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

Only nine studies met the inclusion criteria, and they varied widely in design, population, setting, and outcome measures, so the authors could not pool effect sizes or make direct numerical comparisons. Most included studies were cross-sectional or descriptive without a comparison group; only two used matched quasi-experimental designs, so causal attribution to CBR participation is limited. The search was restricted to a single database (Scopus) and to English-language articles, which may exclude relevant work from other indexing systems and languages. Education and livelihood outcomes were the least consistently measured across studies, so the review cannot speak to whether CBR delivers benefits in those domains. Many studies were conducted in specific regional or cultural contexts, and the authors note this may limit generalisability to other settings. No formal risk-of-bias scoring was applied; quality was assessed comparatively rather than through a standardised tool.

The authors declared that no financial support was received for the work or its publication.

Do not read the fact that all nine studies reported favourable outcomes as proof that CBR causes those improvements. Most of the included studies had no comparison group, the review itself calls the evidence 'encouraging rather than definitive,' and the two studies with the strongest causal design (matched quasi-experimental) were only a small part of the included work. The consistent positive direction is reassuring but does not establish that CBR, as distinct from other concurrent services or natural change, produced the gains.