Search

The objectives of this review are to answer the following research questions: (1) What is the nature of the interventions used to support education for people with disabilities? (2) What is the size and quality of the evidence base of the effectiveness of interventions to improve educational outcomes for people with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)? (3) What works to improve educational outcomes for people with disabilities in LMICs? (4) Which interventions appear most effective for different types of disability? (5) What are the barriers and facilitators to improving of educational outcomes for people with disabilities? Is there evidence of cumulative effects--that certain interventions are effective when done in combination with others, but are less or ineffective when done alone?

The objectives of this review are to answer the following research questions: (1) What is the effect size of the effectiveness of interventions to improve livelihood outcomes for people with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and what is the quality of the evidence base? (2) What works to improve livelihood outcomes for people with disabilities in LMICs? (3) Which interventions appear most effective for different categories of disability? (4) What are the barriers and facilitators to the improvement of livelihood outcomes to people with disabilities?

Background: There are approximately 1 billion people in the world with some form of disability. This corresponds to approximately 15% of the world's population (World Report on Disability, 2011). The majority of people with disabilities (80%) live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where disability has been shown to disproportionately affect the most disadvantaged sector of the population. Decision makers need to know what works, and what does not, to best invest limited resources aimed at improving the well-being of people with disabilities in LMICs. Systematic reviews and impact evaluations help answer this question. Improving the availability of existing evidence will help stakeholders to draw on current knowledge and to understand where new research investments can guide decision-making on appropriate use of resources. Evidence and gap maps (EGMs) contribute by showing what evidence there is, and supporting the prioritization of global evidence synthesis needs and primary data collection. Objectives: The aim of this EGM is to identify, map and describe existing evidence of effectiveness studies and highlight gaps in evidence base for people with disabilities in LMICs. The map helps identify priority evidence gaps for systematic reviews and impact evaluations. Methods: The EGM included impact evaluation and systematic reviews assessing the effect of interventions for people with disabilities and their families/carers. These interventions were categorized across the five components of community-based rehabilitation matrix; health, education, livelihood, social and empowerment. Included studies looked at outcomes such as, health, education, livelihoods, social inclusion and empowerment, and were published for LMICs from 2000 onwards until January 2018. The searches were conducted between February and March 2018. The EGM is presented as a matrix in which the rows are intervention categories (e.g., health) and subcategories (e.g., rehabilitation) and the column outcome domains (e.g., health) and subdomains (e.g., immunization). Each cell lists the studies for that intervention for those outcomes, with links to the available studies. Included studies were therefore mapped according to intervention and outcomes assessed and additional filters as region, population and study design were also coded. Critical appraisal of included systematic review was done using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews' rating scale. We also quality-rated the impact evaluation using a quality assessment tool based on various approaches to risk of bias assessment. Results: The map includes 166 studies, of which 59 are systematic reviews and 107 impact evaluation. The included impact evaluation are predominantly quasiexperimental studies (47%). The numbers of studies published each year have increased steadily from the year 2000, with the largest number published in 2017. The studies are unevenly distributed across intervention areas. Health is the most heavily populated area of the map. A total of 118 studies of the 166 studies concern health interventions. Education is next most heavily populated with 40 studies in the education intervention/outcome sector. There are relatively few studies for livelihoods and social, and virtually none for empowerment. The most frequent outcome measures are health-related, including mental health and cognitive development (n = 93), rehabilitation (n = 32), mortality and morbidity (n = 23) and health check-up (n = 15). Very few studies measured access to assistive devices, nutrition and immunization. Over half (n = 49) the impact evaluation come from upper-middle income countries. There are also geographic gaps, most notably for low income countries (n = 9) and lower-middle income countries (n = 34). There is a fair amount of evidence from South Asia (n = 73) and Sub-Saharan Africa (n = 51). There is a significant gap with respect to study quality, especially with respect to impact evaluation. There appears to be a gap between the framing of the research, which is mostly within the medical model and not using the social model of disability. Conclusion: Investing in interventions to improve well-being of people with disabilities will be critical to achieving the 2030 agenda for sustainable development goals. The EGM summarized here provides a starting point for researchers, decision makers and programme managers to access the available research evidence on the effectiveness of interventions for people with disabilities in LMICs in order to guide policy and programme activity, and encourage a more strategic, policy-oriented approach to setting the future research agenda.

Over the past decade the academic literature on disability outcomes and effectiveness has grown substantially (Andresen, Lollar, & Meyers, 2000; Devon, Lydon, Healy, & McCoy, 2016; Iemmi et al., 2015). Several important questions have not been adequately addressed, however. For example, what type of evidence is needed, and what are realistic expectations for disability outcomes and effectiveness research? A lack of rigorous and comparable data on disability and evidence on programmes that work can impede understanding and action. Understanding the numbers of people with disabilities and their circumstances can improve efforts to remove disabling barriers and provide services to allow people with disabilities to participate on an equal basis with others. For example, better measures of the environment and its impacts on the different aspects of disability need to be developed to facilitate the identification of cost-effective environmental interventions. Knowledge production takes place across several sectors (health, social welfare and education), focuses on various populations (different ages, ethnicities, or with different needs), and involves rather diverse methodical approaches (e.g., systematic reviews, primary studies of different designs, etc.). A mapping of the existing knowledge base is therefore required to provide a comprehensive overview of existing knowledge in this area and enable the purposeful and targeted commissioning of future research, tailored to the most eminent needs for knowledge and guidance. This ambition could be fulfilled by a proposed evidence and gap map (EGM). The proposed EGM will present studies of the effectiveness of these interventions across a range of outcome domains. Specifically, the objectives of the map are to: (1) develop a clear framework of types of interventions and outcomes related to effectiveness of interventions for people with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs); (2) map available systematic reviews and primary studies on the effectiveness of disability interventions in low- and middle-income countries in this framework, with an overview provided in a summary report; and (3) provide database entries of included studies which summarise the intervention, context, study design and main findings.