Evaluation of a disability-inclusive ultra-poor graduation programme in Uganda: study protocol for a cluster-randomised controlled trial with process evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background There is little evidence on how to support ultra-poor people with disabilities to adopt sustainable livelihoods. The Disability-Inclusive Graduation (DIG) programme targets ultra-poor people with disabilities and/or women living in rural Uganda. The programme is an adaptation of an ultra-poor -graduation model that has been shown to be effective in many contexts but not evaluated for people with disabilities. Methods The DIG programme works with project participants over a period of 18 months. Participants receive unconditional cash transfers for six-months, training, access to savings-and-loans groups, and a capital asset that forms the basis of their new livelihood. The programme is also adapted to address specific barriers that people with disabilities face. Eligible households are clustered by geographical proximity in order to deliver the intervention. Eligibility is based on household screening to identify the "ultra-poor" based on proxy means testing – both households with and without people with disabilities are included in the programme. Clusters are randomly selected prior to implementation, resulting in 96 intervention and 89 control clusters. The primary outcome of the trial is per-capita household consumption. Before the start of the intervention, a baseline household survey is conducted (November 2020) among project participants and those not offered the programme; a similar endline survey is conducted with participants with disabilities at the end of programme implementation in July 2022; and a second endline survey for all participants in October 2023. These activities are complemented by a process evaluation to understand DIG programme implementation, mechanisms, and context using complementary qualitative and quantitative methods. Ethical approval for the research has been received from Mildmay Uganda Research Ethics Committee and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Discussion DIG is a promising intervention to evaluate for people with disabilities, adapted to be disability inclusive across programme components through extensive consultations and collaboration, and has proven efficacy at reducing poverty in other marginalised groups. However, evaluating a well evidenced intervention amongst a new target group poses ethical considerations. Trial registration: Registry for International Development Impact Evaluations, RIDIE-STUDY-ID-626008898983a (20/04/22). ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN 78592382. Retrospectively registered on 17/08/2023, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN78592382.
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 | 0.052 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.010 |
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".