Stakeholder consultations on community-based rehabilitation guidelines in Ghana and Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The focus of this paper is the new broadened conceptualisation of community-based rehabilitation (CBR), which promotes the empowerment and inclusion of people with disabilities (PWDs) in diverse ways within their communities. New guidelines for CBR were launched in October 2010 by WHO/ILO/UNESCO/IDDC, and this paper describes part of the process by which these were produced using participatory approaches involving International Non-Government Organisations (INGOs) and local partners. The paper reviews the evolution of CBR and describes how grassroots consultation by INGOs working with key stakeholders in the disability arena can influence policy on disability issues, and reciprocally how policy change can inform organisations' practice and research activities. This ongoing bidirectional influence is illustrated with data from the participatory consultation process about the new CBR guidelines carried out by Sightsavers in Uganda and Ghana. OBJECTIVES: To consult with key stakeholders in the disability arena in Uganda and Ghana, in order to gain their opinions and suggestions for improvements to the then draft CBR guidelines, as part of a wider global participatory process of consultation on the document. METHODS: The INGO Sightsavers gathered qualitative data through focus group discussions and questionnaires in both countries. RESULTS: The participants' critiques of the draft guidelines carried out in multiagency participatory processes were analysed thematically and fed back to the CBR guidelines editorial team. CONCLUSION: The paper concludes that stakeholders in diverse communities can actively contribute to shaping policy and practice through participatory consultations. Local and national government and non-government organisations and other key informants can inform the development of national and international guidelines and policies. This participatory approach can be successfully facilitated by INGOs. In turn, these processes have prompted organisations to adapt their own policies and programmes in order to be more responsive to the local needs and concerns of PWDs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.053 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".