Australian ICF Disability & Rehabilitation Research Program (AIDARRP), Centre for Disability Research and Policy, University of Sydney , Sydney , Australia .
Disabil Rehabil. 2013;35(23):1941-53. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2013.770078. Epub 2013 Apr 10.
To identify and analyse tools and methods that have been reported in the literature for the monitoring and evaluation of community-based rehabilitation (CBR) programmes.
A literature review and descriptive analysis were carried out to scope CBR monitoring and evaluation methods and tools. A search was conducted using PubMed and Google Scholar databases, hand searches and reference lists. Reports were retrieved, screened and information was extracted and analysed against research questions.
There were 34 reports which met the inclusion criteria. Analysis of the 34 reports showed that most reports used demographic and programme data. A range of methods were used: interviews, focus groups and questionnaires being the most common. Apart from this, no common standardised procedures or tools were identified and there was not a standard approach to the inclusion of people with disabilities or other CBR stakeholders.
The findings suggest that there would be value in creating resources such as guidelines, common processes and checklists for monitoring and evaluation of CBR, to facilitate efficient and comparable practices and more comparable data. This needs to be done in partnership with people with disabilities, CBR providers, partners and researchers to ensure that all stakeholders' needs are understood and met. Implications for Rehabilitation While there is broad scope and complexity of CBR programmes, there needs to be consistency and a valid approach in the monitoring and evaluation methods and tools used by CBR programmes. The principles of CBR and CRPD require that monitoring and evaluation involve people with disabilities, CBR managers and staff not only as informants but also in the design and execution of monitoring and evaluation activities. The consistent use of appropriate and valid monitoring and evaluation methods and tools will contribute to developing a stronger evidence base on the efficacy and effectiveness of CBR.
识别和分析文献中报道的用于监测和评估以社区为基础的康复(CBR)方案的工具和方法。
进行了文献回顾和描述性分析,以确定 CBR 监测和评估方法和工具的范围。使用 PubMed 和 Google Scholar 数据库、手工检索和参考文献列表进行了检索。检索到的报告进行了筛选,提取信息并根据研究问题进行了分析。
有 34 份报告符合纳入标准。对这 34 份报告的分析表明,大多数报告使用了人口统计学和方案数据。使用了一系列方法:访谈、焦点小组和问卷调查最为常见。除此之外,没有发现共同的标准化程序或工具,也没有确定纳入残疾人和其他 CBR 利益相关者的标准方法。
研究结果表明,为 CBR 的监测和评估创建资源(如指南、共同流程和检查表)将具有价值,这有助于实现高效和可比的实践以及更可比的数据。这需要与残疾人、CBR 提供者、合作伙伴和研究人员合作完成,以确保理解和满足所有利益相关者的需求。
康复的意义尽管 CBR 方案具有广泛的范围和复杂性,但 CBR 方案使用的监测和评估方法和工具需要具有一致性和有效性。CBR 和 CRPD 的原则要求监测和评估涉及残疾人和 CBR 管理人员和工作人员,不仅作为信息提供者,而且作为监测和评估活动的设计和执行的参与者。一致使用适当和有效的监测和评估方法和工具将有助于为 CBR 的疗效和效果建立更强的证据基础。