na_APA, mi value tab BUC na_BUC, mi tab err_AGE, mi tab ARGZ na_ARGZ, mi tab PAT na_PAT, mi **# PTUT // guardianship etc; var generated automatically from tab PATC na_PATC, mi F00 tab WC na_WC, mi tab1 PTUT_*, mi tab1 na_PTUT_*, mi **# LIZ, GEOZM global PTUT na_PTUT_* desc LIZ GEOZM foreach var of varlist $PTUT { tab LIZ na_LIZ, mi 127 replace `var' = "Raspuns lipsa preluat automat. Verifica F00" if `var' == tab GEOZM na_GEOZM, mi "Raspunsul este N/A" } **# HEAT desc HEAT **# RCRT // consent tab HEAT na_HEAT, mi tab1 RCRT*, mi **# PROPL, HACT, TACT, LOCB* **# TIMEF00 // duration of discussion and form filling desc PROPL HACT TACT LOCB* tab1 TIMEF00*, mi tab PROPL na_PROPL, mi gen err_TIMEF00_a = cond(TIMEF00_a<0, "Valoare nevalida", "") // negative value **Dacă PROPL=1 sau 2 locuința este în proprietatea familiei: HACT, TACT, gen err_TIMEF00_b = cond(TIMEF00_b<0, "Valoare nevalida", "") // negative LOCB1 value global acteprop HACT TACT LOCB1 tab err_TIMEF00_a, mi foreach var of varlist $acteprop { replace na_`var' = cond(inlist(PROPL, 1,2) & `var' >=., "Raspuns **# ADRCO // mail address lipsa", "") tab ADRCO, mi } tab PROPL HACT, mi **# CONT2 // preferred means of contact tab HACT na_HACT, mi tab CONT2, mi tab PROPL TACT, mi tab TACT na_TACT, mi **# SCIV tab PROPL LOCB1, mi tab SCIV, mi tab LOCB1 na_LOCB1, mi **# PDZ20 // disability pension **Dacă PROPL=4 locuința este cu chirie subvenționată: LOCB2 tab PDZ20, mi tab PROPL LOCB2, mi replace na_LOCB2 = cond(PROPL == 4 & LOCB2 >=., "Raspuns lipsa", "") **# TIMEF0 // duration of extracting data from the file tab TIMEF0, mi **# 1.2.2. Numeric variables and string variables which depend on them gen err_TIMEF0 = cond(TIMEF0<0, "Valoare nevalida", "") // negative value **# EVN04 // translation desc EVN04 **# EVM //medical assessment tab1 EVN04, mi tab1 EVM1_2 EVM1_3, mi tab1 na_EVM1_2 na_EVM1_3, mi ** err_EVN04_a // translation language not mentioned tab EVN04_a, mi **#SCORM codebook EVN04_a tab SCORM, mi tab EVN04 EVN04_a, mi tab na_SCORM, mi gen err_EVN04_a = cond(EVN04==1 & EVN04_a == "", "Nu se precizeaza limba in care s-a facut traducerea", "") **#EVM3 tab EVM3, mi **# AFAM & AINST // living arrangements tab na_EVM3, mi desc AFAM tab AFAM, mi **#EVM4 //services codebook AFAM desc EVM4* **checking if there are differences between EVM4_9 EVM4_7 EVM4_8 ** AFAM_5 // other living arrangement not mentioned EVM4_80, which were both in ePlin and the extra F1_EVM4_Roster desc AFAM_5 global evm4 EVM4_9 EVM4_7 EVM4_8 EVM4_80 tab AFAM_5, mi foreach var of varlist $evm4 { gen err_AFAM_5 = cond(AFAM==5 & AFAM_5 == "", "Nu se precizeaza di "`var'" despre ce alta sit rezidentiala este vorba", "") egen test_evm4 = diff(`var' `var'_eplin) tab test_evm4 ** AINST1 name of instit (This must be filled in IF AFAM=2, 3 or 5. Cannot be list interview__key `var' `var'_eplin if test_evm4 == 1 missing) drop test_evm4 gen err_AINST1 = "" } replace err_AINST1 = "Nu poate fi miss daca AFAM e 2, 3, sau 5" if replace na_EVM4_7 = "Miss in Roster, 0 in ePlin" if EVM4_7 == .a & inlist(AFAM, 2, 3, 5) & (na_AINST1 != "" | AINST1 == "") EVM4_7_eplin == 0 tab AINST1 AFAM if err_AINST1 != "", mi replace na_EVM4_8 = "Miss in Roster, 0 in ePlin" if EVM4_8 == .a & EVM4_8_eplin == 0 ** AINST2 name of instit (This must be filled in IF AFAM=2. Cannot be replace EVM4_7 = EVM4_7_eplin if EVM4_7 == .a & EVM4_7_eplin == 0 missing) replace EVM4_8 = EVM4_8_eplin if EVM4_8 == .a & EVM4_8_eplin == 0 tab AINST2, mi drop *EVM4_9_eplin *EVM4_7_eplin *EVM4_8_eplin *EVM4_80_eplin tab AFAM AINST2, mi gen err_AINST2 = cond(AFAM==2 & AINST2 == ., "Nu poate fi miss daca order EVM4_1 EVM4_2 