Evaluation of a disability-inclusive ultra-poor graduation programme in Uganda: study protocol for a cluster-randomised controlled trial with process evaluation.
Disability
Financial support
Income generation
Randomised controlled trial
Social protection
Journal
Trials
ISSN: 1745-6215
Titre abrégé: Trials
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101263253
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 Mar 2024
21 Mar 2024
Historique:
received:
25
08
2023
accepted:
07
03
2024
medline:
22
3
2024
pubmed:
22
3
2024
entrez:
22
3
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There is little evidence on how to support ultra-poor people with disabilities to adopt sustainable livelihoods. The Disability-Inclusive Graduation (DIG) programme targets ultra-poor people with disabilities and/or women living in rural Uganda. The programme is an adaptation of an ultra-poor graduation model that has been shown to be effective in many contexts but not evaluated for people with disabilities. The DIG programme works with project participants over a period of 18 months. Participants receive unconditional cash transfers for 6 months, training, access to savings-and-loans groups, and a capital asset that forms the basis of their new livelihood. The programme is also adapted to address specific barriers that people with disabilities face. Eligible households are clustered by geographical proximity in order to deliver the intervention. Eligibility is based on household screening to identify the 'ultra-poor' based on proxy means testing-both households with and without people with disabilities are included in the programme. Clusters are randomly selected prior to implementation, resulting in 96 intervention and 89 control clusters. The primary outcome of the trial is per-capita household consumption. Before the start of the intervention, a baseline household survey is conducted (November 2020) among project participants and those not offered the programme, a similar endline survey is conducted with participants with disabilities at the end of programme implementation in July 2022, and a second endline survey for all participants in October 2023. These activities are complemented by a process evaluation to understand DIG programme implementation, mechanisms, and context using complementary qualitative and quantitative methods. Ethical approval for the research has been received from Mildmay Uganda Research Ethics Committee and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. DIG is a promising intervention to evaluate for people with disabilities, adapted to be disability inclusive across programme components through extensive consultations and collaboration, and has proven efficacy at reducing poverty in other marginalised groups. However, evaluating a well-evidenced intervention among a new target group poses ethical considerations. Registry for International Development Impact Evaluations, RIDIE-STUDY-ID-626008898983a (20/04/22). ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN78592382 . Retrospectively registered on 17/08/2023.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
There is little evidence on how to support ultra-poor people with disabilities to adopt sustainable livelihoods. The Disability-Inclusive Graduation (DIG) programme targets ultra-poor people with disabilities and/or women living in rural Uganda. The programme is an adaptation of an ultra-poor graduation model that has been shown to be effective in many contexts but not evaluated for people with disabilities.
METHODS
METHODS
The DIG programme works with project participants over a period of 18 months. Participants receive unconditional cash transfers for 6 months, training, access to savings-and-loans groups, and a capital asset that forms the basis of their new livelihood. The programme is also adapted to address specific barriers that people with disabilities face. Eligible households are clustered by geographical proximity in order to deliver the intervention. Eligibility is based on household screening to identify the 'ultra-poor' based on proxy means testing-both households with and without people with disabilities are included in the programme. Clusters are randomly selected prior to implementation, resulting in 96 intervention and 89 control clusters. The primary outcome of the trial is per-capita household consumption. Before the start of the intervention, a baseline household survey is conducted (November 2020) among project participants and those not offered the programme, a similar endline survey is conducted with participants with disabilities at the end of programme implementation in July 2022, and a second endline survey for all participants in October 2023. These activities are complemented by a process evaluation to understand DIG programme implementation, mechanisms, and context using complementary qualitative and quantitative methods. Ethical approval for the research has been received from Mildmay Uganda Research Ethics Committee and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
DIG is a promising intervention to evaluate for people with disabilities, adapted to be disability inclusive across programme components through extensive consultations and collaboration, and has proven efficacy at reducing poverty in other marginalised groups. However, evaluating a well-evidenced intervention among a new target group poses ethical considerations.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
Registry for International Development Impact Evaluations, RIDIE-STUDY-ID-626008898983a (20/04/22). ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN78592382 . Retrospectively registered on 17/08/2023.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38515150
doi: 10.1186/s13063-024-08040-w
pii: 10.1186/s13063-024-08040-w
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
206Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Banerjee A, Duflo E, Goldberg N, Karlan D, Osei R, Parienté W, et al. A multifaceted program causes lasting progress for the very poor: Evidence from six countries. Science. 2015;348(6236):1260799.
