Rapid Catch Indicators Lunch Roundtable_10.12.12
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Rapid Catch Indicators Lunch Roundtable_10.12.12

on

  • 397 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
397
Views on SlideShare
397
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Most common indicators moved = EBF (4) and Soap (4)
  • Most common indicators moved = EBF (4) and Soap (4)GOAL: 4 > target, 1 target w/in CI, 1 w/o target
  • Changes in grayed out indicators are not statistically significant
  • 100%!
  • 100%!
  • 100%!
  • 3 stat sigNepal – PWGs encourage ANC, gov incentives to attend 4+Wellshare – BCCGoal – increased 2+ but not 4+
  • + Relief = 2 stat sigGoal – increasing ANC -> increase in MTTRelief – mother & child care through gov
  • + Relief = 3 stat sigPlan, Care – Govt incentives for HF deliveries, biggest limitation to HF deliveries = transportCARE – 55 birthing centers, SBA training, delivery kits, newborn deaths within 24h decreasedPlan – local recruitment of ANMs and HWs (gov policy), birth center expansion, social recognition awardsGOAL – worked with TBAs and HEWs to promote safe/clean deliveries. Prior no HEW hands-on experienceRelief – TBAs often perform deliveries in HFs, promoted SBA & companions to delivery esp through CGsWellshare – repositioned TBA role, village level vital event registers feeding into district level HMIS, TBA training on HBLSS, STGs
  • 1 stat sig + maybe Goal + maybe Relief = 1-3 stat sigNo real commentary on this indicatorPlan saw a large increase even though EBF was common
  • + Relief = 4 stat sigRelief – a large increase (endline > 2 x the 2010 national nutrition survey)GOAL – CGs and CHPs through SBCC strategy with home visits
  • 1 stat sig Relief – increased in EBF and CF but food insecurity
  • 2 stat sigConcern – CCM/P phased in during 1st two yearsWellshare – ABs not available at HPs until last year of project, but caregivers trained in careseekingCARE – already high
  • + Relief = 2 stat sigRelief – could have been better with HH distribution by CGVsConcern – lagged behind DHS & both malaria and pneumo; did improve fluid and food intake thoughGoal – trained HEWsPSI – Thanzi ORS expansion (intro in 1999), CBD by Safe Water and Hygiene Promoters, high cost a worryWellshare – BCCZINCConcern – IRC piloted zinc in 2005 & included in all EIP districts, stockouts at EL thoughGoal – zinc added to EDL in May 2009PSI – helped pilot zinc with a CIDA CCM project after MTE; plan to bundle
  • 3 stat sigGoal – Water Guard distributed monthly by CGVs 2008 – 3/2010 when social marketing began, developed a network of suppliersRelief – BCC local & appropriate methodsPSI – Water Guard safe water solution (SWS) and Wa Ufa (powder)Wellshare – Mostly boil, PUR and Water Guard only available in larger markets, negative perceptions of products (e.g., toxic residue)
  • 4 stat sigRelief – challenging: started after MNC & BF, can’t leave soap by latrines or in a container, costly; soap production trainingPSI – FE recommended research to understand decreaseConcern – tippy taps (practical options) + health promo messages = hand washing stations but soap had to be hidden from goats
  • **No Ethiopia DHS data – but neither KPC increase was stat sigITN: + Relief = 2 stat sigGoal – endemic in woredas but not in region as a whole, ITN distributions in 2005/06 & 2009/10; not reflected in EL KPC but in a separate survey was found to be 83%, used CGs and CHPs + IRS campaignsRelief – ITN distribution , BCC around peak malaria timesWellshare – national distribution to pregnant women and U5s through PMI & GF
  • **No Ethiopia DHS data – but neither KPC increase was stat sigFEVER RX: + Relief = 2 stat sigConcern – HBM, RDT intro so def of correct Rx changed (End-line figure is defined by either correct treatment after RDT or presumptive treatment (depending on existing policy in health sector at time of survey)) At time of the KPC survey, 2/6 districts (Kirehe and Ngoma) = near complete RDT implementation while 4 districts were still phasing in RDTs. As a result, the treatment varies considerably by district. At endline, correct Rx is defined as a child with fever who was seen by a trained provider within 24 hours of onset and either given presumptive treatment or tested with and RDT and treated in accordance with the results of the test. When correct treatment is broken down by whether RDTs were used or not, the effect of having RDTs becomes apparent: 89% of children who had access to RDT received correct treatment, compared to just 29% of those who were not tested and treated presumptively. Goal – trained HEWs – HPs had Rx but lacked reliable stocks and were open only sporadically Wellshare – HWs trained in RDTs but ran out of supply.

