ReviewAfrican journal of disability2025
Frameworks used to evaluate community-based rehabilitation interventions: A scoping review.
Review in African journal of disability, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Community-based rehabilitation (CBR) interventions are important for improving the well-being of people with disabilities. However, there is no universally accepted framework for evaluating these interventions, which limits their effectiveness and integration into policy. Objectives: To explore theoretical frameworks used in evaluating CBR interventions, assessing their suitability, context-specific applicability and cultural relevance. Method: A scoping review methodology was employed to examine the literature. Databases searched included PubMed, CINAHL, EBSCOhost and Web of Science. Broad search terms and keywords used were CBR, analytical and/or methodological and/or theoretical and/or conceptual and/or evaluation framework, impact and evaluation. Only full-text articles written in English and published between 2000 and 2020 were included. Data were analysed using a narrative synthesis method. Results: No single framework has been widely recognised as the superior or most effective standard for evaluating CBR interventions. Instead, a combination of the CBR matrix and CBR guidelines was frequently used and adapted to be context-specific. Conclusion: While cultural relevance and context specificity are recognised as essential to the evaluation process - and measuring outcomes at the individual level is viewed as most appropriate - there remains a need for a certain level of standardisation. Contribution: The study highlights the need for context-specific and culturally relevant evaluation frameworks for CBR interventions, including appropriate outcome measures and/or evaluation instruments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.