ArticleAfrican journal of primary health care & family medicine2025
Implementation of the framework for disability and rehabilitation in Gauteng, South Africa.
Article in African journal of primary health care & family medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
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
backgroundThe Framework and Strategy for Disability and Rehabilitation (FSDR) in South Africa aims to improve rehabilitation services for individuals with disabilities. However, research related to its implementation process is limited.
aimTo explore the experiences of the implementation process of FSDR among stakeholders in Gauteng, South Africa.
settingThe study was conducted in 5 districts in the Gauteng Province of South Africa namely, City of Johannesburg, Ekurhuleni, West Rand, Sedibeng, and Tshwane.
methodsA descriptive qualitative study design was used, combining semi-structured interviews and focus groups with diverse stakeholders, including clinicians, rehabilitation managers and community health workers. Data were analysed thematically using MAXQDA software, with key themes mapped deductively to the stages of the EPIS (Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment) framework to identify key implementation steps taken.
resultsChallenges to implementation including resource shortages, limited career progression, weak management communication and procedural inefficiencies were reported. Participants emphasised the need for policy adaptations reflecting field experiences and advocated for increased accountability and resources. The EPIS framework highlighted the critical role of phase-specific interventions and continuous monitoring for effective policy implementation.
conclusionThe study concludes that systemic barriers must be addressed to enhance the sustainability and impact of the FSDR policy on rehabilitation services.Contribution: Recommendations include fostering accountability, improving resource allocation and realigning policies with frontline needs to ensure long-term improvements in disability and rehabilitation services.
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.