Cargando…

A systematic review on how to conduct evaluations in community-based rehabilitation

PURPOSE: Community-based rehabilitation (CBR) must prove that it is making a significant difference for people with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries. Yet, evaluation is not a common practice and the evidence for its effectiveness is fragmented and largely insufficient. The objective...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Grandisson, Marie, Hébert, Michèle, Thibeault, Rachel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Informa UK Ltd. 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3913006/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23614357
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2013.785602
_version_ 1782302162324291584
author Grandisson, Marie
Hébert, Michèle
Thibeault, Rachel
author_facet Grandisson, Marie
Hébert, Michèle
Thibeault, Rachel
author_sort Grandisson, Marie
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Community-based rehabilitation (CBR) must prove that it is making a significant difference for people with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries. Yet, evaluation is not a common practice and the evidence for its effectiveness is fragmented and largely insufficient. The objective of this article was to review the literature on best practices in program evaluation in CBR in relation to the evaluative process, the frameworks, and the methods of data collection. METHOD: A systematic search was conducted on five rehabilitation databases and the World Health Organization website with keywords associated with CBR and program evaluation. Two independent researchers selected the articles. RESULTS: Twenty-two documents were included. The results suggest that (1) the evaluative process needs to be conducted in close collaboration with the local community, including people with disabilities, and to be followed by sharing the findings and taking actions, (2) many frameworks have been proposed to evaluate CBR but no agreement has been reached, and (3) qualitative methodologies have dominated the scene in CBR so far, but their combination with quantitative methods has a lot of potential to better capture the effectiveness of this strategy. CONCLUSIONS: In order to facilitate and improve evaluations in CBR, there is an urgent need to agree on a common framework, such as the CBR matrix, and to develop best practice guidelines based on the literature available and consensus among a group of experts. These will need to demonstrate a good balance between community development and standards for effective evaluations. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: In the quest for evidence of the effectiveness of community-based rehabilitation (CBR), a shared program evaluation framework would better enable the combination of findings from different studies. The evaluation of CBR programs should always include sharing findings and taking action for the sake of the local community. Although qualitative methodologies have dominated the scene in CBR and remain highly relevant, there is also a call for the inclusion of quantitative indicators in order to capture the progress made by people participating in CBR programs. The production of best practice guidelines for evaluation in CBR could foster accountable and empowering program evaluations that are congruent with the principles at the heart of CBR and the standards for effective evaluations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3913006
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Informa UK Ltd.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-39130062014-02-10 A systematic review on how to conduct evaluations in community-based rehabilitation Grandisson, Marie Hébert, Michèle Thibeault, Rachel Disabil Rehabil Review PURPOSE: Community-based rehabilitation (CBR) must prove that it is making a significant difference for people with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries. Yet, evaluation is not a common practice and the evidence for its effectiveness is fragmented and largely insufficient. The objective of this article was to review the literature on best practices in program evaluation in CBR in relation to the evaluative process, the frameworks, and the methods of data collection. METHOD: A systematic search was conducted on five rehabilitation databases and the World Health Organization website with keywords associated with CBR and program evaluation. Two independent researchers selected the articles. RESULTS: Twenty-two documents were included. The results suggest that (1) the evaluative process needs to be conducted in close collaboration with the local community, including people with disabilities, and to be followed by sharing the findings and taking actions, (2) many frameworks have been proposed to evaluate CBR but no agreement has been reached, and (3) qualitative methodologies have dominated the scene in CBR so far, but their combination with quantitative methods has a lot of potential to better capture the effectiveness of this strategy. CONCLUSIONS: In order to facilitate and improve evaluations in CBR, there is an urgent need to agree on a common framework, such as the CBR matrix, and to develop best practice guidelines based on the literature available and consensus among a group of experts. These will need to demonstrate a good balance between community development and standards for effective evaluations. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: In the quest for evidence of the effectiveness of community-based rehabilitation (CBR), a shared program evaluation framework would better enable the combination of findings from different studies. The evaluation of CBR programs should always include sharing findings and taking action for the sake of the local community. Although qualitative methodologies have dominated the scene in CBR and remain highly relevant, there is also a call for the inclusion of quantitative indicators in order to capture the progress made by people participating in CBR programs. The production of best practice guidelines for evaluation in CBR could foster accountable and empowering program evaluations that are congruent with the principles at the heart of CBR and the standards for effective evaluations. Informa UK Ltd. 2014-02 2013-04-24 /pmc/articles/PMC3913006/ /pubmed/23614357 http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2013.785602 Text en © 2014 Informa UK Ltd. All rights reserved: reproduction in whole or part not permitted http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the source is credited.
spellingShingle Review
Grandisson, Marie
Hébert, Michèle
Thibeault, Rachel
A systematic review on how to conduct evaluations in community-based rehabilitation
title A systematic review on how to conduct evaluations in community-based rehabilitation
title_full A systematic review on how to conduct evaluations in community-based rehabilitation
title_fullStr A systematic review on how to conduct evaluations in community-based rehabilitation
title_full_unstemmed A systematic review on how to conduct evaluations in community-based rehabilitation
title_short A systematic review on how to conduct evaluations in community-based rehabilitation
title_sort systematic review on how to conduct evaluations in community-based rehabilitation
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3913006/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23614357
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2013.785602
work_keys_str_mv AT grandissonmarie asystematicreviewonhowtoconductevaluationsincommunitybasedrehabilitation
AT hebertmichele asystematicreviewonhowtoconductevaluationsincommunitybasedrehabilitation
AT thibeaultrachel asystematicreviewonhowtoconductevaluationsincommunitybasedrehabilitation
AT grandissonmarie systematicreviewonhowtoconductevaluationsincommunitybasedrehabilitation
AT hebertmichele systematicreviewonhowtoconductevaluationsincommunitybasedrehabilitation
AT thibeaultrachel systematicreviewonhowtoconductevaluationsincommunitybasedrehabilitation