Disabled Youth’s Participation in Rural - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Disabled Youth’s Participation in Rural Sri Lanka:Implications for CBR/CBID

Masateru HigashidaChamara Kumarasinghe

ආයුබෝවන්

!

Background & Literature ReviewField Research Discussion and ConclusionsHow do socioeconomic conditions affect participation of disabled youth?

Outline

Community Participation by disabled youth

‘the right of persons with disabilities to take part fully [process]in the life and development of their societies, enjoy living conditions equal to those of other citizens, and have an equal share

[result] in improved conditions’ (United Nations, 2000: no pagination)

Note

: [brackets] adapted from

Kuno

(2012).

‘intrinsically

social and either occur outside the home or are part of a nondomestic role’ (Chang et al., 2013: p.772).

Community Participation by

D

isabled Youth

Multi-domains of community participation

(WHO et al, 2010)

Socioeconomic factors

Conceptual Frame of the ICF: (WHO, 2001)

ICF: socioeconomic factors? (WHO, 2001, 2013)Measures to assess community participation

(e.g. Chang et al., 2013)Association

with

economic status

(e.g. Mori et al.,

2014)　In the context of CBR (

Finkenflügel

et al., 2005

)

D

isability issues/CBR in

Sri Lanka

(Peiris-John et al., 2014)

Research Gap

Field Research

To investigate the socioeconomic inequality in community participation amongst the disabled youth in rural Sri LankaTo share the implications for CBR/CBIDAims

Mixed method approach in community setting1) To what extent and how do disabled youth participate in community ?2) To what extent and how do socioeconomic factors at the household and individual levels affect community participation of

disabled youth?Design and Research Questions

Site: A rural division in the Western ProvinceDisabled youth: aged 15-29Disability: any type (based on WHO-DAS 2.0)Elements in the researchDefinition/Elements

Community participation

Socioeconomic factors

1)learning

2)work (unpaid/micro)

3)artistic, cultural or religious activities

4)recreational, leisure and sports

5)vote/election (any type)6)community group (inc. SHG)1)income (household/individual)2)hardship 3)educational level 4)connection with CBR 5)geographic feature

Site studiedA village junctionMountainous area

MethodsQuantitativeQualitative

Cross-sectional designFace-to-face survey (n=116)

Main measurements:

-Community participation: CBR indicators (

6-items revised)

-Socioeconomic factors: mixed

measurements

Semi-structured interviewPurposive sampling: socioeconomically deprived households (n=26)

Thematic

analysis

With local stakeholders, including disabled people

Approved by the Research Ethics Review Committee at the University of Sheffield Agreement amongst stakeholdersWritten and/or verbal informed consent (depends on their conditions)

Ethical Considerations

Findings

Findings (Phase-one) 1/2Table. Summary of the percentage of community participation (n=116)

Item name

Not at all

A little

Moderately

Mostly

Completely

Learning

Work (unpaid/micro)

Culture/Religion

Recreation/Sports

Vote/Election (any type)

Community group

67

.

2

80.2

69.8

78

.

4

52

.

6

7

3

.

2

Findings (Phase-one) 2/2

Current Participation StyleBarriers and Facilitators

Previous experiencesHousehold conditionsCaregivers Information and image

Dynamics, including marginalisation,

within

the household

(Cf. Braithwaite & Mont, 2009)

Findings (Phase-two)

SummaryCommunity ParticipationLimited opportunitiesGap between participantsReligious activities Socioeconomic Factors

Household and individual levels (+social)Dynamics and marginalisationDiscussion and Conclusions 1/2

Implications: Socioeconomic inequality and exclusion (individual-household-society)Potential conflicts of interests: disabled youth vs households (

Kuno & Seddon, 2003)Comprehensive

approach: Education, poverty, social participation...

(WHO et al., 2010

)

Limitations: ‘unconnected’ potential people

Recommendation

Discussion and Conclusions 2/2

Braithwaite, J. and Mont, D. (2009). Disability and poverty: a survey of World Bank poverty assessments and implications. ALTER-European Journal of Disability Research/Revue Européenne de Recherche sur le Handicap, 3(3), pp.219-232.Chang, F.H.,

Coster, W.J. and Helfrich, C.A. (2013). Community participation measures for people with disabilities: A systematic review of content from an international classification of functioning, disability and health perspective. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 94(4), pp.771-781.Finkenflügel, H.,

Wolffers

, I. &

Huijsman

, R. (2005). The evidence base for community-based rehabilitation: a literature review.

International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 28(3), pp.187-201.Kuno, K. and Seddon, D. (2003). Kaihatsu ni okeru Shogaisha Bunya no Twin-Track Approach no Jitsugen ni Mukete

(Toward a twin-track approach in the disability sector in development). Tokyo: JICA.

Kuno

, K.

(2012).

Concepts around disability and disabled people (Chapter 4). In:

Carr

L,

Darke P, Kuno K. Disability equality training: action for change. Kuala Lumpur: MPH Group Printing, pp.103-170.

Mori, S., Reyes, C.M. & Yamagata, T. (2014). Poverty Reduction of the Disabled: Livelihood of Persons with Disabilities in the Philippines. London and New York: Routledge.Peiris

-John, R.J., Attanayake, S., Daskon, L., Wickremasinghe, A.R. and Ameratunga

, S. (2014). Disability studies in Sri Lanka: priorities for action. Disability and rehabilitation, 36(20), pp.1742-1748.WHO. (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health

. Geneva: WHO. World Health Organization (WHO). (2013). How to use the ICF: a practical manual for using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Exposure draft for comment. Geneva: WHOWHO, ILO,

IDDC & UNESCO. (2010). Community-based rehabilitation: CBR guidelines. Geneva: WHO.

References