Community-based rehabilitation for people with psychosocial disabilities in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review of the grey literature.

Abstract

Background: Community based rehabilitation (CBR) aims to promote the inclusion and participation of people with disabilities, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Yet people with psychosocial disabilities are often excluded from CBR programmes. The restrictive inclusion criteria used by previous reviews make it difficult to identify promising examples that could otherwise help to inform the uptake of CBR for people with psychosocial disabilities. We aim to address this gap using gold standard methods for the review and synthesis of grey literature on CBR for people with psychosocial disabilities in LMICs.

Methods: Our search strategy was developed in consultation with an expert advisory group and covered seven grey literature databases, two customised Google Advanced searches, 34 targeted websites and four key reports. A single reviewer screened the search results and extracted relevant data using a standardised format based on the World Health Organisation's CBR matrix. The included programmes were then checked by a second reviewer with experience in CBR to ensure they met the review's criteria. A narrative synthesis with summative content analysis was performed to synthesise the findings.

Results: The 23 CBR programmes identified for inclusion spanned 19 countries and were mostly located in either rural areas or urban areas where a large proportion of the population was living in poverty. 13 were classified as livelihood programmes, eight as empowerment programmes, seven as social programmes, seven as health programmes and four as education programmes. Only two addressed all five of these components. 12 of the included programmes reported challenges to implementation, with stigma and lack of resources emerging as two of the most prominent themes.

Conclusion: This grey literature review identified several CBR programmes and synthesised key learning that would have otherwise been missed by a more traditional review of the published literature. However, as evaluation by implementing organisations is not always conducted to a high standard, the quality of this evidence is generally poor. A flexible monitoring and evaluation framework for CBR programmes could help to reduce heterogeneity in terms of the quality and content of reporting.