Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32005206›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2020

Disabled People's Organisations increase access to services and improve well-being: evidence from a cluster randomized trial in North India.

Nathan John Grills, Monsurul Hoq, Chun-Ping Pam Wong, Komal Allagh, Lawrence Singh, Fairlene Soji, G V S Murthy

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Nathan John GrillsNossal Institute for Global Health and Australia-India Institute, University of Melbourne, Level 5, 333 Exhibition Street, Melbourne, 3000, Australia. ngrills@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1228-3047
Monsurul HoqMurdoch Children's Research Institute, 50 Flemington Rd, Parkville, 3052, Australia.
Chun-Ping Pam WongNossal Institute for Global Health, University of Melbourne, Level 5, 333 Exhibition Street, Melbourne, 3000, Australia.
Komal AllaghIndian Institute of Public Health-Hyderabad, Plot # 1, A.N.V.Arcade, Amar Co-op Society, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad, 500 033, India.
Lawrence Singh'Pari Mahal' D-55 Aman Vihar, Lane no.10, Chidowali, P.O:Kandoli, Sahastradhara Road, Dehra dun, Uttarakhand, India.
Fairlene SojiCBM, #140, "Commerce Cube", 5th Main, Puttannachetty Road, Chamarajpet, Bengaluru, Karnataka, 560 018, India.
G V S MurthyIndian Institute of Public Health-Hyderabad, Plot # 1, A.N.V.Arcade, Amar Co-op Society, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad, 500 033, India.
The University of Melbourne · AUIndian Institute of Public Health Gandhinagar · INDepartment of Commerce · AU

Funding

CBM India Trust nil
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDisabled People's Organisations (DPOs) are the mainstay of disability responses worldwide. Yet there is no quantitative data assessing their effectiveness in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). The aim of this study was to measure the effectiveness of DPOs as a low-cost intervention to improve well-being and access to services and facilities for people with disabilities.

methodsWe undertook a cluster randomised intervention control trial across 39 distinct rural villages in Uttarakhand State, North India. A total of 527 participants were included from 39 villages: 302 people from 20 villages were assigned to the intervention arm and 225 from 19 villages were assigned to the control group. Over a 2-year period, people with disabilities were facilitated to form DPOs with regular home visits. Participants were also given financial support for public events and exposure visits to other DPOs. Seven domains were used to measure access and participation.

resultsDPO formation had improved participation in community consultations (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.4 to 4.72), social activities (OR 2.46, 95% CI 1.38 to 4.38), DPOs (OR 14.78, 95% CI 1.43 to 152.43), access to toilet facilities (OR 3.89, 95% CI 1.31 to 11.57), rehabilitation (OR 6.83, 95% CI 2.4 to 19.42) and Government social welfare services (OR 4.82, 95% CI 2.35 to 9.91) in intervention when compared to the control. People who were part of a DPO had an improvement in having their opinion heard (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.16 to 3.24) and being able to make friends (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1 to 2.65) compared to those who were not part of a DPO. All other well-being variables had little evidence despite greater improvement in the DPO intervention group.

conclusionsThis is the first randomised control trial to demonstrate that DPOs in LMICs are effective at improving participation, access and well-being. This study supports the ongoing role of DPOs in activities related to disability inclusion and disability services. This study also suggests that supporting the establishment, facilitation and strengthening of DPOs is a cost-effective intervention and role that non-governmental organisations (NGOs) can play.

trial registrationISRCTN36867362, 9th Oct 2019 (retrospectively registered).

Indexed as

OrganizationsPersons with DisabilitiesQuality of LifeAdultCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansIndiaMaleMiddle AgedProgram EvaluationAccessDisabilityDisabled People’s OrganisationInclusionIndiaParticipationRapid assessment of disabilityWellbeing

Identifiers

PMID32005206
PMCPMC6995118
OpenAlexW3013664243

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.