Effectiveness of interventions by non-professional community-level workers or family caregivers to improve outcomes for physical impairments or disabilities in low resource settings: systematic review of task-sharing strategies.

BACKGROUND: In low-resource settings, access to basic rehabilitation could be supplemented by community-level interventions provided by community health workers, health volunteers, or family caregivers. Yet, it is unclear whether basic physical rehabilitation interventions delivered to adults by non-professional alternative resources in the community, under task-shifting or task-sharing approaches, are effective as those delivered by skilled rehabilitation professionals. We aim to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of community-level rehabilitation interventions delivered by non-professional community-level workers or informal caregivers to improve health outcomes for persons with physical impairments or disabilities. METHODS: We performed a systematic review with a PROSPERO registration. Eight databases were searched for (PubMed, CINAHL, Global Health, PDQ Evidence, Scopus, ProQuest, CENTRAL, and Web of Science), supplemented by snowballing and key-informant recommendations, with no time restrictions, applied. Controlled and non-controlled experiments were included if reporting the effects of interventions on mobility, activities of daily living (ADLs), quality of life, or social participation outcomes. Two independent investigators performed the eligibility decisions, data extraction, risk of bias, and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Ten studies (five randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) involving 2149 participants were included. Most common targeted stroke survivors (n = 8); family caregivers were most frequently used to deliver the intervention (n = 4); and the intervention was usually provided in homes (n = 7), with training initiated in the hospital (n = 4). Of the four RCTs delivered by family caregivers, one demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in mobility (effect size: 0.3; confidence interval [CI] 121.81-122.19; [p = 0.04]) and another one in ADLs (effect size: 0.4; CI 25.92-35.08; [p = 0.03]). Of the five non-RCT studies by community health workers or volunteers, one demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in mobility (effect size: 0.3; CI 10.143-16.857; [p < 0.05]), while two demonstrated improved statistically significant improvement in ADLs (effect size: 0.2; CI 180.202-184.789 [p = 0.001]; 0.4; CI - 7.643-18.643; [p = 0.026]). However, the quality of evidence, based on GRADE criteria, was rated as low to very low. CONCLUSIONS: While task-sharing is a possible strategy to meet basic rehabilitation needs in low-resource settings, the current evidence on the effectiveness of delivering rehabilitation interventions by non-professional community-level workers and informal caregivers is inconclusive. We can use the data and experiences from existing studies to better design studies and improve the implementation of interventions. Trial registration PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022319130.

Strategies for specialty training of healthcare professionals in low-resource settings: a systematic review on evidence from stroke care.

BACKGROUND: The greatest mortality and disability from stroke occurs in low- and middle-income countries. A significant barrier to implementation of best stroke care practices in these settings is limited availability of specialized healthcare training. We conducted a systematic review to determine the most effective methods for the provision of speciality stroke care education for hospital-based healthcare professionals in low-resource settings. METHODS: We followed the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews and searched PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus for original clinical research articles that described or evaluated stroke care education for hospital-based healthcare professionals in low-resource settings. Two reviewers screened titles/abstracts and then full text articles. Three reviewers critically appraised the articles selected for inclusion. RESULTS: A total of 1,182 articles were identified and eight were eligible for inclusion in this review; three were randomized controlled trials, four were non-randomized studies, and one was a descriptive study. Most studies used several approaches to education. A "train-the-trainer" approach to education was found to have the most positive clinical outcomes (lower overall complications, lengths of stay in hospital, and clinical vascular events). When used for quality improvement, the "train-the-trainer" approach increased patient reception of eligible performance measures. When technology was used to provide stroke education there was an increased frequency in diagnosis of stroke and use of antithrombotic treatment, reduced door-to-needle times, and increased support for decision making in medication prescription was reported. Task-shifting workshops for non-neurologists improved knowledge of stroke and patient care. Multidimensional education demonstrated an overall care quality improvement and increased prescriptions for evidence-based therapies, although, there were no significant differences in secondary prevention efforts, stroke reoccurrence or mortality rates. CONCLUSIONS: The "train the trainer" approach is likely the most effective strategy for specialist stroke education, while technology is also useful if resources are available to support its development and use. If resources are limited, basic knowledge education should be considered at a minimum and multidimensional training may not be as beneficial. Research into communities of practice, led by those in similar settings, may be helpful to develop educational initiatives with relevance to local contexts.

