Skip to main content

Table 1 Summary of study characteristics and main findings

From: Effectiveness of interventions by non-professional community-level workers or family caregivers to improve outcomes for physical impairments or disabilities in low resource settings: systematic review of task-sharing strategies

Author and year

Methods (country, design)

Participant: sample size, age (mean or mean and SD), female %, primary diagnosis (Dx)

Intervention (type, personnel, setting, brief description of intervention)

Comparison

Follow-up period

Outcomes and tools

Key findings at 6 months

Inter*

Cont*

p value

a: RCTs

 Interventions by family caregivers

  Chu et al., 2020

China, RCT

N = 61

Age: intervention 62.84 (9.71), control 66.17 (8.51)

Female: intervention 68%, control 53%

Dx: stroke, ischemic 59%

Family-caregiver delivered, in-homes after training in hospital

Mobility: transfers, walking, stair climbing

ADL: grooming, dressing, bathing

Continence: bowel and bladder control, toileting

Conventional care, no post-discharge rehabilitation

6 months

ADLs: BI (0–100)

Mean (SD)

72.6 (21.18)

61.00 (34.63)

0.03

QOL: EQ-5D

Mean (SD)

1.55 (0.39)

1.56 (0.54)

0.91

  Zhou et al., 2019

China, RCT

N = 244

Age: intervention 64.3, control 66.2

Female: intervention 54%, control 56%

Dx: stroke, ischemic 73%

Family-caregiver delivered, in-home after training in hospital

Mobility: bed, balance, walking

ADL: grooming, dressing, bathing

Continence: bowel and bladder control, toileting

Conventional care (no post-discharge rehabilitation)

6 months

Walking: FAC (0–5)

Mean (SD)

4.6 (1.7)

5.0 (1.4)

0.04*

ADLs: BI (0–100)

Mean (SD)

70.1 (25.5)

74.1 (23.0)

p = 0.27*

QOL: EQ-5D (0–1)

Mean (SD)

0.7 (0.3)

0.8 (0.3)

0.15*

  Lindley et al., 2017

India, RCT

N = 1250

Age: intervention 57.5 (12.92), control 58 (14.21)

Female: intervention 68%, control 66%

Dx: stroke, ischemic 77%

Family-caregiver delivered, in-homes after training in hospital

Mobility: limb positioning

ADL: task specific activities

Post-discharge care (no therapy to some outpatient therapy sessions)

6 months

Mobility: EQ-5D-3L (proportion with some or severe deficits)

237/529 (45%)

228/510 (45%)

0.32

ADLs: BI (0–100)

Mean (SD)

82.1 (23.09)

82.6 (23.19)

0.74

ADLs: NEADL (0–66)

Mean (SD)

31.0 (17.67)

31.2 (17.52)

0.86

Selfcare: EQ-5D-3L (proportion with some or severe deficits)

251/529 (47%)

230/510 (45%)

0.75

  Ozdemiret al., 2001

Turkey, RCT

N = 60

Age: intervention 61.8 (9.2), control 59.1 (5.9)

Female: control 30%, intervention 63%

Dx: stroke, hemorrhagic 77%

Family-delivered, in-homes after training in hospital

Mobility: convenient bed positioning and exercises. Splints, orthoses, and devices were also provided

Therapeutic exercises and neuromuscular facilitation exercises, physical agents

5 months

Function independence: FIM (18–126), mean change score (SD)

59.63 (14.19)

12.30 (13.38)

0.001

 Interventions by community health workers

  Cobbing et al., 2017

South Africa, RCT

N = 76

Age: intervention 43.4, control 44.7

Female: intervention 76.3%, control 76.3%

Dx: HIV

CHWs-delivered in-homes

Mobility: aerobic exercises, strength and stretch (upper and lower limbs) and functional exercises (sitting to standing and bridging) and walking

Conventional care, no rehabilitation in the community

6 months

Mobility: WHODAS (0–4), mean (SD)

0.18 (0.56)

0.21 (0.59)

 > 0.05

Mobility: RMI (0–15)

Mean (SD)

14.24 (1.50)

13.82 (2.33)

> 0.05

Walking: 6MWT (distance), mean (SD)

327.71 (73.61)

303.29 (92.48)

> 0.05

QOL: WHOQOL (1–5), mean (SD)

3.62 (0.70)

3.41 (0.93)

> 0.05

Author and year

Methods (country, design)

Participant: sample size, age (mean or mean and SD), female %, primary diagnosis (Dx)

