Community-based rehabilitation (CBR) monitoring and evaluation methods and tools: a literature review

Abstract

The findings suggest that there would be value in creating resources such as guidelines, common processes and checklists for monitoring and evaluation of CBR, to facilitate efficient and comparable practices and more comparable data. This needs to be done in partnership with people with disabilities, CBR providers, partners and researchers to ensure that all stakeholders' needs are understood and met. Implications for Rehabilitation While there is broad scope and complexity of CBR programmes, there needs to be consistency and a valid approach in the monitoring and evaluation methods and tools used by CBR programmes. The principles of CBR and CRPD require that monitoring and evaluation involve people with disabilities, CBR managers and staff not only as informants but also in the design and execution of monitoring and evaluation activities. The consistent use of appropriate and valid monitoring and evaluation methods and tools will contribute to developing a stronger evidence base on the efficacy and effectiveness of CBR.

Community-based rehabilitation for people with physical and mental disabilities in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…While we summarised all outcomes reported in the studies, we could not exclude the possibility of outcome reporting bias. A further contribution of our review is with respect to the methodology, establishing an operational definition for CBR and disability through consulting the international literature for CBR (WHO, 2001;WHO, 2010;Lukersmith et al, 2013) and disability (WHO & World Bank, 2011) followed by consultations with international experts. Although definitions of both CBR and disability are available in the international literature, their operationalisation was needed.…”

Development of indicators for monitoring Community-Based Rehabilitation

“…While anecdotal evidence exists on the success of CBR, internationally comparable results are still rare, and reliable and comparable data needed to monitor and evaluate CBR scarce[4,7,8]. Although the existing qualitative work delivers essential in-depth understanding of the changes CBR initiates[9], the lack of standardized measures limits the generated evidence and the comparability across settings[7,10].…”

“…While anecdotal evidence exists on the success of CBR, internationally comparable results are still rare, and reliable and comparable data needed to monitor and evaluate CBR scarce[4,7,8]. Although the existing qualitative work delivers essential in-depth understanding of the changes CBR initiates[9], the lack of standardized measures limits the generated evidence and the comparability across settings[7,10]. A recently published systematic review reporting evidence on the effectiveness of CBR in low- and middle-income countries pointed out promising results in terms of clinical outcomes, functioning and quality of life, but could not deliver clear evidence due to the heterogeneity of interventions and quality of included studies[4].…”

Caracterización de fonoaudiólogos/as insertos/as en Centros Comunitarios de Rehabilitación

“…Con el tiempo, las perspectivas de atención se han diversificado, visualizándose en la actualidad distintos modelos de intervención (Cleaver & Nixon, 2014) Se consideró en el estudio a los CCRs por la su labor en el proceso de rehabilitación desde un enfoque comunitario (Lukersmith et al, 2013) y por la limitada participación actual del fonoaudiólogo en estos centros.…”