PROTOCOL: Effectiveness of interventions for improving social inclusion outcomes for people with disabilities in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A systematic review

The objectives of this review are to: (1) examine the effectiveness of interventions for improving social inclusion outcomes for people with disabilities (physical, visual, hearing, intellectual or mental health conditions) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs); and (2) to critically appraise the confidence in study finding of the included studies. Key questions include: (1) Are interventions to improve social inclusion outcomes for people with disabilities in LMICs effective, and what is the quality of evidence base? (2) What types of intervention, or intervention design features, are most effective in improving social inclusion outcomes for people with disabilities in LMICs? (3) Which interventions appear most effective for different categories of disability? (4) What are the barriers to people with disabilities participating in interventions to improve their social inclusion outcomes? And what factors facilitate participation in, and the success of, such interventions?

PROTOCOL: Effectiveness of interventions for improving livelihood outcomes for people with disabilities in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A systematic review

The objectives of this review are to answer the following research questions: (1) What is the effect size of the effectiveness of interventions to improve livelihood outcomes for people with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and what is the quality of the evidence base? (2) What works to improve livelihood outcomes for people with disabilities in LMICs? (3) Which interventions appear most effective for different categories of disability? (4) What are the barriers and facilitators to the improvement of livelihood outcomes to people with disabilities?

PROTOCOL: Interventions promoting resilience through climate-smart agricultural practices for women farmers: A systematic review

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: the primary objective of this review is to synthesise evidence of the effectiveness of interventions to promote climate‐smart agriculture to enhance agricultural outcomes and resilience of women farmers in low‐and‐middle‐income countries (research question 1). The secondary objective is to examine evidence along the causal pathway from access to interventions to promote climate‐smart agriculture to empowering women so that they can use climate‐smart technology. And such outcomes include knowledge sharing, agency improvement, resource access and decision‐making (research question 2)

The role of scoping reviews in guideline development.

Systematic reviews have long been seen as critical in the development of trustworthy guidelines. However, as newer synthesis methodologies such as scoping reviews become more common, there is a need to discuss the potential role of these methodologies within guideline development. This article aims to summarize and provide examples of the role of scoping reviews in guideline development. Drawing on the expertise of the JBI scoping review group and guideline developers, this discussion article summarizes five key roles of scoping reviews in guideline development. Guideline developers can consider using scoping reviews when they need to: 1) know what existing guidelines could be adopted, adapted or adoloped; 2) understand the breadth of evidence that exists on a particular issue and help with the development and prioritization of questions, or identify previous systematic reviews; 3) identify contextual factors and information relevant for a clinical practice recommendation; 4) identify potential strategies for implementation and monitoring and; 5) conduct evidence surveillance and living mapping approaches. Scoping reviews conducted and reported according to best-practice guidelines and standards can be used in conjunction with systematic reviews to support the work of guideline developers usefully

Policy Prescription from Systematic Review evidence on “Conditional Cash Transfer for Improving Uptake of Health Interventions in Low and Middle Income Countries”

The aim of this paper was to provide policymakers with a set of evidence on the effectiveness of on the effectiveness of and middle income countries. This is a policy prescription paper based on the systemic review evidence on “Conditional Cash Transfer for Improving Uptake of Health Interventions in Low and Middle Income Countries”. In this review, we have assessed the effectiveness of CCT programs on improving health services and health outcomes in Low and middle income countries. The review evidence suggests, positive health outcomes from this programs and the following paper gives an overview of the evidence as a policy prescription for policy makers

Mega‐map of systematic reviews and evidence and gap maps on the interventions to improve child well‐being in low‐ and middle‐income countries

Abstract Background Despite a considerable reduction in child mortality, nearly six million children under the age of five die each year. Millions more are poorly nourished and in many parts of the world, the quality of education remains poor. Children are at risk from multiple violations of their rights, including child labour, early marriage, and sexual exploitation. Research plays a crucial role in helping to close the remaining gaps in child well‐being, yet the global evidence base for interventions to meet these challenges is mostly weak, scattered and often unusable by policymakers and practitioners. This mega‐map encourages the generation and use of rigorous evidence on effective ways to improve child well‐being for policy and programming. Objectives The aim of this mega‐map is to identify, map and provide an overview of the existing evidence synthesis on the interventions aimed at improving child well‐being in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs). Methods Campbell evidence and gap maps (EGMs) are based on a review of existing mapping standards (Saran & White, 2018) which drew in particular of the approach developed by 3ie (Snilstveit, Vojtkova, Bhavsar, & Gaarder, 2013). As defined in the Campbell EGM guidance paper; “Mega‐map is a map of evidence synthesis, that is, systematic reviews, and does not include primary studies” (Campbell Collaboration, 2020). The mega‐map on child well‐being includes studies with participants aged 0–18 years, conducted in LMICs, and published from year 2000 onwards. The search followed strict inclusion criteria for interventions and outcomes in the domains of health, education, social work and welfare, social protection, environmental health, water supply and sanitation (WASH) and governance. Critical appraisal of included systematic reviews was conducted using “A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews”‐AMSTAR‐2 rating scale (Shea, et al., 2017). Results We identified 333 systematic reviews and 23 EGMs. The number of studies being published has increased year‐on‐year since 2000. However, the distribution of studies across World Bank regions, intervention and outcome categories are uneven. Most systematic reviews examine interventions pertaining to traditional areas of health and education. Systematic reviews in these traditional areas are also the most funded. There is limited evidence in social work and social protection. About 69% (231) of the reviews are assessed to be of low and medium quality. There are evidence gaps with respect to key vulnerable populations, including children with disabilities and those who belong to minority groups. Conclusion Although an increasing number of systematic reviews addressing child well‐being topics are being published, some clear gaps in the evidence remain in terms of quality of reviews and some interventions and outcome areas. The clear gap is the small number of reviews focusing explicitly on either equity or programmes for disadvantaged groups and those who are discriminated against

