DOI: 10.17605/osf.io/2y4st
title: Data Repository

description: Data sources and search strategy: 
An extensive review was undertaken to describe and analyse findings from a wide range of published literature, including both peer-reviewed and grey sources. 

Our inclusion criteria were: 
- Sample: Key stakeholders, particularly policy-makers and programme managers working in various sectors such as health, education, social development and so forth, who make high-level decisions in all types of disability policy or programming 

- Phenomenon of interest: Papers that focus on how key stakeholders, who make high-level decisions, went about making a decision or a set of decisions about disability policy or programming 

- Design: All types of research methodologies used to collect primary research evidence exploring disability and decision-making in LMICs 

- Evaluation: Paper’s that focused on decision-making on disability-related matters–sources of information policy-makers and programme managers use to make decisions, other influences on their decision-making, and what processes are used to make decisions 

- Research type: grey literature reports; peer-reviewed studies; qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-method studies exploring disability and decision-making that reported primary research evidence exploring disability and decision-making in LMICs 

Our exclusion criteria were as follows: 
- Any papers that focused solely on HICs, were unrelated to disability, or did not concern high-level decision-making (e.g. respondents with disabilities describing access issues, limitations on their participation, difficulties at home, income problems, etc.) were excluded. 

- Literature published before the year 1990 was not included. This is because we understand evidence-based decision-making to have gained recognition among medical professionals around this time.

We firstly conducted thorough searches of various databases of peer-reviewed material. The selection of databases were based on the senior author’s expert insight and extensive experience in disability and in review methods. These databases included Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), Scopus, Web of Science Social Sciences Citation Index, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE(R)), Excerpta Medica Database (Embase) Classic+Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux (CAB) Global Health. Next, we conducted thorough online searches to gather relevant grey literature using the websites of the following large agencies and organisations: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), World Bank, International Labour Organisation (ILO), World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), SightSavers, Christian Blind Mission (CBM), International, Disability Alliance, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Humanity and Inclusion, Inclusion International, Global Policy Forum, Save the Children, World Vision International, International Rescue Committee (IRC) and Catholic Relief Services (CRS), as well as supplementary Google Scholar searches. To improve the reporting and methodological quality of this review, we used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and employed a comprehensive search strategy to mitigate for bias.

In the hand search of the grey literature, we selected relevant articles based on our inclusion and exclusion criteria. For our grey literature and Google Scholar hand search, the first 3 tabs/pages were searched using search strings. This is because search results yielded past the first page 3 became less specific and did not satisfy our inclusion criteria. All searches were conducted between the 27th of August 2023 and the 14th of December 2023. 

Study selection process: 
During study selection, the authors used Rayyan.ai, a software platform specifically developed to facilitate collaborative evidence reviews in teams. Working in two pairs, we carefully assessed and selected literature based on our predetermined inclusion criteria, double screening all titles and abstracts. At the end of the full text article-screening phase, the reviewers reported a disagreement rate of 33%. These disagreements were resolved by the senior author. 

Data extraction: 
All relevant information from each record was compiled in a spreadsheet. Information was extracted based on our research questions and included various details such as the authors’ names and publication year, publication title, study design, types of literature, category of participants, level or ambit of decision-making, sectors and topics covered, impairment or health condition of focus, setting, data collection methods, sample size, aims, and a summarised study findings section. In addition, we prepared a more specific study findings section(s) that considered sources of evidence used, barriers and facilitators to using these sources of evidence, and other influences on disability-inclusive decision-making. Three reviewers assembled the data into a spreadsheet which was used to double-extract all articles, where the third reviewer (second author) extracted 100% of the articles. Any disagreements or uncertainties were resolved during team meetings, also involving the fourth (senior) author.

Data analysis: 
We conducted data analysis that included numeric and qualitative content analyses. Qualitative content analysis was used to create codes and synthesise non-numerical data. Codes were created from inductively developed, condensed units of meaning using steps as described by Erlingsson and Brysiewicz (2017).