Rapid Catch Indicators Lunch Roundtable_10.12.12 Rapid Catch Indicators Lunch Roundtable_10.12.12 Presentation Transcript

  • Select KPC Results for Projects that ended in 2011 October 12, 2012
  • Projects by country 2
  • Technical intervention areas and levels of effort (LOE) StartPVO/NGO Country NUT PCM CDD MAL MNC CS HIV YearCARE Nepal 2007 5% 5% 5% 75% 10%Concern Rwanda 2006 30% 35% 35%GOAL Ethiopia 2007 25% 25% 25% 25%Wellshare Tanzania 2006 15% 15% 20% 35% 15%Plan Nepal 2007 100%PSI Malawi 2006 100%RI Niger 2007 30% 20% 20% 30%Save Malawi 2006 100%TOTAL 8% 6% 25% 13% 46% 2% 1% 3
  • CATCH Indicators with LOE moved # # %PVO Country Reported Stat Sig Stat SigConcern ** Rwanda 6 6 100 %RI Niger 11 9 82 %PLAN Nepal 4 2 50 %Wellshare * Tanzania 11 5 45 %CARE Nepal 10 4 40 %SC Malawi 5 2 40 %GOAL Ethiopia 11 4 36 %PSI Malawi 4 0 0% 4
  • CATCH indicators in M&E plan moved # # % # >=PVO Country Reported Stat Sig Stat Sig TargetConcern Rwanda 4 4 100% 2SC Malawi 4 3 75% 1RI Niger 8 5 63% 6Wellshare Tanzania 8 4 50% 5PLAN Nepal 2 1 50% 2CARE Nepal 5 2 40% 3GOAL Ethiopia 15 4 27% 9PSI Malawi 0 0 - 0 5
  • Relief International: Targeted CATCH/Key Indicators 100 80Coverage (%) 60 40 20 0 Baseline Endline 6
  • Concern Worldwide: Targeted CATCH Indicators 100 80Coverage (%) 60 40 20 0 Child ITN Soap POU ORS/ RHS AntiMs ARI Care- <2days seeking Baseline Endline 7
  • Infant and Young Child Feeding: Results from 2010 & 2011 100 80Coverage (%) 60 40 20 0 Nepal Liberia Ethiopia Peru Niger Cambodia (CARE) (MTI) (GOAL) (INMED) (RI) (IRD) Baseline Endline 8
  • Newborn postnatal visit within 3 days: Results from 2010 & 2011 100 80Coverage (%) 60 40 20 0 Nepal Liberia Kenya Cambodia Kenya Tanzania Nepal Malawi (CARE) (MTI) (HR) (IRD) (AMREF) (Wellshare) (PLAN) (SC) Baseline Endline 9
  • DHS for comparison DHS DHS Country year 1 year 2 Ethiopia 2005 2011 Malawi 2004 2010 Nepal 2006 2011 Niger 2006 N/A Rwanda 2005 2010 Tanzania 2004-05 2010 10
  • 4+ Antenatal Care Visits: A comparison of KPC and DHS data (2006/7 - 2011) 100 80Coverage (%) 60 40 20 0 Goal Save CARE Plan Wellshare (Ethiopia) (Malawi) (Nepal) (Nepal) (Tanzania) Baseline DHS Endline DHS Baseline KPC EndlineKPC 11
  • 2+ Maternal Tetanus Toxoid Vaccinations: A comparison of KPC and DHS data (2006/7 - 2011) 100 80Coverage (%) 60 40 20 0 Goal Save CARE Plan Wellshare Relief (Ethiopia) (Malawi) (Nepal) (Nepal) (Tanzania) (Niger) Baseline DHS Endline DHS Baseline KPC EndlineKPC 12
  • Skilled Birth Attendance: A comparison of KPC and DHS data (2006/7 - 2011) 100 80Coverage (%) 60 40 20 0 Goal Save CARE Plan Wellshare Relief (Ethiopia) (Malawi) (Nepal) (Nepal) (Tanzania) (Niger) Baseline DHS Endline DHS Baseline KPC EndlineKPC 13
  • Breastfeeding within 1 Hour: A comparison of KPC and DHS data (2006/7 - 2011) 100 80Coverage (%) 60 40 20 0 Goal Save CARE Plan Wellshare Relief (Ethiopia) (Malawi) (Nepal) (Nepal) (Tanzania) (Niger) Baseline DHS Endline DHS Baseline KPC EndlineKPC 14
  • Exclusive Breastfeeding 0-5 months: A comparison of KPC and DHS data (2006/7 - 2011) 100 80Coverage (%) 60 40 20 0 CARE Plan Goal Save Wellshare Relief (Nepal) (Nepal) (Ethiopia) (Malawi) (Tanzania) (Niger) Baseline DHS Endline DHS Baseline KPC EndlineKPC 15
  • Underweight: A comparison of KPC and DHS data (2006/7 – 2011) 50 40Coverage (%) 30 20 10 0 Goal Save PSI CARE Plan Relief Ethiopia (Malawi) (Malawi) (Nepal) (Nepal) (Niger) Baseline DHS Endline DHS Baseline KPC EndlineKPC 16
