Saran Ashrita, Hunt Xanthe, White Howard, Kuper Hannah
Campbell South Asia Delhi India.
Institute for Life Course Health Research, Department of Global Health Stellenbosch University Cape Town South Africa.
Campbell Syst Rev. 2023 Mar 21;19(1):e1316. doi: 10.1002/cl2.1316. eCollection 2023 Mar.
People with disabilities-more than a billion people worldwide-are frequently excluded from social and political life, and often experience stigmatising attitudes and behaviours from people without disabilities. This stigma, coupled with inaccessible environments and systems and institutional barriers (e.g., lack of inclusive legislation), may result in discrimination against people with disabilities (and their families) to the degree that they are not able to enjoy their rights on an equal basis with others.
This review examines the effectiveness of interventions for improving social inclusion outcomes (acquisition of skills for social inclusion, broad-based social inclusion, and improved relationships) for people with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
We searched academic and online databases, carried out citation tracking of included studies, and contacted experts to ensure our search was as comprehensive as possible. We also ran the searches with search terms specific to social inclusion review using Open Alex in EPPI reviewer.
We included all studies which reported on impact evaluations of interventions to improve social inclusion outcomes for people with disabilities in LMIC.
We used review management software EPPI Reviewer to screen the search results. Two review authors independently extracted the data from each study report, including for the confidence in study findings appraisal. Data and information were extracted regarding available characteristics of participants, intervention characteristics and control conditions, research design, sample size, risk of bias and outcomes, and results. Random-effects inverse variance weighted meta-analytic methods were used to synthesise standardised mean differences for the outcomes.
We identified 37 experimental and quasi-experimental studies. Studies were conducted in 16 countries, with the majority of the included studies ( = 13) from South Asia and nine each from East Asia, the Pacific, the Middle East, and North Africa. Most studies targeted children with disabilities ( = 23), and 12 targeted adults with disabilities. Most focused on people with intellectual disabilities ( = 20) and psychosocial disabilities ( = 13). Regarding intervention content, most ( = 17) of the included programmes aimed to improve the social and communication skills of people with disabilities through social skills training programmes. Ten studies aimed at providing personal assistance and support and evaluated the effects of a parent training programme on the interactive skills of parents of children and their children with disabilities. We calculated effect sizes from experimental and quasi-experimental studies for outcomes on skills for social inclusion, relationships of people with disabilities with family and community members, and broad-based social inclusion among people with disabilities. A meta-analysis of 16 studies indicates an overall positive, statistically significant and large effect of the interventions for skills for social inclusion with standardised mean difference (SMD) = 0.87, confidence interval (CI) = 0.57 to 1.16, = 26, = 77%, < 0.001). For relationships across 12 studies, we find a positive but moderate effect (SMD = 0.61, CI = 0.41 to 0.80, = 15, = 64%, < 0.01). As for the overall effect on broad-based social inclusion, we find the average effect size was large, and there was significant dispersion across studies (SMD = 0.72, CI = 0.33 to 1.11, = 2, = 93%, < 0.01). Despite the significant and large effects estimated by the studies, some limitations must be noted. Although there was a consensus on the direction of the effects, the studies presented considerable heterogeneity in the size of the effects. A majority ( = 27) of studies were assessed to be of low confidence related to methodological limitations, so the findings must be interpreted with caution. Tests for publication bias show that the effect sizes of social skills ( < 0.01) and social inclusion ( = 0.01) are all likely to be inflated by the existence of the publication bias.
AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS: The review's findings suggest that various interventions to improve the social inclusion of people with disabilities have a significant positive effect. Interventions such as social and communication training and personal assistance led to significant improvement in the social behaviour and social skills of people with disabilities. Studies targeting broad-based social inclusion showed a large and significant positive effect. A moderate effect was reported from interventions designed to improve relationships between people with disabilities and their families and communities. However, the findings of this review must be interpreted cautiously, given the low confidence in study methods, severe heterogeneity and significant publication bias. The available evidence focused primarily on individual-level barriers such as interventions for improving social or communications skills of people with disabilities and not the systemic drivers of exclusions such as addressing societal barriers to inclusion, such as stigma reduction, and interventions to strengthen legislation, infrastructure, and institutions.
