Community-based rehabilitation for people with physical and mental disabilities in low- and middle-income countries

Iemmi, Valentina; Kumar, K Suresh; Blanchet, Karl; Gibson, Lorna; Hartley, Sally; Murthy, Gudlavalleti V S; Patel, Vikram; Weber, Joerg; Kuper, Hannah

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd010617

Cited by 8 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This will be the first systematic review to our knowledge to address this question comprehensively. The protocol of this review has been published elsewhere (Iemmi et al, 2013).…”

Section: Why It Is Important To Do the Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community‐based Rehabilitation for People With Disabilities in Low‐ and Middle‐income Countries: A Systematic Review

Iemmi

Gibson

Blanchet

et al. 2015

Campbell Systematic Reviews

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Campbell Collaboration was founded on the principle that systematic reviews on the effects of interventions will inform and help improve policy and services. Campbell offers editorial and methodological support to review authors throughout the process of producing a systematic review. A number of Campbell's editors, librarians, methodologists and external peer reviewers contribute. Plain language summaryInterventions to reduce homelessness and improve housing stability are effectiveThere are large numbers of homeless people around the world. Interventions to address homelessness seem to be effective, though better quality evidence is required. What is this review about?There are large numbers of homeless people around the world. Recent estimates are over 500,000 people in the USA, 100,000 in Australia and 30,000 in Sweden. Efforts to combat homelessness have been made on national levels as well as at local government levels.This review assesses the effectiveness of interventions combining housing and case management as a means to reduce homelessness and increase residential stability for individuals who are homeless, or at risk of becoming homeless. What is the aim of this review?This Campbell systematic review examines the effectiveness of interventions to reduce homelessness and increase residential stability for individuals who are homeless, or at risk of becoming homeless. Forty-three studies were included in the review, 37 of which are from the USA. What studies are included?Included studies were randomized controlled trials of interventions for individuals who were already, or at-risk of becoming, homeless, and which measured impact on homelessness or housing stability with follow-up of at least one year.A total of 43 studies were included. The majority of the studies (37) were conducted in the United States, with three from the United Kingdom and one each from Australia, Canada, and Denmark. 6The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org What are the main findings of this review?Included interventions perform better than the usual services at reducing homelessness or improving housing stability in all comparisons. These interventions are: These interventions seem to have similar beneficial effects, so it is unclear which of these is best with respect to reducing homelessness and increasing housing stability. What do the findings of this review mean?A range of housing programs and case management interventions appear to reduce homelessness and improve housing stability, compared to usual services.However, there is uncertainty in this finding as most the studies have risk of bias due to poor reporting, lack of blinding, or poor randomization or allocation concealment of participants. In addition to the general need for better conducted and reported studies, there are specific gaps in the research with respect to: 1) disadvantaged youth; 2) abstinence-contingent housing with case management or day treatment; 3) non-abstinence contingent housing comparing group vs independent living; 4) Hous...

show abstract

“…This will be the first systematic review to our knowledge to address this question comprehensively. The protocol of this review has been published elsewhere (Iemmi et al, 2013).…”

Section: Why It Is Important To Do the Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community‐based Rehabilitation for People With Disabilities in Low‐ and Middle‐income Countries: A Systematic Review

Iemmi

Gibson

Blanchet

et al. 2015

Campbell Systematic Reviews

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, published studies have been criticised for the lack of research rigour (Finkenflugel, Wolffers & Huijsman 2005 ). Iemmi et al’s ( 2015 ) systematic review identified modest benefits for people with mental disabilities and their caregivers whilst also acknowledging ‘methodological constraints’ (p. 6) in the cited studies. ‘Empowerment’ is one of the five domains of the WHO matrix (WHO 2010 ), the others being ‘livelihood’, ‘education’, ‘health’ and ‘social’.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of self-help groups for caregivers of children with disabilities in Kilifi, Kenya: Process evaluation

Gona¹,

Newton

Hartley

et al. 2020

African Journal of Disability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Caring for a child with disabilities in a resource-poor setting brings many challenges to the caregiver. We examined the development of self-help groups for caregivers in a rural part of Kenya. Objectives To conduct a process evaluation on the development of self-help groups during a 10-month set-up period, focusing on implementation and mechanisms associated with their functional status. Methods Using a realist evaluation design, we set up 20 self-help groups for 254 caregivers. An evaluation was conducted to investigate implementation and mechanisms of impact. Implementation focused on caregiver registration, community group support and monitoring visit compliance. Data were collected from group registers, records of meetings and field notes. Mechanisms of impact employed a framework of strengths–weaknesses–opportunities–threats to review the groups at the end of the 10-month set-up period. Results Recruitment resulted in registration of 254 participants to 18 groups – two groups disbanded early. Post-evaluation included 11 active and 7 inactive groups. Compliance with the monitoring visits was consistent across the active groups. All groups engaged in ‘merry-go-round’ activities. The active groups were characterised by strong leadership and at least one successful income generation project; the inactive had inconsistent leadership and had dishonest behaviour both within the group and/or externally in the community. Mediators associated with functional status included the following: available literacy and numeracy skills, regular meetings with consistent attendance by the members, viable income generating projects, geographical proximity of membership and strong leadership for managing threats. Conclusion Self-help groups have the potential to progress in resource-poor settings. However, critical to group progression are literacy and numeracy skills amongst the members, their geographical proximity, regular meetings of the group, viable income generating projects and strong leadership.

show abstract

Community Rehabilitation

Dao¹,

Poon²

2020

Primary Care Revisited

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Community-based rehabilitation for people with physical and mental disabilities in low- and middle-income countries

Cited by 8 publications

References 14 publications

Community‐based Rehabilitation for People With Disabilities in Low‐ and Middle‐income Countries: A Systematic Review

Community‐based Rehabilitation for People With Disabilities in Low‐ and Middle‐income Countries: A Systematic Review

Development of self-help groups for caregivers of children with disabilities in Kilifi, Kenya: Process evaluation

Community Rehabilitation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About