Evaluation of a professional social skills program for unemployed people with physical disability

Pereira-Guizzo, Camila de Sousa; Prette, Almir Del; Prette, Zilda Aparecida Pereira Del

doi:10.1590/s0102-79722012000200008

Cited by 10 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…• Brazil (Guarino, Chamlian, & Masiero, 2007;Pereira-Guizzo, Del Prette, & Del Prette, 2012); • China (Tang, Yu, Luo, Liang, He, 2011). Shore and Juillerat (2012) collected data from a total of three countries: India and Vietnam, both lower-middle income countries, and Chile, which was reclassified as a high-income country in the fiscal year starting 1 July 2013.…”

Section: Upper-middle Income Countriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All impairment types were represented in the impact assessments, with the majority (eight studies) examining outcomes for people with physical impairments (Gershon & Srinivasan, 1992;Guarino et al, 2007;Hansen et al, 2007;Metts & Oleson, 1995;Momin, 2004;Pereira-Guizzo et al, 2012;Shore & Juillerat, 2012;Tang et al, 2011). Two impact assessments focused exclusively on people with sensory disabilities (Eniola & Adebiyi, 2007;Finger et al, 2012).…”

Section: Upper-middle Income Countriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Seven of the 14 included studies examined variability of treatment effects, e.g., across interventions and sub-groups (Biggeri et al, 2012;Eniola & Adebiyi, 2007;Hansen et al, 2007;Metts & Oleson, 1995;Nuri et al, 2012;Pereira-Guizzo et al, 2012;Shore & Juillerat, 2012).…”

Section: *Response Options Not Mutually Exclusivementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nine were available over a large geographical area, such as one or more districts, provinces or regions (Biggeri et al, 2012;Finger et al, 2012;Gershon & Srinivasan, 1992;Hansen et al, 2007;Lagerkvist, 1992a;Lagerkvist, 1992b;Metts & Oleson, 1995;Momin, 2004;Nuri et al, 2012). Four were limited to one or two institutions (e.g., hospital or training facility) serving a local population (Eniola & Adebiyi, 2007;Guarino et al, 2007;Pereira-Guizzo et al, 2012).…”

Section: Intervention Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of these, one focused on occupational injuries (Tang et al, 2011), two were designed for people with spinal cord injuries (Hansen et al, 2007;Momin, 2004), two were for persons with specific mobility impairments (Guarino et al, 2007;Shore & Juillerat, 2012) and one was for leprosy patients (Gershon & Srinivasan, 1992). A further two interventions were available to adults with any type of physical impairment (Metts & Oleson, 1995;Pereira-Guizzo et al, 2012). Three interventions (evaluated in two studies) were targeted at persons with visual impairments (Eniola & Adebiyi, 2007;Finger et al, 2012).…”

Section: Target Group (Impairment Category)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Interventions to improve the labour market for adults living with physical and/or sensory disabilities in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Tripney¹,

Roulstone²,

Vigurs³

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) is an international grant-making NGO promoting evidence-informed development policies and programmes. We are the global leader in funding, producing and synthesising high-quality evidence of what works, for whom, how, why and at what cost. We believe that using better and policy-relevant evidence helps to make development more effective and improve people's lives. 3ie systematic reviews 3ie systematic reviews appraise and synthesise the available high-quality evidence on the effectiveness of social and economic development interventions in low-and middleincome countries. These reviews follow scientifically recognised review methods, and are peer-reviewed and quality assured according to internationally accepted standards. 3ie is providing leadership in demonstrating rigorous and innovative review methodologies, such as using theory-based approaches suited to inform policy and programming in the dynamic contexts and challenges of low-and middle-income countries. About this reviewInterventions to improve the labour market for adults living with physical and/or sensory disabilities in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review, was submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of grant SR4.1038 awarded under Systematic Review Window 4. This review is available on the 3ie website. 3ie is publishing this technical report as received from the authors; it has been formatted to 3ie style, however the tables and figures have not been reformatted. This review has also been published in the Campbell Collaboration Library and is available here.All content is the sole responsibility of the authors and does not represent the opinions of 3ie, its donors or its board of commissioners. Any errors are also the sole responsibility of the authors. Comments or queries should be directed to the corresponding author, Janice Tripney at J.Tripney@ioe.ac.uk Funding for this systematic review was provided by Sightsavers. Executive summary BackgroundDisability is a development issue, with widespread poverty, inequality and violation of human rights. Recent estimates suggest that more than one billion people are living with some form of disability. Persons with disabilities are over-represented among the world's poor, and significant labour market disadvantage helps maintain the link between poverty and disability in many country contexts. The costs of disability are particularly acute in low-and middle-income countries (those with gross national income per capita of less than $12,616), where up to 80% of people with disabilities of working age can be unemployed, around twice that for their counterparts in high-income countries. When people with disabilities do work, they generally do so for longer hours and lower incomes, have fewer chances of promotion, are more likely to work in the informal labour market, and are at greater risk of becoming unemployed for longer periods. The barriers faced by people with disabilities globally in accessing and sustaining paid work ...

