Rapid Catch Indicators Lunch Roundtable_10.12.12
-
Upload
core-group -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
2
Transcript of Rapid Catch Indicators Lunch Roundtable_10.12.12
Select KPC Results for Projects
that ended in 2011
October 12, 2012
Projects by country
2
Technical intervention areas and
levels of effort (LOE)
3
PVO/NGO CountryStart
YearNUT PCM CDD MAL MNC CS HIV
CARE 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%
CATCH Indicators with LOE moved
4
PVO Country #
Reported #
Stat Sig %
Stat Sig
Concern ** 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 %
CATCH indicators in M&E plan moved
5
PVO Country #
Reported #
Stat Sig %
Stat Sig # >=
TargetConcern Rwanda 4 4 100% 2
SC Malawi 4 3 75% 1
RI Niger 8 5 63% 6
Wellshare Tanzania 8 4 50% 5
PLAN Nepal 2 1 50% 2
CARE Nepal 5 2 40% 3
GOAL Ethiopia 15 4 27% 9
PSI Malawi 0 0 - 0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Co
vera
ge (
%)
Baseline Endline
Relief International:
Targeted CATCH/Key Indicators
6
Concern Worldwide:
Targeted CATCH Indicators
7
0
20
40
60
80
100
Child ITN Soap POU ORS/ RHS AntiMs <2days
ARI Care-seeking
Co
vera
ge (
%)
Baseline Endline
Infant and Young Child Feeding:Results from 2010 & 2011
8
0
20
40
60
80
100
Nepal (CARE)
Liberia (MTI)
Ethiopia (GOAL)
Peru (INMED)
Niger (RI)
Cambodia (IRD)
Covera
ge (
%)
Baseline Endline
Newborn postnatal visit within 3 days:Results from 2010 & 2011
9
0
20
40
60
80
100
Nepal(CARE)
Liberia(MTI)
Kenya(HR)
Cambodia(IRD)
Kenya(AMREF)
Tanzania(Wellshare)
Nepal(PLAN)
Malawi(SC)
Covera
ge (
%)
Baseline Endline
DHS for comparison
10
CountryDHS
year 1
DHS
year 2
Ethiopia 2005 2011
Malawi 2004 2010
Nepal 2006 2011
Niger 2006 N/A
Rwanda 2005 2010
Tanzania 2004-05 2010
0
20
40
60
80
100
Goal
(Ethiopia)
Save
(Malawi)
CARE
(Nepal)
Plan
(Nepal)
Wellshare
(Tanzania)
Co
vera
ge
(%
)
Baseline DHS Endline DHS Baseline KPC EndlineKPC
4+ Antenatal Care Visits:
A comparison of KPC and DHS data (2006/7 - 2011)
11
0
20
40
60
80
100
Goal
(Ethiopia)
Save
(Malawi)
CARE
(Nepal)
Plan
(Nepal)
Wellshare
(Tanzania)
Relief
(Niger)
Co
vera
ge
(%
)
Baseline DHS Endline DHS Baseline KPC EndlineKPC
2+ Maternal Tetanus Toxoid Vaccinations:
A comparison of KPC and DHS data (2006/7 - 2011)
12
Skilled Birth Attendance:
A comparison of KPC and DHS data (2006/7 - 2011)
13
0
20
40
60
80
100
Goal
(Ethiopia)
Save
(Malawi)
CARE
(Nepal)
Plan
(Nepal)
Wellshare
(Tanzania)
Relief
(Niger)
Co
vera
ge
(%
)
Baseline DHS Endline DHS Baseline KPC EndlineKPC
0
20
40
60
80
100
Goal(Ethiopia)
Save (Malawi)
CARE (Nepal)
Plan(Nepal)
Wellshare (Tanzania)
Relief(Niger)
Co
vera
ge (
%)
Baseline DHS Endline DHS Baseline KPC EndlineKPC
Breastfeeding within 1 Hour:
A comparison of KPC and DHS data (2006/7 - 2011)
14
0
20
40
60
80
100
CARE
(Nepal)
Plan
(Nepal)
Goal
(Ethiopia)
Save
(Malawi)
Wellshare
(Tanzania)
Relief
(Niger)
Co
ve
rag
e (
%)
Baseline DHS Endline DHS Baseline KPC EndlineKPC
Exclusive Breastfeeding 0-5 months:
A comparison of KPC and DHS data (2006/7 - 2011)
15
0
10
20
30
40
50
Goal
Ethiopia
Save
(Malawi)
PSI
(Malawi)
CARE
(Nepal)
Plan
(Nepal)
Relief
(Niger)
Co
vera
ge
(%
)
Baseline DHS Endline DHS Baseline KPC EndlineKPC
Underweight:
