PURPOSE: To identify and analyse tools and methods that have been reported in the literature for the monitoring and evaluation of community-based rehabilitation (CBR) programmes. METHOD: A literature review and descriptive analysis were carried out to scope CBR monitoring and evaluation methods and tools. A search was conducted using PubMed and Google Scholar databases, hand searches and reference lists. Reports were retrieved, screened and information was extracted and analysed against research questions. RESULTS: There were 34 reports which met the inclusion criteria. Analysis of the 34 reports showed that most reports used demographic and programme data. A range of methods were used: interviews, focus groups and questionnaires being the most common. Apart from this, no common standardised procedures or tools were identified and there was not a standard approach to the inclusion of people with disabilities or other CBR stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that there would be value in creating resources such as guidelines, common processes and checklists for monitoring and evaluation of CBR, to facilitate efficient and comparable practices and more comparable data. This needs to be done in partnership with people with disabilities, CBR providers, partners and researchers to ensure that all stakeholders' needs are understood and met. Implications for Rehabilitation While there is broad scope and complexity of CBR programmes, there needs to be consistency and a valid approach in the monitoring and evaluation methods and tools used by CBR programmes. The principles of CBR and CRPD require that monitoring and evaluation involve people with disabilities, CBR managers and staff not only as informants but also in the design and execution of monitoring and evaluation activities. The consistent use of appropriate and valid monitoring and evaluation methods and tools will contribute to developing a stronger evidence base on the efficacy and effectiveness of CBR.
PURPOSE: To identify and analyse tools and methods that have been reported in the literature for the monitoring and evaluation of community-based rehabilitation (CBR) programmes. METHOD: A literature review and descriptive analysis were carried out to scope CBR monitoring and evaluation methods and tools. A search was conducted using PubMed and Google Scholar databases, hand searches and reference lists. Reports were retrieved, screened and information was extracted and analysed against research questions. RESULTS: There were 34 reports which met the inclusion criteria. Analysis of the 34 reports showed that most reports used demographic and programme data. A range of methods were used: interviews, focus groups and questionnaires being the most common. Apart from this, no common standardised procedures or tools were identified and there was not a standard approach to the inclusion of people with disabilities or other CBR stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that there would be value in creating resources such as guidelines, common processes and checklists for monitoring and evaluation of CBR, to facilitate efficient and comparable practices and more comparable data. This needs to be done in partnership with people with disabilities, CBR providers, partners and researchers to ensure that all stakeholders' needs are understood and met. Implications for Rehabilitation While there is broad scope and complexity of CBR programmes, there needs to be consistency and a valid approach in the monitoring and evaluation methods and tools used by CBR programmes. The principles of CBR and CRPD require that monitoring and evaluation involve people with disabilities, CBR managers and staff not only as informants but also in the design and execution of monitoring and evaluation activities. The consistent use of appropriate and valid monitoring and evaluation methods and tools will contribute to developing a stronger evidence base on the efficacy and effectiveness of CBR.