Data Repository

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).

数据来源与检索策略：
本研究通过全面综述，对涵盖同行评议文献与灰色文献在内的各类已发表研究的结果进行描述与分析。

本研究的纳入标准如下：
- 样本：关键利益相关者，尤其是在卫生、教育、社会发展等多个领域开展工作的政策制定者与项目管理者，他们在各类残疾政策或项目中承担高层决策职责。
- 研究主题：聚焦于承担高层决策职责的关键利益相关者，如何制定或系列制定残疾政策或项目相关决策的研究论文。
- 研究设计：用于收集原发性研究证据的各类研究方法，旨在探索低收入和中等收入国家（Low- and Middle-Income Countries，LMICs）中的残疾问题与决策制定。
- 评估维度：聚焦于残疾相关事务决策制定的论文，包括政策制定者与项目管理者用于决策的信息来源、其他影响其决策的因素，以及决策制定所采用的流程。
- 研究类型：灰色文献报告、同行评议研究；以及探索残疾问题与决策制定的定性、定量或混合方法研究，且需报告在LMICs中开展的残疾问题与决策制定相关原发性研究证据。

本研究的排除标准如下：
- 仅聚焦于高收入国家（High-Income Countries，HICs）、与残疾问题无关，或不涉及高层决策制定的论文（例如，残疾人士自述其面临的无障碍问题、参与限制、家庭困境、收入难题等）均予以排除。
- 1990年之前发表的文献未纳入本研究。原因在于，循证决策理念约在该时期获得医学界的广泛认可。

我们首先对各类同行评议文献数据库开展全面检索。数据库的遴选基于资深作者在残疾领域及综述方法学方面的专业洞察与丰富经验。涵盖的数据库包括：护理及相关健康文献累积索引（Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature，CINAHL）、教育资源信息中心（Education Resources Information Center，ERIC）、Scopus、Web of Science社会科学引文索引、医学文献分析与检索系统在线版（Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online，MEDLINE(R)）、Excerpta Medica数据库（Embase Classic+Embase）、PsycINFO、Cochrane图书馆以及英联邦农业局全球卫生数据库（Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux Global Health，CAB Global Health）。随后，我们通过以下大型机构与组织的官网开展全面线上检索，以收集相关灰色文献：联合国教育、科学及文化组织（United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization，UNESCO）、世界银行、国际劳工组织（International Labour Organisation，ILO）、世界卫生组织（World Health Organization，WHO）、联合国儿童基金会（United Nations Children’s Fund，UNICEF）、SightSavers、基督教盲人会（Christian Blind Mission，CBM）国际、国际残疾人联盟（International Disability Alliance）、联合国难民事务高级专员公署（United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees，UNHCR）、Humanity and Inclusion、Inclusion International、全球政策论坛（Global Policy Forum）、救助儿童会（Save the Children）、世界宣明会（World Vision International）、国际救援委员会（International Rescue Committee，IRC）以及天主教救济服务机构（Catholic Relief Services，CRS），同时辅以Google Scholar检索。为提升本综述的报告质量与方法学严谨性，我们采用了系统评价与元分析扩展范围综述报告规范（Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews，PRISMA-ScR），并制定全面检索策略以降低偏倚风险。

在灰色文献手工检索环节，我们依据纳入与排除标准筛选相关文献。针对灰色文献与Google Scholar的手工检索，我们采用检索式检索前3个标签页/页面的结果——因检索结果超出前3页后，相关性会显著下降且无法满足纳入标准。所有检索工作均于2023年8月27日至2023年12月14日期间完成。

文献筛选流程：
在文献筛选阶段，研究团队使用了Rayyan.ai——一款专为团队协作开展循证综述开发的软件平台。研究人员以两人为一组，基于预先设定的纳入标准，对所有文献的标题与摘要进行双人筛选。在全文筛选阶段结束后，评审人员间的意见分歧率为33%，此类分歧由资深作者负责协调解决。

数据提取：
我们将每条记录中的相关信息整理至电子表格中。数据提取基于本研究的问题，涵盖作者姓名与发表年份、论文标题、研究设计、文献类型、参与者类别、决策制定层级或范围、覆盖领域与主题、关注的损伤或健康状况、研究场景、数据收集方法、样本量、研究目的以及研究结果总结等内容。此外，我们还增设了更具针对性的研究结果模块，涵盖所使用的证据来源、使用这些证据来源的障碍与促进因素，以及其他影响残疾包容性决策制定的因素。由三名评审人员将数据录入电子表格，并对所有文献进行双人提取，其中第三评审人员（第二作者）完成了100%文献的提取工作。所有分歧或不确定之处均通过团队会议解决，同时邀请第四作者（资深作者）参与协调。

