ArticleBMC health services research2026
Feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary impact of the WHO-Caregiver skill training (CST) in a low-income clinical setting: a mixed-methods evaluation.
Article in BMC health services research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe intensive demands of caring for children with developmental disorders (DDs) result in diminished quality of life (QoL) and increased family burden, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), such as Ethiopia, where access to specialized healthcare and caregiver support is limited. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary impact of the World Health Organization-Caregiver skill training (WHO-CST) within a clinical setting.
methodsA convergent parallel mixed-methods study design was employed. The qualitative data included 19 caregiver interviews and three focus group discussions with 20 facilitators examining program acceptability and implementation barriers, and the data were analyzed thematically. The quantitative data included 127 caregivers who completed pre- and post-intervention assessments, which were analyzed using paired t-tests and regression models (p < .05).
resultsThe qualitative analysis revealed four main themes: program acceptability, implementation challenges, effective strategies and recommendations. After the intervention, the caregivers exhibited better self-care and reduced their reliance on physical punishment. They also reported improvements in their children's communication skills and adaptive and challenging behaviors. Factors such as resource shortage and time constraints were identified as implementation barriers. Among those who completed the follow-up, 100% attended seven sessions or more. The quantitative analysis showed significant improvements in the psychological (Mdiff =3.01, t (126) =2.37, p = .019) and environmental (Mdiff =4.97, t (126) =4.19, p< .001) domains. However, the improvement in the overall quality of life (QoL) (Mdiff =1.74, t (126) =1.96, p= .052) and the reduction in the overall burden score (Mdiff = -.86, t (126) = -1.09, p= .277) were marginal and did not reach statistical significance.
conclusionThe WHO-CST is a feasible and acceptable intervention in Ethiopian clinical setting. It is associated with potential improvements in parenting style, self-care, and selected QoL domains among caregivers. By utilizing psychiatry residents as facilitators, the study implemented a service integration and capacity-building model to address gaps in a resource-limited setting. The findings may inform future implementation strategies and policy development in similar low-resource settings. Future evaluations should explore the cost-effectiveness and institutional support required to maintain the WHO-CST as standard care. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.