Advancing inclusive development through community-based rehabilitation: a systematic literature review.

IF 2.5 Q3 REHABILITATION
Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences Pub Date : 2026-07-21 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fresc.2026.1824043
Udeme Samuel Jacob, Mbulaheni Obert Maguvhe
{"title":"Advancing inclusive development through community-based rehabilitation: a systematic literature review.","authors":"Udeme Samuel Jacob, Mbulaheni Obert Maguvhe","doi":"10.3389/fresc.2026.1824043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/purpose: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":73102,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences","volume":"7 ","pages":"1824043"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13433614/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fresc.2026.1824043","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

通过社区康复促进包容性发展:系统文献综述。
背景/目的:社区康复(CBR)已成为一项广泛采用的战略,以促进残疾人的参与、赋权和福祉,特别是在低收入和中等收入环境中。尽管在全球范围内实施,但关于CBR干预措施有效性的经验证据仍然分散在各个学科。本研究综合了现有的实证研究,以检验残疾人社区责任项目和以赋权为导向的干预措施的结果。方法:按照既定的综述程序和PRISMA报告指南进行系统的文献综述。通过使用与残疾、社区康复和赋权相关的预定义关键词,通过数据库搜索确定同行评议的研究。如果研究报告了关于残疾人CBR结果的实证结果,则将其纳入研究。从符合条件的研究中提取数据并进行分析,以比较研究特征、研究设计、分析方法和报告的结果。结果:9项实证研究符合纳入标准。这些研究采用了多种方法,包括横断面调查、混合方法设计、定性调查和与对照组的准实验分析。在所有研究中,参与CBR计划始终与社会包容、赋权、参与和获得服务的改善有关。准实验研究为方案有效性提供了更有力的证据,而定性和混合方法研究则强调了赋权和社区参与的经验层面。结论:证据表明,CBR项目有助于改善残疾人的参与和赋权。加强评估设计和扩大CBR矩阵所有领域的结果测量将加强未来的研究并支持包容性社区康复战略的发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书