Practice guidelines for program evaluation in community-based rehabilitation

Abstract

The practice guidelines should facilitate CBR evaluation decisions in respect to facilitating an evaluation process, using frameworks and designing methods. Implications for rehabilitation Ten practice guidelines provide guidance to facilitate sound community-based rehabilitation (CBR) program evaluation decisions. Key indications of good practice include: • being as participatory and empowering as possible; • ensuring that all, including the most affected, have a real opportunity to share their thoughts; • highly considering mixed methods and participatory tools; • adapting to fit evaluation context, local culture and language(s); • defining evaluation questions and reporting findings using shared CBR language when possible, which the framework offered may facilitate.

Application of Theory to Guide Development of a Rehabilitation Service-Learning Project in Guatemala

“…There has been some emphasis in the literature on program evaluation from the perspectives of the students, faculty, and university (Bimstein et al, 2008;Brown et al, 2012;Clements et al, 2011;Hoang & Nguyen, 2011;Kaddoura, Puri & Dominick, 2014;Vu et al, 2014;Wagner & Christensen, 2015), but less emphasis on perspectives from the community partner. Practice guidelines in community-based rehabilitation have been established and provide a further framework for program evaluation and enhancement with the emphasis being on engaging the community partner (Grandisson, Hebert, & Thibeault, 2016). As a result, considerations were made to include this level of evaluation that included the perspective of the community partner, how the information obtained will improve future projects, and how it can be enhanced to ensure sustainability.…”

An Evaluative Study of Services Provided in Community-Based Rehabilitation Centres in Jordan

“…The CBR guidelines developed by the WHO (WHO, UNESCO, ILO, IDDC, 2010) offer very limited emphasis on the evaluation of CBR programmes (Grandisson et al, 2016b). Other available guidelines for evaluation, such as those developed by the WHO and the International Disability and Development Consortium -IDDC (1996) and those developed by Zhao and Kwok (1999), are obsolete, not comprehensive, as well as based on the subjective inferences of a limited number of experts involved in the field (Grandisson et al, 2016b).…”

“…There is lack of consensus concerning the constituents of best practices in CBR evaluation, and the way programme evaluation and evaluative research should be conducted (Grandisson et al, 2014a). Furthermore, evidence on the standards or provisions of the most effective CBR programmes remains scarce and weak (Finkenflugel et al, 2005;Grandisson et al, 2014aGrandisson et al, , 2016aGrandisson et al, , 2016b.…”

“…The effective evaluation of CBR programmes should be participatory in the sense that those who are most concerned by these services (persons with disabilities and their families) are involved in the evaluation process (Grandisson et al, 2014a(Grandisson et al, , 2016a(Grandisson et al, , 2016b. The evaluation process should be based on a shared framework that demonstrates the criteria of the evaluation and facilitates communication of the results and outcomes through a set of unified terms (Adeoye et al, 2011;Grandisson et al (2016b).…”

“…It is customary in the literature to use qualitative research methodologies to investigate the reality of CBR practice. There is also stress on combining these with quantitative measures when carrying out research, so as to increase the rigour of the outcomes and reliability of the research (Grandisson et al, 2014a(Grandisson et al, , 2016a(Grandisson et al, , 2016b. Byford et al (2003) conducted a study in Papua New Guinea that aimed at designing a method for evaluating the needs of the local community prior to the establishment of a CBR programme and for evaluating the effectiveness of the CBR services after its establishment.…”