ReviewFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2026
Advancing inclusive development through community-based rehabilitation: a systematic literature review.
Review in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/purpose: Community-Based Rehabilitation (CBR) has become a widely adopted strategy for promoting the participation, empowerment, and well-being of people with disabilities, particularly in low- and middle-income contexts. Despite its global implementation, empirical evidence on the effectiveness of CBR interventions remains dispersed across disciplines. This study synthesises existing empirical research to examine the outcomes of CBR programmes and empowerment-oriented interventions for persons with disabilities. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted in accordance with established review procedures and PRISMA reporting guidelines. Peer-reviewed studies were identified through database searches using predefined keywords related to disability, community-based rehabilitation, and empowerment. Studies were included if they reported empirical findings on CBR outcomes among persons with disabilities. Data from eligible studies were extracted and analysed to compare study characteristics, research designs, analytical approaches, and reported outcomes. Results: Nine empirical studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies employed diverse methodological approaches, including cross-sectional surveys, mixed-method designs, qualitative investigations, and quasi-experimental analyses with comparison groups. Across the studies, participation in CBR programmes was consistently associated with improvements in social inclusion, empowerment, participation, and access to services. Quasi-experimental studies provided stronger evidence of programme effectiveness, while qualitative and mixed-method studies highlighted experiential dimensions of empowerment and community engagement. Conclusion: The evidence indicates that CBR programmes contribute to improved participation and empowerment among persons with disabilities. Strengthening evaluation designs and expanding outcome measurement across all domains of the CBR matrix will enhance future research and support the development of inclusive community rehabilitation strategies.
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.