Supporting caregivers of children living with disability in a humanitarian context: realist-informed evaluation of the ‘<i>Mighty Children’</i>programme in Afghanistan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction To ensure that humanitarian action is disability-inclusive, evidence is needed to understand how different strategies to support children living with disabilities and their families can work in these settings. Evidence from other contexts suggests support groups can improve caregiver quality of life (QOL). This study reports an evaluation of the ‘Mighty Children’programme a participatory educational support group programme for caregivers of children living with disability in Kabul province, Afghanistan. Methods We conducted a mixed-methods realist-informed before-and-after study to measure change in caregiver-reported QOL and explore how and for whom the programme worked, and in what contexts. Female caregivers of children with any disability were recruited through clinics in urban Kabul (n=3) and rural Paghman district (n=3). We collected quantitative data on QOL pre/post programme using the Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory Family Impact Module (PedsQL-FIM). Qualitative data were collected through facilitator and participant focus groups postprogramme. Results 118 caregivers participated in two cohorts (November 2020, February 2021). Caregivers expressed a significant increase in QOL from baseline to programme completion (t(125)=−10.7, p≤0.0001). Participation in cohort 2 was associated with the greatest PedsQL-FIM change. Qualitative data revealed positive changes postprogramme in five key areas: caregiver mindset, parenting practices, disability-inclusive behaviours, psychological well-being and child functioning. These changes were seen as both outcomes and mechanisms influencing the primary outcome of QOL. Mechanisms that mediated these changes included increased knowledge of disability and the core acceptance and commitment therapy components of mindfulness and acceptance. Conclusion TheMighty Childrencaregiver support programme for children living with disability in Afghanistan was associated with improved caregiver QOL. Further studies are warranted to explore pathways to scale, sustainability and potential application in other settings.
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 | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".