Development of the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Health Interventions (ICHI) is currently underway. Once finalised, ICHI will provide a standard basis for collecting, aggregating, analysing, and comparing data on health interventions across all sectors of the health system. In this paper, we introduce the classification, describing its underlying tri-axial structure, organisation and content. We then discuss the potential value of ICHI for capturing information on met and unmet need for health interventions relevant to people with a disability, with a particular focus on interventions to support functioning and health promotion interventions. Early experiences of use of the Swedish National Classification of Social Care Interventions and Activities, which is based closely on ICHI, illustrate the value of a standard classification to support practice and collect statistical data. Testing of the ICHI beta version in a wide range of countries and contexts is now needed so that improvements can be made before it is finalised. Input from those with an interest in the health of people with disabilities and health promotion more broadly is welcomed.

The right of people with disability to enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health without discrimination on the basis of disability is enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Among its obligations as a signatory to the CRPD, Australia is required to collect appropriate information, including statistical and research data, to inform development and implementation of policies to give effect to the Convention. In this commentary, we first describe how the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) conceptual model of disability can be operationalised in statistical data collections, with a focus on how this is achieved in key Australian data sources such that people with disability can be identified as a population group. We then review existing statistical data on health and health service use for people with disability in Australia, highlighting data gaps and limitations. Finally, we outline priorities and considerations for improving data on health and access to health services for people with disability. As well as conceptual, practical, and ethical considerations, a key principle that must guide future disability data development is that people with disability and their representative organisations must be involved and participate fully in the development of disability data and statistics, and in their use.

Objective: To develop a framework and indicators to monitor inequalities in health and the social determinants of health for Australians with disability. Methods: The development drew on existing frameworks and input from people with lived experience of disability. Results: The Disability and Wellbeing Monitoring Framework has 19 domains. Australian national data are available for 73% of the 128 indicators in these domains. Data gaps and limitations include the absence of national data and the absence of disability identifiers in some data sources. Conclusions: The framework will be used to report baseline data for people with and without disability and to monitor inequalities over time in Australia. It will also be used to locate policy priorities and focus efforts to address data gaps. Implications for public health: Inequality between people with and without disability in relation to health and the social determinants of health is a public health issue that warrants greater attention than it has received to date. The framework provides a robust, evidence‐informed tool to address the health inequalities of people with disability, inform the development of effective policy and practice responses, and monitor change over time.

International trends towards people-centred, integrative care and support require any measurement of functioning and disability to meet multiple aims. The information requirements of two major Australian programs for disability and rehabilitation are outlined, and the findings of two searches for suitable measures of functioning and disability are analysed. Over 30 current measures of functioning were evaluated in each search. Neither search found a generic measure of functioning suitable for these multibillion dollar programs, relevant to a wide range of people with a variety of health conditions and functioning experiences, and capable of indicating support needs, associated costs, progress and outcomes. This unsuccessful outcome has implications internationally for policy-relevant information for disability, rehabilitation and related programs. The paper outlines the features of an Integrative Measure of Functioning (IMF) based on the concepts of functioning and environmental factors in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). An IMF would be applicable across a variety of health conditions, settings and purposes, ranging from individual assessment to public health. An IMF could deliver person-centred, policy-relevant information for a range of programs, promoting harmonised language and measurement and supporting international trends in human services and public health.

The current lack of a common basis for collecting data on population-level prevention and health promotion interventions causes public health to be relatively invisible within broader health systems, making it vulnerable to funding cuts when there is pressure to reduce spending. Further, the inconsistent use of terms for describing interventions hinders knowledge translation and building an evidence base for public health practice and policy. The International Classification of Health Interventions (ICHI), being developed by the World Health Organization, is a standard statistical classification for interventions across the full scope of health systems. ICHI has potential to meet the need for a common language and structure for describing and capturing information about prevention and health promotion interventions.We report on a developmental appraisal conducted to examine the strengths and limitations of ICHI for coding interventions delivered for public health purposes. Our findings highlight classification challenges in relation to: consistently identifying separate components within multi-component interventions; operationalizing the ICHI concept of intervention target when there are intermediary targets as well as an ultimate target; coding an intervention component that involves more than one ICHI target or action; and standardising what is being counted. We propose that, alongside its purpose as a statistical classification, ICHI can play a valuable role as an ‘epistemic hub’, to be used flexibly by public health actors to meet a range of information needs, and as a basis for improved communication and exchange.

The importance of health-promoting neighborhoods has long been recognized, and characteristics of local built environments are among the social determinants of health. People with disability are more likely than other population groups to experience geographic mobility and cost restrictions, and to be reliant on ‘opportunity structures’ available locally. We conducted an ecological analysis to explore associations between area-level disability prevalence for people aged 15–64 years and area-level built environment characteristics in Australia’s 21 largest cities. Overall, disability was more prevalent in areas with lower walkability and lower local availability of various neighborhood amenities such as public transport, healthier food options, public open space, physical activity and recreation destinations and health and mental health services. These patterns of lower liveability in areas of higher disability prevalence were observed in major cities but not in regional cities. Our findings suggest that geographically targeted interventions to improve access to health-enhancing neighborhood infrastructure could reduce disability-related inequalities in the social determinants of health.