Scoping review: Community‐based programmes with people affected by leprosy

Abstract

objective To analyse community intervention programmes for people affected by leprosy in 'global priority countries'.methods Scoping review of articles in the databases PubMed, Scopus, SciELO, Lilacs and Web of Knowledge that made reference to community intervention programmes aimed at people affected by leprosy in global priority countries and which presented an evaluation of results. Analytical variables analysed were methodological characteristics of the study, type of intervention classified according to the Community-Based Rehabilitation Matrix, indicators and results of the evaluation, and the degree of participation of the community, which was graphically represented as a spidergram.results Thirty articles met the inclusion criteria. They were mostly related to the health component of the RBC matrix and aimed at the adult population. All evaluated the indicators used positively. The degree of participation generally ranged between mobilisation and collaboration.conclusion Community intervention programmes for people affected by leprosy have a positive effect on health. There are attempts to include affected people and the community in implementing these programmes, but it is not possible to establish a direct relationship with effects of their participation on health due to the study designs used. Future research using more robust methods that include leprosy patients are necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of community participation.keywords leprosy, community programmes, RBC matrix, health indicators, community participation Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): SDG 1 (no poverty), SDG 3 (good health and well-being), SDG 5 (gender equity)

Self-care programmes for people living with leprosy: a scoping review

“…Our findings suggest that programs which focus on teaching and supporting regular self-care practice report reduction in cracks, wounds, ulcers and hence potentially disability. However, it is important to reflect on our findings in light of the recent review of Casado et al 21 as well as challenges and opportunities presented by the study, intervention design and reporting standards of included studies. First, comparing our review to that of Casado et al 21 they included 30 papers which covered self-care groups (n = 10), education programs (n = 3), livelihood related community intervention programs (n = 6), stigma reduction programs (n = 6) and interventions related to empowerment (n = 5).…”

“…However, it is important to reflect on our findings in light of the recent review of Casado et al 21 as well as challenges and opportunities presented by the study, intervention design and reporting standards of included studies. First, comparing our review to that of Casado et al 21 they included 30 papers which covered self-care groups (n = 10), education programs (n = 3), livelihood related community intervention programs (n = 6), stigma reduction programs (n = 6) and interventions related to empowerment (n = 5). 21 In our review, we found all 10 of the self-care articles described in the above review, five of which met our inclusion criteria.…”

“…First, comparing our review to that of Casado et al 21 they included 30 papers which covered self-care groups (n = 10), education programs (n = 3), livelihood related community intervention programs (n = 6), stigma reduction programs (n = 6) and interventions related to empowerment (n = 5). 21 In our review, we found all 10 of the self-care articles described in the above review, five of which met our inclusion criteria. We also included 9 articles that had not been included.…”

“…We compared our yields with the study by Casado et al 21 Our search identified all 10 articles which were classified as self-care by Casado et al 21 Five of these articles met our inclusion criteria and they had all been included in our review. We identified an additional 10 articles not included in Casado et al 21 The 15 articles were conducted in the following eight countries-China, [24][25][26] Ethiopia, [27][28][29] Brazil, 30 Nepal, 31,32 Nigeria, 33,34 Indonesia, 35,36 India 37 and Mozambique. 38 All articles but one 26 were published between 2001 and 2021.…”

“…However, there has been no systematic review on selfcare interventions specifically for leprosy. A related review was performed by Casado et al 21 but they specifically focused on community-based programs for people with leprosy. Given that self-care interventions can occur in settings other than the community, we argue that a review specific to self-care is needed.…”