4.4 Review

Provision of rehabilitation services for children with disabilities living in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review

期刊

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION
卷 41, 期 7, 页码 861-868

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2017.1411982

关键词

Child; developmental disability; global south; therapy; intervention

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Childhood disability is a growing global health priority. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify and summarize rehabilitation interventions used to support children with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries. Methods: This scoping review involved a systematic search of electronic databases using a combination of subject headings and/or keywords related to child disability, rehabilitation, and low- and middle-income countries. Charting involved an iterative process whereby the full text of articles meeting the inclusion criteria were abstracted using a charting form. Data were charted according to pre-selected and emerging characteristics deemed relevant to the scoping review's purpose. Results: Eighty-one articles were included in the final analysis. Forty-three articles explored the use of screening and/or diagnostic tools in identifying children with disabilities in low and middle income countries, and 38 articles evaluated rehabilitation services for these children. Conclusions: A number of rehabilitation strategies are available that have the potential to improve the identification of and outcomes for children with disabilities in low and middle income countries. Future research ought to advance the development, implementation, and evaluation of training programs for non-rehabilitation specialists (e.g., doctors, nurses, and teachers), non-specialist community members (e.g., community health workers), and caregivers in the area of rehabilitation, and evaluate the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions in improving participatory outcomes and quality of life for children with disabilities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据