EVM4_3 EVM4_4 EVM4_5, bef(EVM4_5a__0) AFAM e 2", "") order EVM4_6 EVM4_7 EVM4_8 EVM4_80 EVM4_9 EVM4_10 EVM4_11, tab err_AINST2, mi after(EVM4_5a__17) order na_EVM4_1 na_EVM4_2 na_EVM4_3 na_EVM4_4 na_EVM4_5, ** AINST3 does not exist in this dataset bef(na_EVM4_5a__0) order na_EVM4_6 na_EVM4_7 na_EVM4_8 na_EVM4_80 na_EVM4_9 **# PASIST & PASIST2 - personal assistance na_EVM4_10 na_EVM4_11, after(na_EVM4_5a__17) tab PASIST, mi tab PASIST PASIST2, mi tab1 EVM4_1 EVM4_2 EVM4_3 EVM4_4 EVM4_5 EVM4_6 EVM4_7 EVM4_8 gen err_PASIST = cond(inlist(PASIST,1,2) & PASIST2 != 1, "PASIST2 = 1 nu a EVM4_80 EVM4_9 EVM4_10 EVM4_11, mi fost generat automat, desi PASIST == 2", "") **EVM4_5a__* x EVM4_5 **# PRLEG //legal representative egen nmiss_EVM4_5a = rowmiss(EVM4_5a*) tab PRLEG, mi tab nmiss_EVM4_5a, mi gen err_EVM4_5 = "Da, dar toate EVM4_5a_* sunt miss" if EVM4_5 == 1 & tab PRLEG PRLEG_1, mi nmiss_EVM4_5a == 18 tab PRLEG PRLEG_2, mi list EVM4_5* if err_EVM4_5 != "" tab PRLEG PRLEG_3, mi 128 drop nmiss_EVM4_5a ** err_PRLEG_3_4 //other relative tab1 EVM4_5a*, mi desc PRLEG_3* global evm4_5a EVM4_5a* lab list PRLEG_3 foreach var of varlist $evm4_5a { tab PRLEG_3_4, mi gen err_`var' = "0 A. PACHET DE BAZĂ nu este o optiune" if `var' gen err_PRLEG_3_4 = cond(PRLEG_3 == 4 & PRLEG_3_4 == "", "Nu este == 0 precizata ruda reprezentant legal", "") } ** err_PRLEG_3_5 // other non-kin person **correcting the variables recording nonresponse tab PRLEG_3_5, mi tab na_EVM4_5a__0, mi gen err_PRLEG_3_5 = cond(PRLEG_3 == 5 & PRLEG_3_5 == "", "Nu este foreach var of varlist $evm4_5a { precizata persoana neruda reprezentant legal", "") drop na_`var' gen err2_PRLEG_3_5 = "Nu este precizata calitatea persoanei, ci numele" if } PRLEG_3_5 == "BOAGIU ECATERINA" **so far, max three answers have been chosen **# ECD1 //type of assessment **recording missing in case a missing is followed by a variable with a valid tab ECD1, mi answer gen na_EVM4_5a__0 = "Raspuns lipsa" if EVM4_5 == 1 & EVM4_5a__0 >=. **# ECD2 does not exist in this dataset gen na_EVM4_5a__1 = "Raspuns lipsa" if EVM4_5a__2 <. & EVM4_5a__1 >= . gen na_EVM4_5a__2 = "Raspuns lipsa" if EVM4_5a__3 <. & EVM4_5a__2 >= . **# ECD2_a // degree of disability gen na_EVM4_5a__3 = "Raspuns lipsa" if EVM4_5a__4 <. & EVM4_5a__3 >= . tab ECD2_a, mi tab na_ECD2_a, mi **#EVM5. Health problem desc EVM5_1 EVM5_2 EVM5_3 EVM5_4 EVM5_5 EVM5_6 EVM5_7 EVM5_8 **# ECD2_b // should be numeric but it is not EVM5_9 EVM5_10 EVM5_11 EVM5_12 EVM5_13 desc ECD2_b tab1 EVM5* if AGE >=65 //age criterion respected ** first, check if missings are correct tab1 EVM5* if PDZ20 ==2 //disability pension criterion not respected //ECD2 does not exist in this dataset, so we use ECD1 instead: tab AGE EVM5_1, mi tab ECD2_b ECD1, mi global evm5 EVM5* replace na_ECD2_b = "Raspuns lipsa" if ECD2_b == "" foreach var of varlist $evm5 { tab na_ECD2_b, mi gen err_`var' = "Verifica dupa corectarea varstei" if AGE <0 & PDZ20 <2 & `var' <. //negative age values, but PDZ20 <2, so it can be tab ECD2_b, mi revisited after correcting the age destring ECD2_b, gen(temp) force replace err_`var' = "Verifica dupa corectarea missings PDZ20" if gen err_ECD2_b = cond(na_ECD2_b == "" & temp==., "Text in loc de cod", inrange(AGE, 0, 64) & na_PDZ20 != "" & `var' <. "") replace err_`var' = "Verifica dupa corectarea AGE & missings drop temp PDZ20" if AGE <0 & na_PDZ20 != "" & `var' <. tab ECD2_b err_ECD2_b, mi replace err_`var' = "Ar tb sa fie miss. PDZ20=2" if err_`var' == "" gen err2_ECD2_b =cond(ECD2_b == "0", "0, desi nu este intre variantele de & PDZ20==2 & `var' <. raspuns", "") } tab1 err_EVM5*, mi **# ECD2_c // certificate