doi: 10.1126/science.1260799
pubmed: 25977558
Hashemi SM, De Montesquiou A. Reaching the poorest: lessons from the graduation model. Focus Note: No.69. CGAP: Washington DC; 2011. Available from: https://www.cgap.org/sites/default/files/CGAP-Focus-Note-Reaching-the-Poorest-Lessons-from-the-Graduation-Model-Mar-2011.pdf .
Matin I, Sulaiman M, Rabbani M. Crafting a graduation pathway for the ultra poor: lessons and evidence from a BRAC Programme in Bangladesh. In: Cook S, Kabeer N, editors. Social protection as development policy. London: Routledge India; 2010.
Banks LM, Davey C, Shakespeare T, Kuper H. Disability-inclusive responses to COVID-19: Lessons learnt from research on social protection in low- and middle-income countries. World Dev. 2021;137:105178.
doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105178
pubmed: 32904300
World Health Organization (WHO). World report on disability 2011. WHO: Geneva; 2011. Available from: https://www.who.int/teams/noncommunicable-diseases/sensory-functions-disability-and-rehabilitation/world-report-on-disability .
Banks LM, Kuper H, Polack S. Poverty and disability in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(12):e0189996-e.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189996
pubmed: 29267388
pmcid: 5739437
Banks LM, Mearkle R, Mactaggart I, Walsham M, Kuper H, Blanchet K. Disability and social protection programmes in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Oxf Dev Stud. 2017;45(3):223–39.
doi: 10.1080/13600818.2016.1142960
Washington Group on Disability Statistics - question sets Washington, USA. Washington Group on Disability Statistics. Available from: https://www.washingtongroup-disability.com/question-sets/ .
Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS). The National Population and Housing Census 2014 - Main Report. UBOS: Kampala; 2016. Available from: https://www.ubos.org/wp-content/uploads/publications/03_20182014_National_Census_Main_Report.pdf .
Banerjee A, Karlan D, Osei R, Thuysbaert B, Udry C. Graduation from ultra poverty in Ghana, 3ie grantee final report. 3ie: New Delhi; 2017. Available from: https://www.3ieimpact.org/sites/default/files/2018-08/3ie%20Grantee%20Final%20Report%20OW2.206.pdf .
Sulaiman M, Matin I. Targeting effectiveness of CFPR/TUP in scale-up environment. CFPR/TUP Working Paper Series: No.8. BRAC: Gazipur; 2006. Available from: https://bigd.bracu.ac.bd/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Targeting-Effectiveness-of-CFPR-TUP-in-Scale-up-Environment.pdf .
World Health Organization (WHO). Model Disability Survey (MDS): Survey manual. WHO: Geneva; 2017. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241512862 .
Davey C, Juden M, Allan E, Prost A, Humphreys M, Jacobs A, et al. POInT research design paper. CEDIL: London and Oxford; 2022. Available from: https://cedilprogramme.org/download/8810/ .
Kuper H, Saran A, White H. Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) of what works to improve educational outcomes for people with disabilities in low-and middle-income countries. Campbell Collaboration and International Centre for Evidence and Disability: New Delhi and London; 2018. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5b8ea83040f0b67d9a6fe669/Education_Rapid_Review_full_report.pdf .
Roland M, Torgerson DJ. Understanding controlled trials: what are pragmatic trials? BMJ. 1998;316(7127):285.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7127.285
pubmed: 9472515
pmcid: 2665488
Bates MA, Glennerster R. The generalizability puzzle. Stanf Soc Innov Rev. 2017;15(3):50–4.