Resources search

Part 2: The feasibility of utilising photovoice method and the World Health Organization Quality of Life instrument in evaluating the Community-Based Rehabilitation programme in Namibia: A pilot study

SHUMBA, Tonderai W.
MOODLEY, Indres
2018

Expand view

Background: Evaluation of Community-Based Rehabilitation (CBR) programmes in Namibia has been primarily quantitative, focusing mainly on outputs, including numbers of persons with disabilities served, referrals made and activities implemented. Little or no evidence is available on experiences and quality of life of persons with disabilities, despite the CBR programme being operational for more than 20 years. The 2011 World Report on Disability recommended the use of appropriate tools to fill the research gap by integrating the experiences of persons with disabilities and their quality of life.

 

Objectives: The overall objective of the larger cohort study is to develop a monitoring and evaluation tool that can measure and integrate the experiences of persons with disabilities and their quality of life within the context of the CBR Programme in Namibia.

 

Method: An adapted photovoice process was conducted with six purposively selected participants over a period of 1 month. The World Health Organization Community-Based Rehabilitation (WHO CBR) Matrix was used to identify the themes and subthemes. Participants were requested to complete the World Health Organization Quality of Life (abbreviated version) (WHOQOL-BREF) instrument at the end of the photovoice process to determine their quality of life.

 

Results: Administering the WHOQOL-BREF instrument at the end of the photovoice process measured both the quality of life of persons with disabilities and at the same time indicated the convergence and divergence in the two data collection methods. The study demonstrated a stronger convergence than divergence of the two methods. A feasibility criterion was mapped for future studies.

 

Conclusion: This study demonstrated that photovoice is a flexible method that can be used with a variety of disabilities and has the potential of being combined with the WHOQOL-BREF assessment form. A larger cohort study may consider implementing photovoice and WHOQOL-BREF on multiple study sites and be able to compare results, considering geographical and demographic variables. The feasibility of utilising each method alone and in combination offered valuable insights on future conceptual framing of CBR programme evaluation. This conceptual framing will allow CBR practitioners to appreciate how these two methods contribute to a rigorous process of CBR programme evaluation.

Learning from doing the EquitAble project: Content, context, process, and impact of a multi-country research project on vulnerable populations in Africa

MACLACHLAN, Mac
AMIN, Mutamad
MJI, Gubela
MANNAN, Hasheem
MCVEIGH, Joanne
MCAULIFFE, Eilish
AMADHILA, Elina
MUNTHALI, Alister
EIDE, Arne H
DUBE, A Kudakwashe
2014

Expand view

Background: The ‘EquitAble’ project carried out content analyses of policies and collected and analysed qualitative and quantitative data concerning access to health services in Sudan, Malawi, Namibia and South Africa. Our particular concern was to address the situation of people with disabilities, although not in isolation from other marginalised or vulnerable groups.

 

Objectives: This article reports on the content, context, process and impact of project EquitAble, funded by the European Commission Seventh Research Framework Programme, which brought together researchers from Ireland, Norway, South Africa, Namibia, Sudan and Malawi.

 

Method: After the 4-year project ended in February 2013, all members of the consortium were asked to anonymously complete a bespoke questionnaire designed by the coordinating team. The purpose of the questionnaire was to capture the views of those who collaborated on the research project in relation to issues of content, context, process and impact of the EquitAble project.

 

Results: Our results indicated some of the successes and challenges encountered by our consortium.

 

Conclusion: We identified contextual and process learning points, factors often not discussed in papers, which typically focus on the reporting of the ‘content’ of results.

E-bulletin