validity tab AGE if err_EVM5_1 != "" tab ECD2_c, mi tab na_ECD2_c, mi tab1 na_EVM5*, mi gen cond_65_diz = (inrange(AGE,0,64) & PDZ20 <2) **# INTM1 // place of interaction foreach var of varlist $evm5 { tab INTM1, mi replace na_`var' = cond(cond_65_diz == 1 & `var' >=., "Raspuns tab INTM1_4, mi lipsa", "") gen err_INTM1_4 = cond(INTM1 == 4 & inlist(INTM1_4, "", "-"), "Nu se } precizeaza unde a avut loc interactiunea", "") **#C* //quality of info on file **# INTM3 // language of interaction desc C0_P C1_M C1_P C2_M C2_P C3_M C3_P C4_M C4_P C5_M C5_P C6_M tab INTM3, mi C6_P C9_M /// gen err_INTM3_5 = cond(INTM3 == 5 & INTM3_5 == "", "Nu se precizeaza C9_P C7_M C7_P in ce limba a avut loc interactiunea", "") tab C0_P na_C0_P, mi //psych **# INTM2 // participants tab1 C*_P if C0_P == 1, mi tab1 INTM2*, mi tab1 C*_P if C0_P == 0, mi //issues with 6,9,7,8 tab INTM2_e_1 INTM2__4, mi tab C6_P C0_P, mi gen err_INTM2_e_1 = cond(INTM2__4 == 1 & INTM2_e_1 == "", "Nu se gen err_C6_P = "Completat desi C0_P = 0" if C0_P == 0 & inrange(C6_P, 1, precizeaza ce alta persoana a participat", "") 10) tab C7_P C0_P, mi **# EVM2 //secondary diagnosis gen err_C7_P = "Completat desi C0_P = 0" if C0_P == 0 & inrange(C7_P, 1, desc EVM2 EVM2_1a EVM2_1b //secondary diagnosis 10) tab EVM2, mi tab na_EVM2, mi tab C8_P, mi gen err_C8_P = "Numar desi ar trebui sa fie text" if inrange(C8_P, -2, -1) | **EVM2_1a & EVM2_1b inrange(C8_P, 1, 10) tab EVM2_1a if inlist(EVM2, 0, .a), mi //ok tab EVM2_1b if inlist(EVM2, 0, .a), mi **correcting missings global qualpsy C*_P tab1 EVM2_1a EVM2_1b, mi foreach var of varlist $qualpsy { gen err_EVM2_1a = "Cod trecut in locul denumirii" if inlist(EVM2_1a, "C67", desc `var' "F01") replace na_`var' = "" if C0_P == 0 | C0_P >=. } gen err_EVM2_1b = "Denumire in loc de cod" if inlist(EVM2_1b, "DEMENTA", tab C1_P na_C1_P, mi "Hipogonadism primar", "Tumora maligna a vezicii urinare") replace err_EVM2_1b = "FO in loc de F0" if EVM2_1b == "FO7.9" //medical: gen temp = ustrregexra(EVM2_1b,"[^a-zA-Z]","") //keep only letters tab1 C*_M, mi tab temp 129 gen err_C8_M = "Numar desi ar trebui sa fie text" if inrange(C8_M, -2, -1) | replace err_EVM2_1b = "Multiple coduri" if err_EVM2_1b == "" & inrange(C8_M, 1, 10) na_EVM2_1b == "" & length(temp) >=2 drop temp **#EVN replace err_EVM2_1b = "" if regexm(EVM2_1b, "-") == 1 desc EVN01 EVN01_a EVN02 EVN02_a EVN03 tab1 EVN01 EVN01_a EVN02 EVN02_a EVN03, mi **EVM2_2a & EVM2_2b tab1 EVM2_2a EVM2_2b, mi **#TIMEF1_b desc TIMEF1_b tab EVM2_2a if EVM2_1a == "", mi //ok tab TIMEF1_b, mi tab EVM2_2a if EVM2_1a != "", mi //ok tab EVM2_2b if EVM2_1a == "", mi //ok **#OMSF //all should be numeric but one is string tab EVM2_2b if EVM2_1a != "", mi //ok desc OMSF_1 OMSF_0 OMSF_2 tab OMSF_1, mi tab na_EVM2_2a, mi gen err_OMSF_1 = "double check the codes; they look like years" replace na_EVM2_2a = "'Nu/ Nu este cazul' in loc de NA" if inlist(EVM2_2a, if inrange(OMSF_1, 2000, 2011) "Nu e cazul", "Nu este cazul", "Nu este cazul.", "NU", "nu este cazul") tab OMSF_0, mi gen err_EVM2_2a = "Probabil introdus gresit" if inlist(EVM2_2a, "O", "1") gen err_OMSF_0 = "double check the codes; they look like years" replace err_EVM2_2a = "Cod trecut in locul denumirii" if inlist(EVM2_2a, if inrange(OMSF_0, 2000, 2011) "E03.1") tab OMSF_2, mi destring OMSF_2, gen(temp) force replace na_EVM2_2b = "'Nu/Nu este cazul' in loc de NA" if inlist(EVM2_2b, gen err_OMSF_2 = "Codul OMSF nu este trecut corect" if temp == . & "nu este cazul", "NU", "Nu e cazul") na_OMSF_2 == "" gen err_EVM2_2b = "Probabil introdus gresit" if inlist(EVM2_2b, "O", "1", tab OMSF_2 err_OMSF_2, mi "D50-") replace err_OMSF_2 = "double check the codes; they look like years" replace err_EVM2_2b = "O in loc de 0" if EVM2_2b == "C78.O" if inrange(temp, 2000, 2011) drop temp **EVM2_3a & EVM2_3b tab1 EVM2_3a EVM2_3b, mi **NAs tab OMSF_1 na_OMSF_1, mi tab EVM2_3a if EVM2_2a == "", mi //ok tab OMSF_0 na_OMSF_0, mi tab EVM2_3a if EVM2_2a != "", mi //ok tab OMSF_2 na_OMSF_2, mi tab EVM2_3b if EVM2_2a == "", mi //ok replace na_OMSF_2 = "" if inlist(OMSF_2, "0", "-") tab EVM2_3b if EVM2_2a != "", mi //ok replace err_OMSF_2 = "- e probabil in loc de 0" if OMSF_2 == "-" tab na_EVM2_3a, mi **#WHODAS D1 replace na_EVM2_3a = "'Nu/ Nu este cazul' in loc de NA" if inlist(EVM2_3a, desc D1_* "Nu e cazul", "Nu este cazul", "Nu este cazul.", "NU", "nu este cazul") su D1_* gen err_EVM2_3a = "Probabil introdus gresit" if inlist(EVM2_3a, "O", "1") tab1 D1_*, mi replace err_EVM2_3a = "Cod trecut in locul denumirii" if inlist(EVM2_3a, tab D1_1 na_D1_1, mi "205") **#WHODAS D2 replace na_EVM2_3b = "'Nu/Nu este cazul' in loc de NA" if inlist(EVM2_3b, desc D2_* "nu este cazul", "NU", "Nu e cazul") su D2_* gen err_EVM2_3b = "Probabil introdus gresit" if inlist(EVM2_3b, "O", "1") tab1 D2_*, mi replace err_EVM2_3b = "Denumire trecuta in loc de cod" if inlist(EVM2_3b, tab D2_1 na_D2_1, mi "ASOCIAT", "VIZUAL") **#WHODAS D3 **# EVM6 special medical needs desc D3_* desc EVM6* su D3_* global evm6 EVM6_1 EVM6_2 EVM6_3 EVM6_4 EVM6_5 EVM6_6 EVM6_7 tab1 D3_*, mi EVM6_8 /// tab D3_1 na_D3_1, mi EVM6_9 EVM6_10 EVM6_11 EVM6_12 EVM6_13 EVM6_14 EVM6_15 EVM6_16 EVM6_16_1 **#WHODAS D4 egen nmiss_EVM6 = rowmiss($evm6) desc D4_* tab nmiss_EVM6 EVM6, mi //ok su D4_* gen err_EVM6 = "EVM6 = 1, dar tabelul EVM6 nu este completat" if EVM6 tab1 D4_*, mi == 1 & nmiss_EVM6 == 17 //for when the missings of EVM6 will be checked, tab D4_1 na_D4_1, mi in case EVM6 is 1 desc EVM6 EVM6_16_1 EVM6_16_1_1 **#WHODAS D51 drop nmiss_EVM6 desc D5_1 D5_2 D5_3 D5_4 **NAs su D5_1 D5_2 D5_3 D5_4 tab EVM6 na_EVM6, mi tab1 D5_1 D5_2 D5_3 D5_4, mi foreach var of varlist $evm6 { tab D5_1 na_D5_1, mi replace na_`var' = "" if err_EVM6 == "" } **#D5_01. IF (D5.1>1 OR D5.2>1 OR D5.3>1 OR D5.4>1) THEN **Category Others ASK D5_01. ELSE SKIP D5_01 tab EVM6 EVM6_16_1, mi desc D5_01 list $evm6 if EVM6_16_1 == .a tab D5_01, mi tab EVM6_16_1_1 EVM6_16_1 , mi list D5_* if D5_01 == 230 gen cond_d51 = (D5_1>1 | D5_2>1 | D5_3>1 | D5_4>1) list EVM6_16_1_1 if EVM6_16_1_1 != "" replace cond_d51 = . if D5_1 >=. & D5_2 >=. & D5_3 >= . & D5_4 >= . tab1 EVM4* if EVM6_16_1_1 == "sonda urinara" tab D5_01 cond_d51, mi tab EVM6_16 if regexm(EVM6_16_1_1, "obez") //ackowledged as a need but *list D5_01 D5_1 D5_2 D5_3 D5_4 in 1/30 if cond_d51 == 0 & D5_01 <. the person does not require support gen err_D5_01 = "D5_01 completat, dar toate D5_1-D5_4 sunt <=1" if tab1 EVM4* if regexm(EVM6_16_1_1, "scaun rulant") cond_d51 == 0 & D5_01 <. list EVM4_5 EVM4_5a__0 err_EVM4_5 err_EVM4_5a__0 if tab na_D5_01 cond_d51, mi regexm(EVM6_16_1_1, "scaun rulant") replace na_D5_01 = "Raspuns lipsa. De revazut dupa corectarea miss D5_1 - replace err_EVM4_5 = "0, dar carja si scaun rulant sunt mentionate la D5_4" if cond_d51 == . & D5_01 >=. EVM6_16_1_1" if regexm(EVM6_16_1_1, "scaun rulant") & EVM4_5 == 0 drop cond_d51 130 replace err_EVM4_5a__0 = "Miss, dar carja si scaun rulant sunt mentionate la **# OCED EVM6_16_1_1" if regexm(EVM6_16_1_1, "scaun rulant") & EVM4_5a__0 == . desc OCED gen err_EVM6_16_1_1 = "Mai degraba dispozitive pt EVM4_5" if tab OCED na_OCED, mi regexm(EVM6_16_1_1, "scaun rulant") list EVM6_12 if EVM6_16_1_1 == "Dializa" **#WHODAS D52 - the separate database must be added replace err_EVM6_16_1_1 = "EVM6_12 = 2, deci nu mai e nevoie" if desc D5_5 D5_6 D5_7 D5_8 EVM6_16_1_1 == "Dializa" & EVM6_12 == 2 su D5_5 D5_6 D5_7 D5_8 tab1 D5_5 D5_6 D5_7 D5_8, mi **# EVM7 behavioural special needs tab OCED na_D5_5, mi desc EVM7* tab D5_5 OCED, mi global evm7 EVM7_1 EVM7_2 EVM7_3 EVM7_4 EVM7_5 EVM7_6 EVM7_9 tab D5_6 OCED, mi EVM7_10 EVM7_11 EVM7_12 EVM7_13 EVM7_14 tab D5_7 OCED, mi egen nmiss_EVM7 = rowmiss($evm7) tab D5_8 OCED, mi tab nmiss_EVM7 EVM7, mi //ok global D52 D5_5 D5_6 D5_7 D5_8 gen err_EVM7 = "EVM7 = 1, dar tabelul EVM7 nu este completat" if EVM7 foreach var of varlist $D52 { == 1 & nmiss_EVM7 == 12 //for when the missings of EVM7 will be checked, replace na_`var' = "" if `var' == . & OCED == 0 in case EVM7 is 1 replace na_`var' = "Raspuns lipsa" if OCED == 1 & `var' >=. drop nmiss_EVM7 } **NAs tab EVM7 na_EVM7, mi **#D5_02, D5_9 & D5_10. IF (D5.5>1 OR D5.6>1 OR D5.7>1 OR foreach var of varlist $evm7 { D5.8>1) THEN ASK D5_02, D5_9, and D5_10. ELSE SKIP D5_02, D5_9, and di "`var'" D5_10 replace na_`var' = "" if err_EVM7 == "" desc D5_02 D5_9 D5_10 } tab1 D5_02 D5_9 D5_10, mi **Category Others gen cond_d52 = (D5_5>1 | D5_6>1 | D5_7>1 | D5_8>1) tab EVM7 EVM7_14, mi replace cond_d52 = . if D5_5 >=. & D5_6>=. & D5_7 >= . & D5_8 >= . replace err_EVM7 = "Nu/NS/NR, dar DA la EVM7_14" if inlist(EVM7, -1, 0) & **D5_02 EVM7_14 == 1 tab D5_02 cond_d52, mi gen err_EVM7_14 = "Nu/NS/NR la EVM7, deci ar tb sa fie miss la EVM7_14" *list D5_02 D5_5 D5_6 D5_7 D5_8 in 1/200 if cond_d52 == 0 & D5_02 <. if inlist(EVM7, -1, 0) & EVM7_14 == 0 gen err_D5_02 = "D5_02 completat, dar toate D55-D5_8 sunt <=1" if tab err_EVM7_14 EVM7_14, mi cond_d52 == 0 & D5_02 <. tab na_D5_02 cond_d52, mi list $evm7 na_EVM7_14 if EVM7_14 == .a replace na_D5_02 = cond(OCED == 1 & cond_d52 == . & D5_02 >=. , tab EVM7_14_1 EVM7_14, mi "Raspuns lipsa. De revazut dupa corectarea miss D5_5 - D5_8","") gen err_EVM7_14_1 = "Posibil sa se incadreze intr-o categorie existenta" if replace na_D5_02 = "Raspuns lipsa, dar filtru ok" if cond_d52 == 1 & D5_02 inlist(EVM7_14_1, "AGRESIVITATE", "Heteroagresivitate fizica in familie", >=. "Tentative de suicid", "Tentativa de suicid") **D5_9 tab D5_9 cond_d52, mi **# INTW F2 *list D5_9 D5_5 D5_6 D5_7 D5_8 in 1/200 if cond_d52 == 0 & D5_9 <. desc INTW1 INTW1_4 INTW1_5 gen err_D5_9 = "D5_9 completat, dar toate D55-D5_8 sunt <=1" if cond_d52 tab INTW1 na_INTW1, mi == 0 & D5_9 <. tab INTW1_4 INTW1, mi tab na_D5_9 cond_d52, mi tab INTW1_4, mi replace na_D5_9 = cond(OCED == 1 & cond_d52 == . & D5_9 >=. , "Raspuns gen err_INTW1_4 = "Completat pe baza actelor de la dosar" if inlist(INTW1_4, lipsa. De revazut dupa corectarea miss D5_5 - D5_8","") "din documentele de la dosar", "in baza datelor de la dosar", "conform replace na_D5_9 = "Raspuns lipsa, dar filtru ok" if cond_d52 == 1 & D5_9 documentelor depuse la dosar", "In baza documentelor medicale depuse in >=. SECPAH") **D5_10 tab INTW1_4 err_INTW1_4, mi tab D5_10 cond_d52, mi tab INTW1_5, mi list D5_10 D5_5 D5_6 D5_7 D5_8 in 1/200 if cond_d52 == 0 & D5_10 <. gen err_D5_10 = "D5_10 completat, dar toate D55-D5_8 sunt <=1" if desc INTW3 INTW2__1 INTW2__2 INTW2__3 INTW2__4 INTW2__5 INTW2_5 cond_d52 == 0 & D5_10 <. tab INTW3 na_INTW3, mi tab na_D5_10 cond_d52, mi tab INTW2__1 na_INTW2__1, mi replace na_D5_10 = cond(OCED == 1 & cond_d52 == . & D5_10 >=. , tab INTW2__2 na_INTW2__2, mi "Raspuns lipsa. De revazut dupa corectarea miss D5_5 - D5_8","") tab INTW2__3 na_INTW2__3, mi replace na_D5_10 = "Raspuns lipsa, dar filtru ok" if cond_d52 == 1 & D5_10 tab INTW2__4 na_INTW2__4, mi >=. tab INTW2__5 na_INTW2__5, mi drop cond_d52 tab INTW2_5 INTW2__5, mi tab