Provision and use of physical rehabilitation services for adults with disabilities in Rwanda: A descriptive study.

Background: Physical rehabilitation interventions address functional deficits caused by impairments that affect someone's performance. Whilst rehabilitation is important, it is assumed that these services are either minimal or nonexistent in low-resource settings. Our data expand on the data from the Situation Assessment of Rehabilitation in the Republic of Rwanda report to describe rehabilitation services and who access them at public and semiprivate facilities (primarily funded by the private sector). Objectives: This article describes the use of the outpatient physical rehabilitation services across nine health facilities, the characteristics of adults attending these health facilities and some of the facilitators and barriers they encounter when attending rehabilitation. Method: Data were collected between September and December 2018 from the heads of departments and adult patients attending outpatient rehabilitation services funded by the government, international nongovernmental organisations or faith-based organisations. Results: Two hundred and thirteen adults were recruited from nine facilities. There is a sixfold difference in the number of rehabilitation personnel between public and semiprivate hospitals in these facilities' catchment areas. However, most participants were recruited at public facilities (186 [87%]), primarily with physical disorders. Patients reported that family support (94%) was the most crucial facilitator for attending rehabilitation, whilst transportation cost (96%) was a significant barrier. Conclusion: Rehabilitation service availability for Rwandan adults with disabilities is limited. Whilst family support helps patients attend rehabilitation, transportation costs remain a significant barrier to people attending rehabilitation. Strategies to address these issues include developing triage protocols, training community health workers and families. Contribution: Data on rehabilitation service provision in Rwanda and most African countries are either non-existent or very limited. These data contain important information regarding the services provided and the people who used them across different health facilities (public versus private) and urban versus rural settings). To improve rehabilitation service provision, we first need to understand the current situation. These data are an important step to better understanding rehabilitation in Rwanda.

Undertaking Rehabilitation Research During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Emergent Strategies From a Trainee-Faculty Workshop.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted everyday rehabilitation research. Many academic institutions have halted in-person human research including rehabilitation sciences. Researchers are faced with several barriers to continuing their research programs. The purpose of this perspective article is to report the results of an interdisciplinary workshop aimed at understanding the challenges and corresponding strategies for conducting rehabilitation research during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Twenty-five rehabilitation researchers (17 trainees and eight faculty) attended a 2-h facilitated online workshop in to discuss challenges and strategies they had experienced and employed to conduct rehabilitation research during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Rehabilitation researchers reported challenges with (1) pandemic protocol adjustments, (2) participant accessibility, and (3) knowledge dissemination, along with corresponding strategies to these challenges. Researchers experienced disruptions in study outcomes and intervention protocols to adhere to public health guidelines and have suggested implementing novel virtual approaches and study toolkits to facilitate offsite assessment. Participant accessibility could be improved by engaging community stakeholders in protocol revisions to ensure equity, safety, and feasibility. Researchers also experienced barriers to virtual conferences and publication, suggested opportunities for smaller networking events, and revisiting timeframes for knowledge dissemination. Conclusion: This perspective article served as a catalyst for discussion among rehabilitation researchers to identify novel and creative approaches that address the complexities of conducting rehabilitation research during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

Experiences of patients and service providers with out-patient rehabilitation services in a rehabilitation centre in the Western Cape Province.

BACKGROUND: Rehabilitation is important for persons with disabilities as it contributes to their sense of autonomy, self-worth and social participation, and improves their quality of life. Improving the quality of rehabilitation services requires the dialogue of patients' perceptions with those of service providers, in order to recommend informed reform. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to explore the experiences of persons with physical disabilities and service providers, regarding the multi-disciplinary rehabilitation services provided at a community-based out-patient rehabilitation centre. METHODS: A qualitative, exploratory study design was used to collect the data. A focus group was conducted with conveniently selected persons with physical disabilities. Three in-depth interviews were conducted with purposively selected key informants. All ethical considerations were adhered to during the implementation of the study. RESULTS: Patients and service providers had different experiences regarding accessibility to rehabilitation services, and similar experiences with patient education and intensity of rehabilitation. Although the patients experienced that the service providers had sufficient knowledge and skills to manage them, services providers expressed that they lacked certain skills. CONCLUSIONS: The experiences expressed highlighted the need to improve rehabilitation services in terms of increasing the capacity of service providers and providing transport services for persons with disabilities.