全球有超过10亿残疾人经常被排除在社会和政治生活之外,并且经常遭受来自非残疾人的污名化态度和行为。这种污名,再加上无障碍环境、系统和制度障碍(例如缺乏包容性立法),可能导致对残疾人(及其家庭)的歧视,以至于他们无法与其他人平等地享有权利。
本综述考察了在低收入和中等收入国家(LMICs)中,改善残疾人社会包容结果(获得社会包容技能、广泛的社会包容以及改善人际关系)的干预措施的有效性。
我们检索了学术和在线数据库,对纳入研究进行了引文追踪,并联系专家以确保我们的检索尽可能全面。我们还使用EPPI reviewer中的Open Alex,使用特定于社会包容综述的检索词进行检索。
我们纳入了所有报告对LMICs中改善残疾人社会包容结果的干预措施进行影响评估的研究。
我们使用综述管理软件EPPI Reviewer筛选检索结果。两位综述作者独立从每份研究报告中提取数据,包括对研究结果评估的信心。提取了关于参与者的可用特征、干预特征和对照条件、研究设计、样本量、偏倚风险和结果以及结果的数据和信息。使用随机效应逆方差加权荟萃分析方法来综合结果的标准化平均差异。
我们确定了37项实验性和准实验性研究。研究在16个国家进行,纳入研究的大多数(n = 13)来自南亚,东亚、太平洋地区、中东和北非各有9项。大多数研究针对残疾儿童(n = 23),12项针对成年残疾人。大多数研究聚焦于智力残疾者(n = 20)和心理社会残疾者(n = 13)。关于干预内容,纳入的项目中大多数(n = 17)旨在通过社交技能培训项目提高残疾人的社交和沟通技能。十项研究旨在提供个人援助和支持,并评估家长培训项目对残疾儿童及其家长互动技能的影响。我们从实验性和准实验性研究中计算了关于社会包容技能、残疾人与家庭和社区成员关系以及残疾人广泛社会包容结果的效应量。对16项研究的荟萃分析表明,干预措施对社会包容技能有总体积极、具有统计学意义且较大的效果,标准化平均差异(SMD)= 0.87,置信区间(CI)= 0.57至1.16,I² = 26%,p < 0.001)。对于12项研究中的人际关系,我们发现有积极但中等的效果(SMD = 0.61,CI = 0.41至0.80,I² = 15%,p < 0.01)。至于对广泛社会包容的总体效果,我们发现平均效应量较大,且研究间存在显著差异(SMD = 0.72,CI = 0.33至1.11,I² = 93%,p < 0.01)。尽管研究估计有显著且较大的效果,但必须指出一些局限性。尽管在效果方向上达成了共识,但研究在效果大小方面存在相当大的数据异质性。大多数(n = 27)研究因方法学局限性被评估为低置信度,因此对研究结果的解释必须谨慎。发表偏倚检验表明,社交技能(p < 0.01)和社会包容(p = 0.01)的效应量都可能因发表偏倚的存在而被夸大。
综述结果表明,各种改善残疾人社会包容的干预措施具有显著的积极效果。社交和沟通培训以及个人援助等干预措施使残疾人的社会行为和社交技能有了显著改善。针对广泛社会包容的研究显示出较大且显著的积极效果。旨在改善残疾人与其家庭和社区之间关系的干预措施报告有中等效果。然而,鉴于对研究方法的低置信度、严重的异质性和显著的发表偏倚,本综述的结果必须谨慎解释。现有证据主要集中在个体层面的障碍,如改善残疾人社交或沟通技能的干预措施,而不是排除的系统性驱动因素,如解决社会包容障碍,如减少污名化,以及加强立法、基础设施和机构的干预措施。