INTW2_5, mi **#WHODAS D6 - the separate database must be added gen temp = lower(INTW2_5) desc D6_* replace temp = subinstr(temp, "ț", "t", .) su D6_* replace temp = subinstr(temp, "ă", "a", .) tab1 D6_*, mi gen err_INTW2_5 = "" tab D6_1 na_D6_1, mi replace err_INTW2_5 = "Membru al familiei. Putea fi trecut la INTW2__3?" if inlist(substr(temp, 1, 3), "mam", "fra", "sor", "sot", "fii", "fiu", "tat") **#FBK - feedback tab INTW2_5 err_INTW2_5, mi desc FBOM1 FBOM2 FBEV1 tab1 FBOM1 FBOM2 FBEV1, mi **# LMAT, RELG, AFAMAS tab FBOM1 na_FBOM1, mi desc LMAT LMAT5 tab FBEV1 na_FBEV1, mi tab LMAT na_LMAT, mi replace na_LMAT = cond(LMAT == .a & DATAS != "##N/A##", "Miss, dar desc FBEV2* DATAS completat", "") tab FBEV2 na_FBEV2, mi tab LMAT LMAT5, mi tab FBEV2_a__0 na_FBEV2_a__0, mi forvalues i = 0/44 { desc RELG RELG4 replace na_FBEV2_a__`i' = "" if na_FBEV2_a__`i' == "Raspuns tab RELG na_RELG, mi lipsa" //not mandatory replace na_RELG = cond(RELG == .a & DATAS != "##N/A##", "Miss, dar } DATAS completat", "") tab FBEV2_a__0 FBEV2, mi tab RELG RELG4, mi 131 replace na_FBEV2_a__0 = "Raspuns lipsa, desi FBEV2 = 1" if FBEV2 == 1 & desc AFAMAS AFAMAS_5 FBEV2_a__0 >= . tab AFAMAS na_AFAMAS, mi tab FBEV2_a__1 na_FBEV2_a__1, mi replace na_AFAMAS = cond(AFAMAS == .a & DATAS != "##N/A##", "Miss, global FBEV2_a FBEV2_a__* dar DATAS completat", "") foreach var of varlist $FBEV2_a { tab AFAMAS AFAMAS_5, mi desc `var' tab AFAMAS_5, mi replace na_`var' = "" if FBEV2 == 0 } **# PRLEGAS desc PRLEGAS PRLEGAS_1 PRLEGAS_2 PRLEGAS_3 PRLEGAS_3_4 *tab1 $FBEV2_a, mi PRLEGAS_3_5 tab PRLEGAS na_PRLEGAS, mi desc FBEV3 FBEV4 FBEV5 replace na_PRLEGAS = cond(PRLEGAS == .a & DATAS != "##N/A##", "Miss, tab1 FBEV3 FBEV4 FBEV5, mi dar DATAS completat", "") tab FBEV4 FBEV5, mi tab PRLEGAS PRLEGAS_1, mi gen err_FBEV5 = "FBEV4 > 5, dar NC la FBEV5" if FBEV4>5 & FBEV4<. & replace na_PRLEGAS_1 = cond(PRLEGAS == 1 & PRLEGAS_1 == .a, "Miss, FBEV5 == -7 desi are reprezentant legal", "") tab FBEV5 err_FBEV5, mi tab PRLEGAS PRLEGAS_2, mi tab na_FBEV4, mi replace na_PRLEGAS_2 = cond(PRLEGAS == 1 & PRLEGAS_2 == .a, "Miss, tab na_FBEV5, mi desi are reprezentant legal", "") gen err_PRLEGAS_2 = "Eroare de inregistrare" if PRLEGAS_2 <16 **#FEIEM - expression of interest replace err_PRLEGAS_2 = "Anul trecut in loc de varsta" if PRLEGAS_2 > 1900 desc FEI0M1 FEI0M2 FEI0M3 FEI0M4 FEI0M5 FEIEM & PRLEGAS_2 <. tab1 FEI0M1 FEI0M2 FEI0M3 FEI0M4 FEI0M5 FEIEM, mi tab PRLEGAS PRLEGAS_3, mi tab FEI0M1 na_FEI0M1, mi replace na_PRLEGAS_3 = cond(PRLEGAS == 1 & PRLEGAS_3 == .a, "Miss, tab FEIEM na_FEIEM, mi desi are reprezentant legal", "") egen test = anymatch(FEI0M1 FEI0M2 FEI0M3 FEI0M4 FEI0M5), values(1 2) tab PRLEGAS_3 PRLEGAS_3_4, mi tab test FEIEM, mi tab PRLEGAS_3 PRLEGAS_3_5, mi list FEIEM FEI0M1 FEI0M2 FEI0M3 FEI0M4 FEI0M5 if FEIEM == 1, nolab //all tab1 na_PRLEGAS_3_4 na_PRLEGAS_3_5 variables have 1 or 2 when FEIEM is 1. It is possible that the condition used AND instead of OR **# PASIATAS list FEIEM test FEI0M1 FEI0M2 FEI0M3 FEI0M4 FEI0M5 in 1/20 if FEIEM == 0 desc PASISTAS PASISTAS_1 PASISTAS_2 PASISTAS_3 PASISTAS_3_5 & test == 1, nolab PASISTAS_4 tab PASISTAS na_PASISTAS, mi gen err_FEIEM = "0, desi cel putin una dintre FEI0M1-FEI0M5 este 1" if FEIEM replace na_PASISTAS = cond(PASISTAS == .a & DATAS != "##N/A##", "Miss, == 0 & test == 1 dar DATAS completat", "") drop test tab PASISTAS PASISTAS_1, mi replace na_PASISTAS_1 = cond(inlist(PASISTAS, 1,2) & PASISTAS_1 == .a, **#TIMEF2 "Miss, desi are AP/APP", "") //for now the question refers to AP only and it is desc TIMEF2_b TIMEF2_c a Y/N question tab1 TIMEF2_b TIMEF2_c, mi tab PASISTAS_2 PASISTAS, mi