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

Australian ICF Disability & Rehabilitation Research Program (AIDARRP), Centre for Disability Research and Policy, University of Sydney , Sydney , Australia .
Disability and Rehabilitation (Impact Factor: 1.99). 04/2013; 35(23). DOI: 10.3109/09638288.2013.770078
Source: PubMed


Purpose: To identify and analyse tools and methods that have been reported in the literature for the monitoring and evaluation of community-based rehabilitation (CBR) programmes. Method: A literature review and descriptive analysis were carried out to scope CBR monitoring and evaluation methods and tools. A search was conducted using PubMed and Google Scholar databases, hand searches and reference lists. Reports were retrieved, screened and information was extracted and analysed against research questions. Results: There were 34 reports which met the inclusion criteria. Analysis of the 34 reports showed that most reports used demographic and programme data. A range of methods were used: interviews, focus groups and questionnaires being the most common. Apart from this, no common standardised procedures or tools were identified and there was not a standard approach to the inclusion of people with disabilities or other CBR stakeholders. Conclusions: 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.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: To examine the relevance of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) to CBR monitoring and evaluation by investigating the relationship between the ICF and information in published CBR monitoring and evaluation reports. Method: A three-stage literature search and analysis method was employed. Studies were identified via online database searches for peer-reviewed journal articles, and hand-searching of CBR network resources, NGO websites and specific journals. From each study "information items" were extracted; extraction consistency among authors was established. Finally, the resulting information items were coded to ICF domains and categories, with consensus on coding being achieved. Results: Thirty-six articles relating to monitoring and evaluating CBR were selected for analysis. Approximately one third of the 2495 information items identified in these articles (788 or 32%) related to concepts of functioning, disability and environment, and could be coded to the ICF. These information items were spread across the entire ICF classification with a concentration on Activities and Participation (49% of the 788 information items) and Environmental Factors (42%). Conclusions: The ICF is a relevant and potentially useful framework and classification, providing building blocks for the systematic recording of information pertaining to functioning and disability, for CBR monitoring and evaluation. Implications for Rehabilitation The application of the ICF, as one of the building blocks for CBR monitoring and evaluation, is a constructive step towards an evidence-base on the efficacy and outcomes of CBR programs. The ICF can be used to provide the infrastructure for functioning and disability information to inform service practitioners and enable national and international comparisons.
    Full-text · Article · Aug 2013 · Disability and Rehabilitation
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Collaboration between service providers, DPOs and university researchers is an essential element in starting work on overcoming the lack of integrative cross-sectoral disability measures that are suitable for use in national programmes, which adhere to the key international policies of the CRPD and the standard information frameworks of the ICF. The examples outlined in this article provide ‘windows’ on Pacific region activities – activities that relate directly to all the main objectives of the Global Disability Action Plan. They illustrate the importance of unifying frameworks, and of regional networks and mechanisms. Collaboration and communication are strong linking threads: they are equally important for policy development, service and workforce development, and information development.
    Full-text · Article · Jan 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: There is limited guidance available on the best ways to evaluate community-based rehabilitation (CBR) programmes. In this paper, we share lessons learned on suitable evaluation strategies for CBR through a South African programme evaluation. Method: An empowerment evaluation of an early childhood development programme was conducted in April 2012. At the end of the field visit, parents, staff members and managers provided feedback anonymously about what they liked and disliked about the evaluation, and offered their suggestions. The principal investigator documented the evaluation process in a journal, recording the barriers and facilitators encountered, the participation of the 3 groups and the effectiveness of the different strategies used. The data analysis followed the principles of grounded theory. Results: The main lessons learned about CBR programme evaluation are associated with strategies to: 1) foster active participation, 2) collect accurate and credible information, 3) build local capacity, and 4) foster sustainable partnerships. Time spent to promote a positive learning spirit and the use of participatory tools with all groups appeared critical to active engagement in evaluation activities. Sharing tools and experiences in context built more local capacity than was achieved through a formal workshop. The findings also highlight that a flexible model, multiple data collection methods, and involvement of all relevant stakeholders maximise the information gathered. Sensitivity to the impact of culture and to the reactions generated by the evaluation, along with ongoing clarifications with local partners, emerged as core components of sustainable partnerships. Conclusion: CBR evaluators must use a variety of strategies to facilitate active engagement and build local capacity through the evaluation process. Many of the strategies identified relate to the way in which evaluators interact with local stakeholders to gain their trust, understand their perspectives, facilitate their contribution, and transfer knowledge. Further research is needed on how to conduct empowering CBR programme evaluations.
    No preview · Article · May 2014
Show more