A comparison of KPC and DHS data (2006/7 – 2011)
16
0
20
40
60
80
100
CARE
(Nepal)
Concern
(Rwanda)
Wellshare
(Tanzania)
Co
vera
ge
(%
)
Baseline DHS Endline DHS Baseline KPC EndlineKPC
Pneumonia Care-seeking:
A comparison of KPC and DHS data (2006/7 – 2011)
17
ORS/RHF:
A comparison of KPC and DHS data (2006/7 - 2011)
18
0
20
40
60
80
Goal
(Ethiopia)
PSI
(Malawi)
CARE
(Nepal)
Concern
(Rwanda)
Wellshare
(Tanzania)
Relief
(Niger)
Co
vera
ge
(%
)
Baseline DHS Endline DHS Baseline KPC EndlineKPC
Point-of-Use Water Treatment (2006/7 – 2011)
19
0
20
40
60
80
CARE (Nepal)
Concern (Rwanda)
GOAL (Ethiopia)
PSI (Malawi)
Relief (Niger)
Wellshare (Tanzania)
Co
vera
ge (
%)
Baseline (%) Endline (%)
Soap at the Place for Hand Washing (2006/7 – 2011)
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Nepal(CARE)
Rwanda(Concern)
Niger(Relief)
Tanzania(Wellshare)
PSI (Malawi)
GOAL(Ethiopia)
Co
vera
ge (
%)
Baseline Endline
Child ITN use:
A comparison of KPC and DHS data (2006/7 – 2011)
21
0
20
40
60
80
100
Concern
(Rwanda)
Wellshare
(Tanzania)
Relief
(Niger)
Co
vera
ge
(%
)
Baseline DHS Endline DHS Baseline KPC EndlineKPC
Appropriate fever treatment:
A comparison of KPC and DHS data (2006/7 – 2011)
22
0
20
40
60
Concern
(Rwanda)
Wellshare
(Tanzania)
Relief
(Niger)
Co
vera
ge
(%
)
Baseline DHS Endline DHS Baseline KPC EndlineKPC
Thank you!
www.mchipngo.net
www.mchip.net
Follow us on:
ANY QUESTIONS?
Detailed baseline and endline KPC
survey information
24
PVOSampling
MethodBL Den BL Dates EL Den
Endline
DatesNotes
CARE Cluster 660 3/2008 660 3/2011 30 villages x 11 HHs x 2 districts
Concern LQAS 570 2-3/2007120 (well)
395 (sick)6-7/2011
BL: 6 dist x 5 SAs x 95 HHs
EL: 6 dist x 20 HH (well), 61-74 HH (sick)
Well-child (0-23 mo); Sick-child (0-59 mo)
GOAL LQAS 114 2/2008 114 8/2011 6 SAs x 19 communities
PLAN LQAS532 (2 dist)
133 (Bara)
2/2008 (2 dist)
6/2006 (Bara)
532 (2 dist)
133 (Bara)6-7/2011
35 SAs x 19HHs
Parsa: 13 SAs=247 (2007 CATCH)
Sunsari: 15 SAs=285 (2007 CATCH)
Bara: 7 SAs=133 (2000+ CATCH)
PSI Cluster 300 2-3/2007 391 6-11/20103-stage stratified cluster sampling
Baseline KPC survey in Salima District
Endline data extracted from 2010 DHS in Salima District
Relief Cluster 330 1/2008 358 9/2011BL: 30 clusters x 11HH from 453 villages in target district
EL: 30 clusters x 12HH from 61 focus villages
Save Cluster 300 2/2007 450 6/2011(?)
BL: 30 Clusters x 10 HHs
EL: 45 Clusters x 10 HHs
Over-sampled 15 clusters in Ekwendeni catchment area
(22 from Ekwendeni area, 23 from non-Ekwendeni area)
Wellshare Cluster 340 2-3/2007 390 6/2011BL: 34 clusters x 10HHs
EL: 30 clusters x 13HHs
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 Indicators
26
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
ANC Visits
Skilled Provider
AMSTL Newborn Wrapped
Cord Care PPC (Mother)
PPC (Newborn)
EBF
Baseline
Final
EOP Target
TDHS 2010
27
CARE Plan
• CB-NCP (only Doti)
• BPP/Safe Motherhood Package
• National c-IMCI strategy
• Birthing center establishment
• FCHV-led mothers’ groups
• Involvement of mothers-in-law and husbands
(decision makers)
• SATH in marginalized communities
• Leveraged other CARE projects
• CB-NCP
• FCHV-led Pregnant Women’s Groups (subset
of mothers’ groups)
• