Using an innovative family-centered evidence toolkit to improve the livelihood of people with disabilities in Bamenda (Cameroon): a mixed-method study
Mirabel Nain Yuh,Gloria Akah Ndum Okwen,Rigobert Hanny Pambe Miong,Nicola Luigi Bragazzi,Jude Dzevela Kong,Zahra Movahedi Nia,Tetamiyaka Tezok Kinlabel,Okwen Patrick Mbah
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1190722
IF: 5.2
2024-01-31
Frontiers in Public Health
Abstract:Background: Most of the disability-related scholarly literature focuses on high-income countries, whereas there is a lack of data concerning challenges (barriers and obstacles) and opportunities (participatory research and community engagement) in the Global South. Moreover, many frameworks for interventions for people with disabilities (PWDs) have been designed for resource-rich contexts, and little is known about their translatability to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Objective: The main objective of this study was to design and pilot an interventional approach based on an innovative framework aimed at improving the livelihood of PWDs in LMICs. Methodology: The present mixed-method study was conducted in Bamenda, North-West Region of Cameroon, through an intervention of household visits by community health workers using innovation and best practices informed by a systematic literature review and embedded into an evidence toolkit called the eBASE Family-Centered Evidence Toolkit for Disabilities (EFCETD), adapted from the WHO matrix and consisting of 43 questions across five categories (health, education, social wellbeing, empowerment, and livelihood). Out of 56 PWDs identified, 30 were randomly sampled, with an attrition of four participants. Three datasets (baseline, qualitative, and quantitative) were collected. The Washington Group tool, exploring the type of disability, gender, how long one has had the disability, their facility situation coupled with their coping strategies, and the context of livelihood, was used to design the questionnaire for baseline data collection. Qualitative data were collected through key informant interviews and focus group discussions analyzed with MAXQDA, while quantitative data were collected through the EFCETD and analyzed by means of descriptive statistics. Results: In total, 69.2% of PWDs were female individuals. Many PWDs were aged 10–20 years (57% of the sample size). Physical/motor disability was the most common type of disability recorded (84.6%). The mean percentile for education increased from 29.9% during the first visit to 70.2% during the last visit, while the mean percentile for health increased from 65.4 to 78.7% and the mean percentile for social wellbeing moved from 73.1 to 84.9%. The livelihood and empowerment standards increased from 16.3 to 37.2% and from 27.7 to 65.8%, respectively. Overall, the temporal trend was statistically significant ( F = 35.11, p < 0.0001). The adjusted score increased from the baseline value of 45.02 ± 2.38 to 61.07 ± 2.25, 65.24 ± 2.67, and 68.46 ± 2.78, at 4, 8, and 12 months, respectively. Compared to the baseline, all timepoints were significantly different, indicating a significant impact of the intervention, which became stable after 4 months and was preserved until 12 months. Conclusion: PWDs faced many endeavors for sustainability and challenges resulting from a lack of inclusive policies and practices, leading to their exclusion from education, employment, and healthcare. Using implementation science approaches could bridge the gap and make policies and practices more effective.
public, environmental & occupational health