L’evaluation du programme «readaptation a base communautaire» au Rwanda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article est basé sur une recherche évaluative du projet « réadaptation à base communautaire, RBC », réalisée au Rwanda en 2012 et en 2013. Il concerne un partenariat entre le ministère de la Santé (Minisanté) et Handicap International (HI), où le Minisanté a demandé l’assistance technique de HI dans la mise en œuvre d’un projet pilote de RBC impliquant l’élaboration de politiques, le renforcement des capacités des professionnels de la santé et la prestation de services au niveau communautaire. Le projet est cofinancé par l’Union européenne et Handicap International pour une durée de 4 ans. Une approche émancipatrice de la recherche avec un accent sur le rôle de la société civile (personnes handicapées et leurs organisations) comme protagoniste a été employée au cours de cette évaluation. Des données, majoritairement qualitatives, ont été recueillies à l’aide de plusieurs outils, comme des SSI (semi-structure interviews) avec les planificateurs et des fournisseurs de services, des groupes de discussion avec les usagers du service, des sondages, des études du cas et de l’observation. Les méthodes d’analyse synthétique ont été employées, comme l’analyse FFOM (force, faiblesse, opportunités et menaces), la validation communautaire et l’interprétation synthétique, incluant aussi des statistiques de base comme des tableaux et des pourcentages.Étant donné le succès du projet pilote, des recommandations ont favorisé la mise en œuvre de la RBC à grande échelle dans le pays, avec un accent particulier mis sur le renforcement de la capacité institutionnelle des acteurs locaux en matière de plaidoyer. Cela correspond bien à une meilleure protection des droits des PH selon la convention relative aux droits des personnes handicapées (CDPH).This account is based on an evaluation research to the Community Based Rehabilitation programme in Rwanda which is carried out in 2012-2013. It’s a partnership between Ministry of Health (Minisanté) and Handicap International (HI) where Minisanté requested the technical assistance of HI in implementing a pilot CBR project involving policy development, capacity building of health professionals and the provision of rehabilitation services at community level. The project is financed by the European Union and Handicap International for 4 years. An emancipatory research approach was used in this evaluation where persons with disabilities and their civil society organisations have actively participated in research process. Several tools were used for data collections such as semi-structure interviews with planners and service providers, questionnaires, case study, observations and focus group discussion with service users. Equally, qualitative methods for analysis were used including SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity and Threat) as well as community validation of research outcomes. Results showed that the objectives of project were adequately fulfilled according to criteria of pertinence, effectiveness, impact, sustainability and gender participation. Given the success of the pilot stage, recommendations were in favor of expanding CBR at the national level with focus on capacity building of local actors on advocacy issues. This may provide higher levels of rights protection and goes in line with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
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 | 0.038 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".