Intervention (type, personnel, setting, brief description of intervention)

Comparison

Follow-up period

Outcomes and tools

Key findings

CRAT

Cont

p

b. Non-RCTs

 Interventions delivered by non-professional community health workers or volunteers

  Ru et al., 2017

China, non-randomized controlled experiment

N = 365

Age: 61.9 (9.5)

Female: 28.9%

Dx: stroke, cerebral hemorrhage: 70 (20%)

CRAT by community rehabilitation workers and family caregivers in community centers and patients’ home

Mobility: lying, sitting, sitting-to-standing, and standing

No special intervention

3 months

ADLs: BI (0–100) (proportion of severity of disease: ≥ 3 and < 4; ≥ 4)

Mean (SD)

82.3 (21.3)

76.7 (23.5)

0.001

84.2 (21.9)

79.9 (21.7)

0.001

Function: Fugl–Meyer motor function assessment (0–100) (proportion of severity of disease: ≥ 3 and < 4; ≥ 4)

Mean (SD)

76.7 (23.5)

58.7 (28.9)

0.001

66.9 (25.4)

57.6 (26.7)

0.023

Author and year

Methods (country, design)

Participant: sample size, age (mean or mean and SD), female %, primary diagnosis (Dx)

Intervention (type, personnel, setting, brief description of intervention)

Comparison

Follow-up period

Outcomes and tools

Key findings

Pre-test

Post-test

p value

Chinchai et al., 2021

Thailand, pre- and post-test

N = 11

Age (range): 41–80 Female: 27%

Dx: stroke

Rehabilitation education by VHWs in community rehabilitation centers

Fundamental knowledge of stroke

Mobility: physical exercise and gait training, UE function training

ADL: selfcare, transfers, home chores

No control group

2 months

Basic ADLs: the ADL assessment tool (BADL) (23–155)

Mean (SD)

67.41 (23.31)

75.50 (21.17)

0.026

Chinchai et al., 2020

Thailand, pre- and post-test

N = 25

Age (range): 30–80

Female: 40%

Dx: stroke

Rehabilitation education by VHWs in community rehabilitation centers

Basic knowledge of stroke, mobility: exercise and gait, transfers, UE functional training

ADL: dressing, grooming

No control group

3 months

QOL: WHOQOL–BREF–THAI (0–100)

Mean (SD)

71.44(8.38)

84.88(12.07)

0.000

Community integration: CIQ (0–29)

Mean [SD])

9.80 (3.96)

11.44 (4.68)

0.006

Chinchai et al., 2017

Thailand, pre and post-test

N = 27

Age range: 30–80

Female: 37%

Dx: stroke

Rehabilitation education by VHWs in patients’ homes

Basic knowledge of stroke, mobility: gait training, balance, and UE and LE functional training

No control group

2 months

Walking: 10-m walk test

Mean (SD)

34.73 (8.48) 0.17 m/s

32.18 (9.32)

0.19 m/s

p < 0.05

UE function: FMA (0–44)

Mean (SD)

36.81 (9.59)

37.26 (9.67)

0.474

Balasubramanian et al., 2012

India, comparative observational

N = 30

Age: IBR 37 (18.13), CBR 54 (13.55)

Dx: locomotor disabilities

IBR by healthcare professionals*

CBR by CBR workers

Not describeda

Function: FIM (18–126)

Mean (SD)

IBR: 117.40 (3.04)

CBR: 111.60 (12.02)

> 0.05

QOL: WHOQOL–BREF: (1–5)

Mean (SD

IBR: 4.20 (0.414)

CBR: 4.00 (1.604)

> 0.05

  1. SD standard deviation, RCT randomized control trial, Inter. intervention, Cont. control, ADLs activities of daily living, QOL Quality of life, NEADL Nottingham extended ADL scale, FAC functional ambulation category, HIV human immunodeficiency virus, CHWs community health workers, WHODAS world health organization disability assessment schedule, RMI Rivermead mobility index, 6MWT 6 min walk test, WHOQOL world health organization quality of life, PT physiotherapy, OT occupational therapy, FIM functional independence measure, CRAT community-based rehabilitation appropriate technique, UE upper extremity, LE lower extremity, VHVs village health volunteers, WHOQOL–BREF World health organization quality of life–BREF, CIQ community integration questionnaire FMA Fugl–Meyer assessment, IBR institutional-based rehabilitation, CBR community-based rehabilitation
  2. *p value adjusted for confounders
  3. aDescription of intervention not described