  • Pneumonia Care-seeking: A comparison of KPC and DHS data (2006/7 – 2011) 100 80Coverage (%) 60 40 20 0 CARE Concern Wellshare (Nepal) (Rwanda) (Tanzania) Baseline DHS Endline DHS Baseline KPC EndlineKPC 17
  • ORS/RHF: A comparison of KPC and DHS data (2006/7 - 2011) 80 60Coverage (%) 40 20 0 Goal PSI CARE Concern Wellshare Relief (Ethiopia) (Malawi) (Nepal) (Rwanda) (Tanzania) (Niger) Baseline DHS Endline DHS Baseline KPC EndlineKPC 18
  • Point-of-Use Water Treatment (2006/7 – 2011) 80 60Coverage (%) 40 20 0 CARE Concern GOAL PSI Relief Wellshare (Nepal) (Rwanda) (Ethiopia) (Malawi) (Niger) (Tanzania) Baseline (%) Endline (%) 19
  • Soap at the Place for Hand Washing (2006/7 – 2011) 100 80Coverage (%) 60 40 20 0 Nepal Rwanda Niger Tanzania PSI GOAL (CARE) (Concern) (Relief) (Wellshare) (Malawi) (Ethiopia) Baseline Endline 20
  • Child ITN use: A comparison of KPC and DHS data (2006/7 – 2011) 100 80Coverage (%) 60 40 20 0 Concern Wellshare Relief (Rwanda) (Tanzania) (Niger) Baseline DHS Endline DHS Baseline KPC EndlineKPC 21
  • Appropriate fever treatment: A comparison of KPC and DHS data (2006/7 – 2011) 60 40Coverage (%) 20 0 Concern Wellshare Relief (Rwanda) (Tanzania) (Niger) Baseline DHS Endline DHS Baseline KPC EndlineKPC 22
  • ANY QUESTIONS? Thank you!www.mchipngo.net www.mchip.net Follow us on:
  • Detailed baseline and endline KPC survey information Sampling Endline PVO BL Den BL Dates EL Den Notes Method Dates CARE Cluster 660 3/2008 660 3/2011 30 villages x 11 HHs x 2 districts BL: 6 dist x 5 SAs x 95 HHs 120 (well)Concern LQAS 570 2-3/2007 6-7/2011 EL: 6 dist x 20 HH (well), 61-74 HH (sick) 395 (sick) Well-child (0-23 mo); Sick-child (0-59 mo) GOAL LQAS 114 2/2008 114 8/2011 6 SAs x 19 communities 35 SAs x 19HHs 532 (2 dist) 2/2008 (2 dist) 532 (2 dist) Parsa: 13 SAs=247 (2007 CATCH) PLAN LQAS 6-7/2011 133 (Bara) 6/2006 (Bara) 133 (Bara) Sunsari: 15 SAs=285 (2007 CATCH) Bara: 7 SAs=133 (2000+ CATCH) 3-stage stratified cluster sampling PSI Cluster 300 2-3/2007 391 6-11/2010 Baseline KPC survey in Salima District Endline data extracted from 2010 DHS in Salima District BL: 30 clusters x 11HH from 453 villages in target district Relief Cluster 330 1/2008 358 9/2011 EL: 30 clusters x 12HH from 61 focus villages BL: 30 Clusters x 10 HHs EL: 45 Clusters x 10 HHs Save Cluster 300 2/2007 450 6/2011(?) Over-sampled 15 clusters in Ekwendeni catchment area (22 from Ekwendeni area, 23 from non-Ekwendeni area) BL: 34 clusters x 10HHsWellshare Cluster 340 2-3/2007 390 6/2011 EL: 30 clusters x 13HHs 24
  • FE KPC Best Practices Inclusion of BL and MT (if applicable) data Denominators and CIs for all %s (including BL and MT – not just EL) Comparison to baseline Possible explanations for changes or lack of change Tabulation tables as an annex Correct population-weighting DHS comparison (if applicable/possible) Dates that data were collected (including BL) Summary of any changes/recalculations that were made to BL data since DIP/initial submission Any differences in sampling methodology (BL vs. EL vs. MT) 25
  • Wellshare Reported MNC Indicators100 Baseline90 Final EOP Target80 TDHS 201070605040302010 0 ANC Skilled AMSTL Newborn Cord Care PPC PPC EBF Visits Provider Wrapped (Mother) (Newborn) 26
  • CARE Plan• CB-NCP (only Doti) • CB-NCP• BPP/Safe Motherhood Package • FCHV-led Pregnant Women’s Groups (subset• National c-IMCI strategy of mothers’ groups)• Birthing center establishment • Strong engagement of VDCs• FCHV-led mothers’ groups • Birthing center establishment• Involvement of mothers-in-law and husbands(decision makers)• SATH in marginalized communities• Leveraged other CARE projects Wellshare Save• VHC establishment • IMNC training manual• Long distance drivers – em trans & health ed • CBMNC package• Health advocates in 2 marginalized tribes • KMC expansion• AFYA 1-2-3 BCC campaign • ENC promotion (agogo)(3 key messages / intervention area)• TBA/CORPs-led community activities• TBA-led Survive & ThriveGroups, registers, home visits 27• TBAs repositioned
  • Concern Relief• CHW peer support groups • Women’s health groups• CHW home visits w/ counseling • Home visits• Community mobilization database • HW & CHW HH/C-IMCI training• IMCI bulletin • TBAs repositioned as delivery companions• Infrastructure development GOAL PSI• Adapted care groups • Social marketing + behavior change• CGV home visits • Targeted outreach communications• CGV referrals & follow-ups • Communication material development• Worked at health post level – capacity, • Helped with zinc inclusion in EDLsupportive supervision, QOC 28
  • [KU1]Will definitely remove but I think it would be useful to share internally to show what grantees are/aren’t reporting [OB2]I think you can remove this section. Summary of information included in/missing from KPC reportsPVO Information provided in KPC ReportCARE Did not calculate weighted averages/did not explain why; no explanation for change (or lack thereof) in indicators; compared to baseline; provided tables with denominators; also did capacity assessments of HFs, HWs, and FCHV but didn’t seem to link them all togetherConcern Provided some potential explanations for indicators within intervention areas and also compared them to baseline; did not discuss other CATCH indicators at all; provided CIs with estimates; denominators in a separate table; pop weighted SAs!GOAL Provided some potential explanations; provided both denominators and CIs; compared to MTE and BL (but neither had CIs); reported in database as one area but showed disaggregated results in FE (2 woredas) having small denominators (57 each); did not pop weight SAsPLAN Did not provide potential explanations – just #s, decision rule tables, and recommendations by SA for low-performing indicators; provided tables with estimates compared to MTE & BL but without CIs or Denominators (needed to go into the decision rule table to figure them out); Did not pop-weight SAs!PSI Used 2010 DHS data in their final KPC report. The conducted a TRAC survey in 2011 but did not use it in their FE report. Did not provide explanations for change or lack of change. Did not even include all CATCH indicators in the final KPC report, which was very short (4 pages?).Relief Provided some potential explanations; provided tables with denominators; compared to baseline in discussionSave Did not provide explanations – just #s and summaries; provided tables with denominators and weighted averages with CIs, as well as baseline % and denominator (would have been nice to see CI also); compared #s to baseline; database can accommodate designWellshare Provided Access file with KPC data; Also provided tabulation tables in their final KPC report; Provided BL & EL numerators, denominators, and CIs in indicator tables; Also compared to 2010 DHS; Did not include possible explanations for changes in the indicators in the KPC report – some in FE narrative. 29
  • Health Facility Delivery:A comparison of KPC and DHS data (2006/7 – 2011) 90 Baseline DHS 80 Endline DHS Baseline KPC 70 EndlineKPC 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Save CARE Plan Wellshare Malawi Nepal Nepal Tanzania 30