Interventions to improve the labour market for adults living with physical and/or sensory disabilities in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Abstract

The International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) is an international grant-making NGO promoting evidence-informed development policies and programmes. We are the global leader in funding, producing and synthesising high-quality evidence of what works, for whom, how, why and at what cost. We believe that using better and policy-relevant evidence helps to make development more effective and improve people's lives. 3ie systematic reviews 3ie systematic reviews appraise and synthesise the available high-quality evidence on the effectiveness of social and economic development interventions in low-and middleincome countries. These reviews follow scientifically recognised review methods, and are peer-reviewed and quality assured according to internationally accepted standards. 3ie is providing leadership in demonstrating rigorous and innovative review methodologies, such as using theory-based approaches suited to inform policy and programming in the dynamic contexts and challenges of low-and middle-income countries. About this reviewInterventions to improve the labour market for adults living with physical and/or sensory disabilities in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review, was submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of grant SR4.1038 awarded under Systematic Review Window 4. This review is available on the 3ie website. 3ie is publishing this technical report as received from the authors; it has been formatted to 3ie style, however the tables and figures have not been reformatted. This review has also been published in the Campbell Collaboration Library and is available here.All content is the sole responsibility of the authors and does not represent the opinions of 3ie, its donors or its board of commissioners. Any errors are also the sole responsibility of the authors. Comments or queries should be directed to the corresponding author, Janice Tripney at J.Tripney@ioe.ac.uk Funding for this systematic review was provided by Sightsavers. Executive summary BackgroundDisability is a development issue, with widespread poverty, inequality and violation of human rights. Recent estimates suggest that more than one billion people are living with some form of disability. Persons with disabilities are over-represented among the world's poor, and significant labour market disadvantage helps maintain the link between poverty and disability in many country contexts. The costs of disability are particularly acute in low-and middle-income countries (those with gross national income per capita of less than $12,616), where up to 80% of people with disabilities of working age can be unemployed, around twice that for their counterparts in high-income countries. When people with disabilities do work, they generally do so for longer hours and lower incomes, have fewer chances of promotion, are more likely to work in the informal labour market, and are at greater risk of becoming unemployed for longer periods. The barriers faced by people with disabilities globally in accessing and sustaining paid work ...

Vocational training for demobilized ex-combatants with disabilities in Rwanda

“…Extant works mainly study youth, women, and unemployed people, but not those with disabilities; they also mainly focus on labor market outcomes, paying limited attention to social reintegration (Chinen et al 2018;Escudero et al 2019;McKenzie 2017;Tripney et al 2013). A systematic review by Tripney et al (2017) of labor market programs for persons with physical or sensory disabilities in developing countries identified 14 studies, including four covering occupational rehabilitation, but none employed rigorous methods to remove bias due to the nonrandom assignment of treatment status. The authors concluded, 'The methodological inconsistencies and weaknesses of the current evidence base, and specific knowledge gaps, suggest a number of future research priorities' (Tripney et al 2017, 7).…”