show abstract

Section: Upper-middle Income Countriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Upper-middle Income Countriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: *Response Options Not Mutually Exclusivementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Intervention Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Target Group (Impairment Category)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Interventions to improve the labour market for adults living with physical and/or sensory disabilities in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Tripney¹,

Roulstone²,

Vigurs³

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Evidence and gap map of studies assessing the effectiveness of interventions for people with disabilities in low‐and middle‐income countries

Saran

White

Kuper

2020

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There are approximately 1 billion people in the world with some form of disability. This corresponds to approximately 15% of the world's population (World Report on Disability, 2011). The majority of people with disabilities (80%) live in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs), where disability has been shown to disproportionately affect the most disadvantaged sector of the population. Decision makers need to know what works, and what does not, to best invest limited resources aimed at improving the well‐being of people with disabilities in LMICs. Systematic reviews and impact evaluations help answer this question. Improving the availability of existing evidence will help stakeholders to draw on current knowledge and to understand where new research investments can guide decision‐making on appropriate use of resources. Evidence and gap maps (EGMs) contribute by showing what evidence there is, and supporting the prioritization of global evidence synthesis needs and primary data collection. Objectives The aim of this EGM is to identify, map and describe existing evidence of effectiveness studies and highlight gaps in evidence base for people with disabilities in LMICs. The map helps identify priority evidence gaps for systematic reviews and impact evaluations. Methods The EGM included impact evaluation and systematic reviews assessing the effect of interventions for people with disabilities and their families/carers. These interventions were categorized across the five components of community‐based rehabilitation matrix; health, education, livelihood, social and empowerment. Included studies looked at outcomes such as, health, education, livelihoods, social inclusion and empowerment, and were published for LMICs from 2000 onwards until January 2018. The searches were conducted between February and March 2018. The EGM is presented as a matrix in which the rows are intervention categories (e.g., health) and subcategories (e.g., rehabilitation) and the column outcome domains (e.g., health) and subdomains (e.g., immunization). Each cell lists the studies for that intervention for those outcomes, with links to the available studies. Included studies were therefore mapped according to intervention and outcomes assessed and additional filters as region, population and study design were also coded. Critical appraisal of included systematic review was done using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews’ rating scale. We also quality‐rated the impact evaluation using a quality assessment tool based on various approaches to risk of bias assessment. Results The map includes 166 studies, of which 59 are systematic reviews and 107 impact evaluation. The included impact evaluation are predominantly quasiexperimental studies (47%). The numbers of studies published each year have increased steadily from the year 2000, with the largest number published in 2017.The studies are unevenly distributed across intervention areas. Health is the most heavily populated area of the map. A total of 118 studies of th...

show abstract

Effectiveness of interventions for improving livelihood outcomes for people with disabilities in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A systematic review

Hunt

Saran

Banks

et al. 2022

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: People with disabilities-more than a billion people worldwide-are frequently excluded from livelihood opportunities, including employment, social protection, and access to finance. Interventions are therefore needed to improve livelihood outcomes for people with disabilities, such as improving access to financial capital (e.g., social protection), human capital (e.g., health and education/training), social capital (e.g., support) or physical capital (e.g., accessible buildings). However, evidence is lacking as to which approaches should be promoted.Objectives: This review examines whether interventions for people with disabilities result in improved livelihood outcomes in low-and middle-income countries (LMIC): acquisition of skills for the workplace, access to the job market, employment in formal and informal sectors, income and earnings from work, access to financial services such as grants and loans, and/or access to social protection programmes.Search Methods: The search, up to date as of February 2020, comprised of:(1) an electronic search of databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, CAB Global Health, ERIC, PubMED and CINAHL),(2) screening of all included studies in the instances where reviews were identified,(3) screening reference lists and citations of identified recent papers and reviews, and (4) An electronic search of a range of organisational websites and databases (including ILO, R4D, UNESCO and WHO) using the keyword search for unpublished grey to ensure maximum coverage of unpublished literature, and reduce the potential for publication bias Selection Criteria: We included all studies which reported on impact evaluations of interventions to improve livelihood outcomes for people with disabilities in LMIC. Data Collection and Analysis:We used review management software EPPI Reviewer to screen the search results. A total of 10 studies were identified as meeting the

show abstract

Evaluation of a professional social skills program for unemployed people with physical disability

Cited by 10 publications

References 9 publications

Interventions to improve the labour market for adults living with physical and/or sensory disabilities in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Interventions to improve the labour market for adults living with physical and/or sensory disabilities in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Evidence and gap map of studies assessing the effectiveness of interventions for people with disabilities in low‐and middle‐income countries

Effectiveness of interventions for improving livelihood outcomes for people with disabilities in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About