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

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of a range of organisational websites and databases (including ILO, R4D, UNESCO and WHO) using the keyword search for unpublished grey to ensure maximum coverage of unpublished literature, and reduce the potential for publication bias Selection Criteria We included all studies which reported on impact evaluations of interventions to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 inclusion criteria. We searched for errata for our included publications and found none. Two review authors independently extracted the data from each study report, including for the confidence in study findings appraisal. Data and information were extracted regarding available characteristics of participants, intervention characteristics and control conditions, research design, sample size, risk of bias and outcomes, and results. We found that it was not possible to conduct a meta‐analysis, and generate pooled results or compare effect sizes, given the diversity of designs, methodologies, measures, and rigour across studies in this area. As such, we presented out findings narratively. Main Results Only one of the nine interventions targeted children with disabilities alone, and only two included a mix of age groups (children and adults with disabilities. Most of the interventions targeted adults with disabilities only. Most single impairment group interventions targeted people with physical impairments alone. The research designs of the studies included one randomised controlled trial, one quasi‐randomised controlled trial (a randomised, posttest only study using propensity score matching (PSM), one case‐control study with PSM, four uncontrolled before and after studies, and three posttest only studies. Our confidence in the overall findings is low to medium on the basis of our appraisal of the studies. Two studies scored medium using our assessment tool, with the remaining eight scoring low on one or more item. All the included studies reported positive impacts on livelihoods outcomes. However, outcomes varied substantially by study, as did the methods used to establish intervention impact, and the quality and reporting of findings. Authors' Conclusions The findings of this review suggest that it may be possible for a variety of programming approaches to improve livelihood outcomes of people with disabilities in LMIC. However, given low confidence in study findings related to methodological limitations in all the included studies, positive findings must be interpreted with caution. Additional rigorous evaluations of livelihoods interventions for people with disabilities in LMIC are needed.