Evaluation: Lessons Learned for the Global Health Initiative
•
1 like•544 views
This document summarizes lessons learned from evaluations of global health programs. It discusses challenges with evaluation designs and provides examples of evaluations in Kenya, Tanzania, Nigeria, and Bangladesh. Key lessons are the importance of clear program descriptions, considering impact pathways, assessing implementation, combining quantitative and qualitative data, and focusing on using findings to inform programs.
![Overview ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Evaluation: Lessons Learned for the Global Health Initiative
Similar to Evaluation: Lessons Learned for the Global Health Initiative (20)
More from MEASURE Evaluation
More from MEASURE Evaluation (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Evaluation: Lessons Learned for the Global Health Initiative
- 1. Evaluation: Lessons Learned for the Global Health Initiative Siân Curtis, PhD Project Director, MEASURE Evaluation Carolina Population Center September 27th, 2010, Washington, DC
- 9. Example 1: Evaluation of PEPFAR OVC Programs in Kenya and Tanzania
- 11. Children’s Psychosocial Well-being Three programs offered Home Visiting & two offered Guardian Support Groups Child Outcomes Pro-social behavior Total difficulties Adult support Global self-esteem Social isolation Support Group Effect Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect Home Visiting No Effect Effect Effect Effect Effect
- 12. Prevalence of Home Visiting
- 15. Example 2: COMPASS Project Evaluation, Nigeria
- 19. Example 3: NSDP Evaluation, Bangladesh
- 21. Antenatal Care from a Trained Provider, Births in last year, Rural Areas Rural NSDP Rural Non-NSDP 56 48
- 22. Iron Supplementation Rural NSDP and non-NSDP Remember: ANC (last 1 year) was 56% in 2005 so, Iron<ANC 6.9 Rural NSDP Rural Non-NSDP 2.6 2.8 -1.4
- 27. M&E Staircase: HIV/AIDS Source: Adapted from Rugg et al. 2004
- 28. Source: Bryce, 2010. Step Wise Approaches to Evaluation: Child Survival
- 32. MEASURE Evaluation is funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development through Cooperative Agreement GHA-A-00-08-00003-00 and is implemented by the Carolina Population Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in partnership with Futures Group, ICF Macro, John Snow, Inc., Management Sciences for Health, and Tulane University. The views expressed in this presentation do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States government. Visit us online at http://www.cpc.unc.edu/measure.
Editor's Notes
- .
- Household surveys targeted children age 8-14 or 7-15. Multiple questionnaires; 1) household 2) caregiver 3) caregiver questionnaire on child 4) child questionnaire. Sample sizes range from 488 caregivers in the TSA program in Tanzania to 3,423 children in the IAP program in Kenya. Details of samples vary across programs but generally intervention group consists of children (and their households and caregivers) enrolled in the program of interest and the comparison group consists of children from the same (or adjacent) community, often newly identified as OVC/MVC.
- Effects not consistent across programs – only one outcome affected by two programs No more than two outcomes per program Check details of models here: are they multivariate models? Do they only include children who reported received the service as opposed to all children identified as intervention children in the analysis? Our friend Home visiting evaluated across 3 programs Allamano, CRS & TSA PSS Outcomes: Only Allamano’s home visits associated with higher levels of child-reported adult support, lower isolation among children Only TSA’s home visits associated with higher levels child self-esteem CRS’ home visits fewer behavioral problems among beneficiaries CRS and Allamano - Lower isolation among children Overall, no more than two per program and one only one…. Anyone explain this-- Different training curriculums & few psychosocial skills Only one outcome– social isolation– in two programs; encourage children to play; a special visitor for them SG– only 1, CRS Support groups– not targeting children, but trickling down to help them promote better behaviors among their children. Also, these were guardians reported measures, so could also be affecting their own perceptions and acceptance of child behaviors
- Only 49%, 29%, and 57% of the intervention group of CRS, TSA, and Allamano, respectively, reported having a home visitor. These findings were unexpected as programmers assumed that most, if not all, would report receiving this core service.
- Would you rather drive completely blind or in a heavy fog? What do you need to make decisions?
- Peter: Is this among women who got ANC?