PROTOCOL: Effectiveness of interventions for improving educational outcomes for people with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review.

The objectives of this review are to answer the following research questions: (1) What is the nature of the interventions used to support education for people with disabilities? (2) What is the size and quality of the evidence base of the effectiveness of interventions to improve educational outcomes for people with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)? (3) What works to improve educational outcomes for people with disabilities in LMICs? (4) Which interventions appear most effective for different types of disability? (5) What are the barriers and facilitators to improving of educational outcomes for people with disabilities? Is there evidence of cumulative effects—that certain interventions are effective when done in combination with others, but are less or ineffective when done alone?

Effectiveness of interventions for improving social inclusion outcomes for people with disabilities in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A systematic review

Abstract Background 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. Objectives 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). Search Methods 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. Selection Criteria We included all studies which reported on impact evaluations of interventions to improve social inclusion outcomes for people with disabilities in LMIC. Data Collection and Analysis 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. Main Results We identified 37 experimental and quasi‐experimental studies. Studies were conducted in 16 countries, with the majority of the included studies (n = 13) from South Asia and nine each from East Asia, the Pacific, the Middle East, and North Africa. Most studies targeted children with disabilities (n = 23), and 12 targeted adults with disabilities. Most focused on people with intellectual disabilities (n = 20) and psychosocial disabilities (n = 13). Regarding intervention content, most (n = 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, k = 26, I2 = 77%, p < 0.001). For relationships across 12 studies, we find a positive but moderate effect (SMD = 0.61, CI = 0.41 to 0.80, k = 15, I2 = 64%, p < 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, k = 2, I2 = 93%, p < 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 (n = 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 (p < 0.01) and social inclusion (p = 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

Effectiveness of interventions for improving livelihood outcomes for people with disabilities in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: People with disabilities—more than a billion people worldwide—are frequently excluded from livelihood opportunities, including employment, social protection, and access to finance. Interventions are therefore needed to improve livelihood outcomes for people with disabilities, such as improving access to financial capital (e.g., social protection), human capital (e.g., health and education/training), social capital (e.g., support) or physical capital (e.g., accessible buildings). However, evidence is lacking as to which approaches should be promoted. OBJECTIVES: This review examines whether interventions for people with disabilities result in improved livelihood outcomes in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC): acquisition of skills for the workplace, access to the job market, employment in formal and informal sectors, income and earnings from work, access to financial services such as grants and loans, and/or access to social protection programmes. SEARCH METHODS: The search, up to date as of February 2020, comprised of: (1) an electronic search of databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, CAB Global Health, ERIC, PubMED and CINAHL), (2) screening of all included studies in the instances where reviews were identified, (3) screening reference lists and citations of identified recent papers and reviews, and (4) An electronic search of a range of organisational websites and databases (including ILO, R4D, UNESCO and WHO) using the keyword search for unpublished grey to ensure maximum coverage of unpublished literature, and reduce the potential for publication bias. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all studies which reported on impact evaluations of interventions to improve livelihood outcomes for people with disabilities in LMIC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used review management software EPPI Reviewer to screen the search results. A total of 10 studies were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria. We searched for errata for our included publications and found none. 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. We found that it was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis, and generate pooled results or compare effect sizes, given the diversity of designs, methodologies, measures, and rigour across studies in this area. As such, we presented out findings narratively. MAIN RESULTS: Only one of the nine interventions targeted children with disabilities alone, and only two included a mix of age groups (children and adults with disabilities. Most of the interventions targeted adults with disabilities only. Most single impairment group interventions targeted people with physical impairments alone. The research designs of the studies included one randomised controlled trial, one quasi-randomised controlled trial (a randomised, posttest only study using propensity score matching (PSM), one case-control study with PSM, four uncontrolled before and after studies, and three posttest only studies. Our confidence in the overall findings is low to medium on the basis of our appraisal of the studies. Two studies scored medium using our assessment tool, with the remaining eight scoring low on one or more item. All the included studies reported positive impacts on livelihoods outcomes. However, outcomes varied substantially by study, as did the methods used to establish intervention impact, and the quality and reporting of findings. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review suggest that it may be possible for a variety of programming approaches to improve livelihood outcomes of people with disabilities in LMIC. However, given low confidence in study findings related to methodological limitations in all the included studies, positive findings must be interpreted with caution. Additional rigorous evaluations of livelihoods interventions for people with disabilities in LMIC are needed