Numeric analysis focused on quantitatively summarising five sections: the aims of papers, sources of evidence used in decision-making, influences on decision-making aside from evidence, as well as the barriers to and facilitators of using the aforementioned sources of evidence in decision-making. To ensure methodological rigour, analysis was completed by three of the authors, who developed analytical codes for the five sections mentioned above and documented emerging patterns. The final codes were validated by a fourth member of the research team, with additional discussions on codes held until consensus was reached.

Data was derived from the following sources: 
- Braun AMB. Barriers to inclusive education in Tanzania’s policy environment: national policy actors’ perspectives. Compare. 2022;52(1):110–28. 
- Brydges C, Munro LT. The policy transfer of community-based rehabilitation in Gulu, Uganda. Disabil Soc. 2020 Oct 21;35(10):1596–617. 
- Chibaya G, Naidoo D, Govender P. Exploring the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) in Namibia. Perspectives of policymakers and implementers. South African Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2022;52(1). 
- Cleaver S, Hunt M, Bond V, Lencucha R. Disability Focal Point Persons and Policy Implementation Across Sectors: A Qualitative Examination of Stakeholder Perspectives in Zambia. Front Public Health. 2020 Sep 15;8. 
- Grimes P, dela Cruz. A. Mapping of Disability-Inclusive Education Practices in South Asia [Internet]. Kathmandu; 2021. Available from: www.unicef.org/rosa/ 
- Heidari A, Arab M, Damari B. A policy analysis of the national phenylketonuria screening program in Iran. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Dec 1;21(1). 
- International Disability Alliance. The Case Study on the Engagement of Organizations of Persons with Disabilities (DPOs) in Voluntary National Reviews [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2024 May 20]. Available from: https://www.internationaldisabilityalliance.org/sites/default/files/global_report_on_the_participation_of_organisations_of_persons_with_disabilities_dpos_in_vnr_processes.docx 
- Jerwanska V, Kebbie I, Magnusson L. Coordination of health and rehabilitation services for person with disabilities in Sierra Leone–a stakeholders’ perspective. Disabil Rehabil. 2023;45(11):1796–804. 
- Liechtenstein C. Still left behind? Growing up as a child with a disability in Somalia Disability inclusion: stakeholder, perception, and implementation of in Save the Children’s projects in Somalia. 
- Lyra TM, Veloso De Albuquerque MS, Santos De Oliveira R, Morais Duarte Miranda G, Andra De Oliveira M, Eduarda Carvalho M, et al. The National Health Policy for people with disabilities in Brazil: an analysis of the content, context and the performance of social actors. Health Policy Plan. 2022 Nov 1;37(9):1086–97. 
- Morone P, Camacho Cuena E, Kocur I, Banatvala N. Securing support for eye health policy in low- and middle-income countries: Identifying stakeholders through a multi-level analysis. Vol. 35, Journal of Public Health Policy. Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.; 2014. p. 185–203. 
- Najafi Z, Abdi K, Khanjani MS, Dalvand H, Amiri M. Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities: Qualitative exploration of barriers to the implementation of articles 25 (health) and 26 (rehabilitation) in Iran. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2021;35(1):1–9. 
- Neill R, Shawar YR, Ashraf L, Das P, Champagne SN, Kautsar H, et al. Prioritizing rehabilitation in low- and middle-income country national health systems: a qualitative thematic synthesis and development of a policy framework. Int J Equity Health. 2023 Dec 1;22(1). 
- Pillay S, Duncan M, de Vries PJ. ‘We are doing damage control’: Government stakeholder perspectives of educational and other services for children with autism spectrum disorder in South Africa. Autism. 2024 Jan 1;28(1):73–83. 
- Shahabi S, Ahmadi Teymourlouy A, Shabaninejad H, Kamali M, Lankarani KB. Financing of physical rehabilitation services in Iran: A stakeholder and social network analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Jul 1;20(1). 
- Wilbur J, Scherer N, Mactaggart I, Shrestha G, Mahon T, Torondel B, et al. Are Nepal’s water, sanitation and hygiene and menstrual hygiene policies and supporting documents inclusive of disability? A policy analysis. Int J Equity Health. 2021 Dec 1;20(1).