数据分析：
本研究采用数值与定性内容分析相结合的方法开展数据分析。定性内容分析用于构建编码体系并综合非数值型数据，编码体系依据Erlingsson与Brysiewicz（2017）所述步骤，通过归纳式开发、凝练意义单元生成。
数值分析聚焦于对五个模块进行定量总结：论文的研究目的、决策制定中使用的证据来源、除证据外的其他决策影响因素，以及在决策制定中使用上述证据来源的障碍与促进因素。为确保方法学严谨性，数据分析由三名研究人员完成，他们针对上述五个模块构建分析编码并记录涌现的模式。最终的编码体系由研究团队的第四名成员进行验证，并通过多次讨论直至达成共识。

数据来源如下：
- Braun AMB. 坦桑尼亚政策环境中包容性教育的障碍：国家政策参与者的视角. Compare. 2022;52(1):110–28.
- Brydges C, Munro LT. 乌干达古卢社区康复的政策转移. Disabil Soc. 2020 Oct 21;35(10):1596–617.
- Chibaya G, Naidoo D, Govender P. 纳米比亚《残疾人权利公约》实施情况探索：政策制定者与执行者的视角. 南非职业治疗杂志. 2022;52(1).
- Cleaver S, Hunt M, Bond V, Lencucha R. 残疾协调专员与跨部门政策实施：赞比亚利益相关者视角的定性研究. Front Public Health. 2020 Sep 15;8.
- Grimes P, dela Cruz A. 南亚残疾包容性教育实践图谱[互联网]. 加德满都; 2021. 可从：www.unicef.org/rosa/ 获取
- Heidari A, Arab M, Damari B. 伊朗国家苯丙酮尿症筛查项目的政策分析. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Dec 1;21(1).
- 国际残疾人联盟. 残疾人组织（Organizations of Persons with Disabilities，DPOs）参与自愿国家审查的案例研究[互联网]. 2017 [引用2024 May 20]. 可从：https://www.internationaldisabilityalliance.org/sites/default/files/global_report_on_the_participation_of_organisations_of_persons_with_disabilities_dpos_in_vnr_processes.docx 获取
- Jerwanska V, Kebbie I, Magnusson L. 塞拉利昂残疾人医疗与康复服务协调：利益相关者视角. Disabil Rehabil. 2023;45(11):1796–804.
- Liechtenstein C. 仍被边缘化？索马里残疾儿童的成长现状——索马里救助儿童会项目中的残疾包容性：利益相关者认知与实施情况.
- Lyra TM, Veloso De Albuquerque MS, Santos De Oliveira R, Morais Duarte Miranda G, Andra De Oliveira M, Eduarda Carvalho M, 等. 巴西国家残疾人卫生政策：内容、背景与社会行动者绩效分析. Health Policy Plan. 2022 Nov 1;37(9):1086–97.
- Morone P, Camacho Cuena E, Kocur I, Banatvala N. 低收入和中等收入国家眼科卫生政策的支持保障：通过多层面分析识别利益相关者. 第35卷, 公共卫生政策杂志. Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.; 2014. p. 185–203.
- Najafi Z, Abdi K, Khanjani MS, Dalvand H, Amiri M. 《残疾人权利公约》：伊朗第25条（健康）与第26条（康复）实施障碍的定性探索. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2021;35(1):1–9.
- Neill R, Shawar YR, Ashraf L, Das P, Champagne SN, Kautsar H, 等. 低收入和中等收入国家国家卫生系统中康复服务的优先级设定：定性主题综合与政策框架开发. Int J Equity Health. 2023 Dec 1;22(1).
- Pillay S, Duncan M, de Vries PJ. “我们正在进行危机管控”：南非政府利益相关者对自闭症谱系障碍儿童教育及其他服务的视角. Autism. 2024 Jan 1;28(1):73–83.
- Shahabi S, Ahmadi Teymourlouy A, Shabaninejad H, Kamali M, Lankarani KB. 伊朗肢体康复服务的融资：利益相关者与社会网络分析. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Jul 1;20(1).
- Wilbur J, Scherer N, Mactaggart I, Shrestha G, Mahon T, Torondel B, 等. 尼泊尔的水、卫生与个人卫生及月经卫生政策与配套文件是否纳入残疾视角？一项政策分析. Int J Equity Health. 2021 Dec 1;20(1).