gen err_TIMEF2_b = "eroare de inregistrare" if TIMEF2_b == 1818 replace na_PASISTAS_2 = cond(inlist(PASISTAS, 1,2) & PASISTAS_2 == .a, "Miss, desi are AP/APP", "") **#OMSS gen err_PASISTAS_2 = "eroare de inregistrare" if PASISTAS_2 <18 desc OMSS tab PASISTAS_3 PASISTAS, mi tab1 OMSS, mi replace na_PASISTAS_3 = cond(inlist(PASISTAS, 1,2) & PASISTAS_3 == .a, gen err_OMSS = "double check the codes; they look like years"if "Miss, desi are AP/APP", "") inrange(OMSS, 2000, 2011) tab PASISTAS_3 PASISTAS_3_5, mi gen err_PASISTAS_3_5 = "eroare de inregistrare" if PASISTAS_3_5 == "0" **#ADRCO1 - in some cases ADRCO1 & ADRCO do not match ***!!there is no variable PASISTAS_3_4 to record the kin relationship to the but there also the addresses are different. I'm not sure what corrections to AP make tab PASISTAS_4 PASISTAS, mi desc ADRCO1 CONT2AS replace na_PASISTAS_4 = cond(inlist(PASISTAS, 1,2) & PASISTAS_4 == .a, tab1 ADRCO1 CONT2AS, mi "Miss, desi are AP/APP", "") tab ADRCO ADRCO1, mi **# TIPSC tab ADRCO1 if DATAS != "##N/A##", mi //checking the OUTSC filter replace na_ADRCO1 = "" tab OUTSC TIPSC__1, mi replace na_ADRCO1 = "Miss, dar DATAS completat" if ADRCO1 == .a & tab OUTSC TIPSC__2, mi DATAS != "##N/A##" tab OUTSC TIPSC__3, mi tab OUTSC TIPSC__4, mi tab CONT2AS if DATAS != "##N/A##", mi tab OUTSC TIPSC__5, mi replace na_CONT2AS = cond(CONT2AS == .a & DATAS != "##N/A##", tab OUTSC TIPSC__6, mi "Miss, dar DATAS completat", "") gen na_TIPSC = "OUTSC = 2, dar toate TIPSC* sunt miss" if OUTSC == 2 & TIPSC__1 == .a **#number of people in the hhd tab TIPSC__1 na_TIPSC__1, mi desc AGO_A AGO_K NPERS persoanele_list global TIPSC TIPSC__* tab AGO_A na_AGO_A, mi foreach var of varlist $TIPSC { replace na_AGO_A = cond(AGO_A == .a & DATAS != "##N/A##", "Miss, dar di "`var'" DATAS completat", "") replace na_`var' = "" tab AGO_K na_AGO_K, mi } replace na_AGO_K = cond(AGO_K == .a & DATAS != "##N/A##", "Miss, dar DATAS completat", "") tab PDZ20 TIPSC__1, mi gen err_AGO_K = "nr copii este -1" if AGO_K == -1 tab TIPSC__1 if (AGE >=65&AGE<.) | PDZ20==2, mi replace na_AGO_A = "AGO_A miss, dar AGO_K completat" if AGO_A >=. & foreach var of varlist $TIPSC { AGO_K <. & na_AGO_A == "" gen err_`var' = "AGE>=65" if `var' <. & AGE >=65 & AGE <. replace na_AGO_K = "AGO_K miss, dar AGO_A completat" if AGO_K >=. & replace err_`var' = "PDZ grad I/II" if `var' <. & PDZ20==2 AGO_A <. & na_AGO_K == "" replace err_`var' = "AGE>= 65 & PDZ grad I/II" if `var' <. & PDZ20==2 & AGE >=65 & AGE <. tab NPERS na_NPERS, mi } tab TIPSC__1 err_TIPSC__1, mi 132 replace na_NPERS = cond(NPERS == .a & DATAS != "##N/A##", "Miss, dar tab TIPSC__2 err_TIPSC__2, mi DATAS completat", "") tab TIPSC__3 err_TIPSC__3, mi egen test = rowtotal(AGO_A AGO_K) tab TIPSC__4 err_TIPSC__4, mi gen test_npers = 1 + test if AGO_A <. & AGO_K <. tab TIPSC__5 err_TIPSC__5, mi gen diff = test_npers - NPERS tab TIPSC__6 err_TIPSC__6, mi tab diff list AGO_A AGO_K na_AGO_A na_AGO_K diff if NPERS == 0 tab TIPSC_6 TIPSC__6, mi gen err_NPERS = "0, dar AGO_A & AGO_K sunt miss" if NPERS == 0 & AGO_A gen err_TIPSC_6 = "Se incadreaza in categoriile existente?" if TIPSC_6 != "" == .a & AGO_K == .a gen err_TIPSC__6 = "Se incadreaza in categoriile existente? vezi TIPSC_6" if replace err_NPERS = "0, dar AGO_A sau AGO_K sunt > 0" if NPERS == 0 & TIPSC__6 != "" ((AGO_A >0 & AGO_A <.) | (AGO_K > 0 & AGO_K <.)) drop diff test test_npers **# ABN tab NPERS AFAMAS, mi desc ABN1 ABN1_4 replace err_NPERS = "AFAMAS = 0, dar NPERS > 1" if AFAMAS == 0 & //checking the OUTSC filter NPERS >1 & NPERS <. tab OUTSC ABN1, mi //ok replace err_NPERS = "AFAMAS = 1, dar NPERS = 1" if AFAMAS == 1 & replace na_ABN1 = cond(OUTSC == 1 & ABN1 == .a, "OUTSC = 1, dar ABN1 NPERS == 1 e miss", "") tab err_NPERS, mi tab ABN1 na_ABN1, mi gen err_ABN1 = "AGE>=65" if ABN1 <. & AGE >=65 & AGE <. list NPERS AGO_A AGO_K if AGO_K < 0 replace err_ABN1 = "PDZ grad I/II" if ABN1 <. & PDZ20==2 replace err_ABN1 = "AGE>=65 & PDZ grad I/II" if ABN1 <. & PDZ20==2 & tab persoanele_list na_persoanele, mi AGE >=65 & AGE <. replace na_persoanele = cond(persoanele_list >= . & DATAS != "##N/A##", tab ABN1 err_ABN1, mi "Miss, dar DATAS completat", "") **!!unclear what the variable persoanele_list is measuring tab ABN1_4 ABN1, mi tab ABN1_4, mi **#PTUTAS tab na_ABN1_4, mi desc PTUTAS_1 PTUTAS_2 PTUTAS_3 gen err_ABN1_4 = "AGE>=65" if ABN1 == 4 & AGE >=65 & AGE <. tab PTUTAS_1 na_PTUTAS_1, mi replace err_ABN1_4 = "PDZ grad I/II" if ABN1 ==4 & PDZ20==2 replace na_PTUTAS_1 = cond(PTUTAS_1 == .a & DATAS != "##N/A##", replace err_ABN1_4 = "AGE>=65 & PDZ grad I/II" if ABN1 ==4 & PDZ20==2 "Miss, dar DATAS completat", "") & AGE >=65 & AGE <. tab PTUTAS_2 na_PTUTAS_2, mi tab ABN1_4 err_ABN1_4, mi replace na_PTUTAS_2 = cond(PTUTAS_2 == .a & DATAS != "##N/A##", "Miss, dar DATAS completat", "") **# OCUP2, OCUP2_1 tab PTUTAS_2 na_PTUTAS_2, mi **OCUP2. ERROR OCNOW by OCUP2: IF OCNOW=1 THEN OCUP2=0; IF replace na_PTUTAS_2 = cond(PTUTAS_2 == .a & DATAS != "##N/A##", OCUP2=1 THEN OCNOW=1 "Miss, dar DATAS completat", "") tab OCUP2 na_OCUP2, mi tab PTUTAS_3 na_PTUTAS_3, mi replace na_OCUP2 = cond(OCUP2 >= . & inrange(AGE, 16, 64) & PDZ20<2 replace na_PTUTAS_3 = cond(PTUTAS_3 == .a & DATAS != "##N/A##", & DATAS != "##N/A##", "Miss, dar DATAS completat", "") "Miss, dar DATAS completat", "") tab OCUP2 err1_OCUP2, mi **#SIM //home care **OCUP2_1. Cannot be missing for OCUP2=2 desc SIM SIM2 tab OCUP2_1 OCUP2, mi //ok tab SIM na_SIM, mi tab na_OCUP2_1, mi //ok replace na_SIM = cond(SIM == .a & DATAS != "##N/A##", "Miss, dar DATAS completat", "") **# OCHO tab SIM2 na_SIM2, mi tab OCHO na_OCHO, mi replace na_SIM2 = cond(SIM2 == .a & DATAS != "##N/A##", "Miss, dar replace na_OCHO = cond(OCHO >= . & inrange(AGE, 16, 64) & PDZ20<2 & DATAS completat", "") DATAS != "##N/A##", "Miss, dar DATAS completat", "") replace na_SIM2 = "Miss, desi SIM = 0" if SIM2 == .a & SIM == 0 tab OCUP2 OCHO, mi tab SIM SIM2, mi gen err_OCHO = "OCUP2 = 0, dar OCHO = 1" if OCUP2 == 0 & OCHO == 1 **#OUTSC tab OCUP2_1 OCHO, mi desc OUTSC list OCUP2_1 if (regexm(OCUP2_1, "casnic") | regexm(OCUP2_1, "gospo") | tab OUTSC na_OUTSC, mi regexm(OCUP2_1, "zilnic")) & !(regexm(OCUP2_1, "zilier")) replace na_OUTSC = cond(OUTSC >= . & AGE <= 64 & PDZ20<2 & DATAS replace err_OCHO = "OCHO = 1, dar OCUP2_1 = activ casnice/gosp" if != "##N/A##", "Miss, dar DATAS completat", "") OCHO == 1 & (regexm(OCUP2_1, "casnic") | regexm(OCUP2_1, "gospo") | tab PDZ20 OUTSC, mi regexm(OCUP2_1, "zilnic")) & !(regexm(OCUP2_1, "zilier")) tab OUTSC if AGE >65 | PDZ20==2 tab err_OCHO, mi gen err_OUTSC = "AGE>=65" if OUTSC <. & AGE >=65 & AGE <. replace err_OUTSC = "PDZ grad I/II" if OUTSC <. & PDZ20==2 replace err_OUTSC = "AGE>=65 & PDZ grad I/II" if OUTSC <. & PDZ20==2 & AGE >=65 & AGE <. tab OUTSC err_OUTSC, mi } 133 Project co-funded by the European Social Fund through Operational Programme Administrative Capacity 2014-2020! Project title: "Modernization of the Disability Assessment System in Romania" Project code: SIPOCA/SMIS2014+: 719/129751 Beneficiary: Ministry of Labor and Social Solidarity Publication date: January 2023 The content of this material does not necessarily represent the official position of the European Union or of the Government of Romania Distributed for free 134