Harry Finkenflügel1, Huib Cornielje, Johan Velema. 1. Institute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus MC University Medical Centre Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands. h.finkenflugel@erasmusmc.nl
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Classification models for community-based rehabilitation (CBR) create conceptual order in the many types of rehabilitation programmes that exist in developing countries. Several models have been developed but none of the models appears to be widely accepted or being used in the evaluation process. PURPOSE: To review classification models and assess its usability. METHODS: Literature review. RESULTS: Sixteen documents were found describing 11 different models. These models vary from simply listing different types of CBR to multidimensional configurations encircling principles, methods and outcomes of CBR. The models are only incidentally used in the evaluation of CBR programmes. The more recent models have been used to develop, select and group indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Classification models can indeed structure the evaluation and comparison of CBR programs that are, by nature, very different from each other. Indicators can be developed within a theoretical framework provided by the classification model. In order to be widely accepted the models should be made less complex and focus on outcomes that are meaningful for the people involved in the evaluation as well as for policymakers and researchers.
UNLABELLED: Classification models for community-based rehabilitation (CBR) create conceptual order in the many types of rehabilitation programmes that exist in developing countries. Several models have been developed but none of the models appears to be widely accepted or being used in the evaluation process. PURPOSE: To review classification models and assess its usability. METHODS: Literature review. RESULTS: Sixteen documents were found describing 11 different models. These models vary from simply listing different types of CBR to multidimensional configurations encircling principles, methods and outcomes of CBR. The models are only incidentally used in the evaluation of CBR programmes. The more recent models have been used to develop, select and group indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Classification models can indeed structure the evaluation and comparison of CBR programs that are, by nature, very different from each other. Indicators can be developed within a theoretical framework provided by the classification model. In order to be widely accepted the models should be made less complex and focus on outcomes that are meaningful for the people involved in the evaluation as well as for policymakers and researchers.