Resources search

Humanitarian organizations and donors have committed to change the way humanitarian action is carried out and create a “Participation Revolution.” In this webinar issues addressed included:

• inclusion of the people and communities affected by humanitarian crises in practice;
• how organizations are ensuring that the voices of the most vulnerable groups considering gender, age, ethnicity, language, and special needs are heard and acted upon;
• how program activities and budgets are designed to support the changes that affected people demand

In this webinar, organized on 26 March 2020 by PHAP and the Steering Committee for Humanitarian Response, we took stock of the progress to date on workstream six of the Grand Bargain and heard success stories from the field that can help agencies achieve a sustained change in how they design and deliver their programs.

A full transcript is available. Webinar registrants were asked to provide what they thought, in their context, was the most important factor enabling participation in practice and what they thought was the most important factor preventing participation in practice. Answers are provided in an Annex.

Question & problem

People with disabilities may be more likely to acquire COVID-19, and if infected may be more likely to experience serious symptoms, or die. Aside from those consequences of the pandemic related to morbidity and mortality, people with disabilities are often reliant on carers to aid with common daily tasks, and so social distancing measures may be unfeasible. Furthermore, safe water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) services and facilities may be inaccessible to people with disabilities, and, in many settings, efforts to deliver services in a socially-distanced world have resulted in the roll out of digital or remote healthcare approaches which are sometimes not accessible or inclusive. One of the key interventions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been international attention, and improved funding, programming and media messaging in support of WASH. People with disabilities – who are most at risk of negative consequences of COVID-19 – most need access to such interventions. Yet, WASH access is considered to be one of the biggest challenges of daily life for many people with disabilities.

Public health research purports to provide the evidence base for policies, programmes and interventions to improve the health of a population. However, there is increasing awareness that the experiences of disabled people have played little part in informing this evidence base. This paper discusses one aspect of a study commissioned by England’s National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) to review the implications for public health of theories and models of disability. This part of the study focused on the development of a tool or decision aid to promote ethical inclusion of disabled people in public health randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and evaluative research. The tool was introduced at four regional ‘deliberating panels’ involving politically and socially active disabled people. In addition, we held a panel with public health professionals. The deliberation panels debated how the focus of public health was narrowing, why disability was excluded and positive and negative issues with using rights to guide research and evaluative practice. Politically active disabled people argued for a social model of human rights to guide any rights based tools or decision aids in public health and disability research.

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.

Purpose: This paper seeks to contribute to discussion on the understanding and measurement of empowerment of people with disabilities in developing countries. A novel, text analysis approach was used to depict the way in which empowerment is characterised in conventional measures in Western settings. This was then compared with depictions and analyses of the way in which empowerment is characterised in documents that have more relevance to developing countries.

Method: First, computer-based content and concept analysis was applied to three key empowerment measures. This was compared with analysis of responses to a recent online survey of empowerment conducted by the United NationsDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA). Visual representations in the form of “word clouds” were generated to depict key concepts within each data source. Second, to provide specific detail regarding how empowerment has been described in documents which relate to developing countries, more detailed computer-assisted lexical analysis was performed on the text of responses to the UN-DESA survey, and on the text of the Empowerment component of the CBR Guidelines.

Results: Initial “word clouds” illustrated considerable discrepancy between concepts inherent in the three most relevant empowerment measures when compared with responses to the UN-DESA survey relating to empowerment in a development context. Subsequent lexical analysis depicted greater specificity and ranked the concepts associated with empowerment in key disability and development-related documents.

Conclusions: Conventional Western measures of individual empowerment may not adequately encompass the broader social, economic and community orientation of empowerment as described in documents from disability and development circles. Further research is required to substantiate these novel and speculative indications.