Advancing inclusive development through community-based rehabilitation: a systematic literature review.
Udeme Samuel Jacob, Mbulaheni Obert Maguvhe
A review of nine studies found community-based rehabilitation programmes generally improved participation, social inclusion, and empowerment for people with disabilities.
Evidence was strongest where comparison groups existed. Education and livelihood outcomes remain under-studied.
Key findings
1All nine included studies reported favourable outcomes, but the certainty of that finding varied by design; the strongest evidence came from quasi-experimental studies that used matched comparison groups and advanced statistical adjustment.
2Social inclusion, participation, and empowerment were the most consistently measured outcome domains across the included studies, while education and livelihood outcomes received comparatively less attention and were often measured only indirectly.
3The authors state that, given the modest and methodologically heterogeneous evidence base, the findings should be interpreted as encouraging rather than definitive proof of effectiveness.
to read the rest of this summary — three full summaries a month, no card.
Already have an account?
What it does not show
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.
Declared interests
The authors declared that no financial support was received for the work or its publication.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →