Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Community HIV ProgramIndicatorsMEASURE EvaluationTulane UniversityMary Freyder
Purpose of Presentation Rationale for the community indicator project Donor organization consultations On-line technica...
Rationale Reduce reporting burdens for communitybased organizations Track prevention, care, testing, and linkagesat the ...
Aim Harmonize PEPFAR and Global Fundcommunity program indicators Improve the technical merit of communityindicators Hig...
Extensive International Consultation 2009 meeting Community Based Information SystemsMEASURE Evaluation in D.C. 2010 mee...
Community of Practice“The overall goal of the Indicators for Community HIVPrograms CoP is to gather expert opinion on the ...
Indicator Selection Criteria Represent services that address the continuum ofprevention, treatment, care, and support Fu...
CoP Recommendations Oct 2011 Outreachencounters Completed DEBIs PwP Condom stock-outs Needle/Syringestock out Receiv...
Field Tests in Vietnam and Kenya To assess the need and utility of therecommended indicators for both CBOs andnational au...
Mixed Methods Approach Individual and small group consultations In the style of semi-structured interviews Review progr...
Field Test Participants Kenya 7 community organizations 35 interviews Vietnam 7 community organizations 20 interviews
Field Test Recommendations (I) “Minimum Package of Services” should beillustrative at the international level Focus on d...
Field Test Recommendations (II) Proposed prevention indicators are feasibleand useful encounters, standardized preventio...
Field Test Recommendations (III) Consider counting households receiving careand support Right now a mix of individuals a...
Field Test Recommendations (IV) Uncommon community services; indicatorsnot required at this time Nutrition assessments f...
Field Test Recommendations (V) Paper-based systems still relevant Possible to track # individuals in a reportingperiod ...
Field Test Recommendations (VI) Community services found during field testnot represented in indicator list HIV preventi...
Final Indicators for Prevention Services Number of HIV prevention outreach encountersconducted during the reporting perio...
Final Indicators for Prevention Materials Number and proportion of days during thereporting period that stock outs of con...
Final Indicator for Care Services Number of adults and children infected and/oraffected by HIV/AIDS who received a minimu...
Final Indicator for Testing and Linkages Number and proportion of clients referred to HIVtesting and counseling services ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Community HIV Program Indicators

918 views

Published on

Presentation by MEASURE Evaluation's Mary Freyder, Tulane University.

Published in: Health & Medicine
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Community HIV Program Indicators

  1. 1. Community HIV ProgramIndicatorsMEASURE EvaluationTulane UniversityMary Freyder
  2. 2. Purpose of Presentation Rationale for the community indicator project Donor organization consultations On-line technical forum series Field tests in Vietnam and Kenya Description of recommended indicators
  3. 3. Rationale Reduce reporting burdens for communitybased organizations Track prevention, care, testing, and linkagesat the community level
  4. 4. Aim Harmonize PEPFAR and Global Fundcommunity program indicators Improve the technical merit of communityindicators Highlight a few of the emerging indicators thatwould fill gaps in knowledge about communityprograms
  5. 5. Extensive International Consultation 2009 meeting Community Based Information SystemsMEASURE Evaluation in D.C. 2010 meeting Community Program IndicatorsMEASURE Evaluation in D.C. 2010 meeting Community Systems StrengtheningGlobal Fund in Geneva 2010 internal review of Community Program Indicatorsall PEPFAR TWGs in D.C.
  6. 6. Community of Practice“The overall goal of the Indicators for Community HIVPrograms CoP is to gather expert opinion on the bestmetrics for community HIV program performance and togain consensus on minimum standards for monitoringcommunity HIV services and health outcomes.”http://knowledge-gateway.org/registration/PreviewInvitation.ashx?c=24643e57-e93e-49df-ae1c-f798ea662a16&i=61fe624d-0aaa-49ab-abeb-83d0ef89e10a
  7. 7. Indicator Selection Criteria Represent services that address the continuum ofprevention, treatment, care, and support Fully defined and currently used Collected/used at the community level andaggregated/used at national level Collected by community-based information system(non-clinic based) Not include indicators from national level surveys orspecial studies
  8. 8. CoP Recommendations Oct 2011 Outreachencounters Completed DEBIs PwP Condom stock-outs Needle/Syringestock out Received HTC Completed referral One care service UndernourishedPLHIV Children assessedfor individual needs
  9. 9. Field Tests in Vietnam and Kenya To assess the need and utility of therecommended indicators for both CBOs andnational authorities. To determine the feasibility of collecting andanalyzing data for the recommended indicators. To assess whether or not the draftrecommended indicators are fully defined
  10. 10. Mixed Methods Approach Individual and small group consultations In the style of semi-structured interviews Review program records, documents and datamanagement systems In the style of Data Quality Assessments Request copies of relevant documents and forms
  11. 11. Field Test Participants Kenya 7 community organizations 35 interviews Vietnam 7 community organizations 20 interviews
  12. 12. Field Test Recommendations (I) “Minimum Package of Services” should beillustrative at the international level Focus on developing national guidelines forcommunity services is important Feasibility of data collection per local context Validity, i.e. more closely represents the service Reliability, i.e. less open to interpretation from onesite to another
  13. 13. Field Test Recommendations (II) Proposed prevention indicators are feasibleand useful encounters, standardized prevention interventions,stock outs, community PwP services One care service important and useful; thereis overlap with PwP Completed referrals to a specific service ispossible, but ambitious HIV testing, ART defaulters
  14. 14. Field Test Recommendations (III) Consider counting households receiving careand support Right now a mix of individuals and head ofhousehold under one care service The option to count individuals and/or households HTC and PWP indicators are from clinic-based information systems Disaggregate by type of site would very useful tolocal and national level
  15. 15. Field Test Recommendations (IV) Uncommon community services; indicatorsnot required at this time Nutrition assessments for PLHIV Individual needs assessments for children oradults Supporting or tracking all/various completedreferrals
  16. 16. Field Test Recommendations (V) Paper-based systems still relevant Possible to track # individuals in a reportingperiod Managing longitudinal records is not possible,therefore difficult to track: needs assessments completed referrals individual level outcomes
  17. 17. Field Test Recommendations (VI) Community services found during field testnot represented in indicator list HIV prevention with people who injected drugs Finding ART defaulters in the community ART adherence support
  18. 18. Final Indicators for Prevention Services Number of HIV prevention outreach encountersconducted during the reporting period Number of people who completed a standardizedHIV prevention intervention during the reportingperiod Number of people living with HIV/AIDS (PLHIV)reached with a minimum package of community-based or home-based interventions forPrevention with Positives (PwP) during thereporting period
  19. 19. Final Indicators for Prevention Materials Number and proportion of days during thereporting period that stock outs of condomsoccurred at prevention sites Number and proportion of days during thereporting period that stock outs of needles and/orsyringes occurred at prevention sites
  20. 20. Final Indicator for Care Services Number of adults and children infected and/oraffected by HIV/AIDS who received a minimumof one community-based or home-based careand support service during the reporting period PLHIV OVC Caretaker of OVC(s) Head of household All members of household
  21. 21. Final Indicator for Testing and Linkages Number and proportion of clients referred to HIVtesting and counseling services by a community-based program and received their test results inthe reporting period

×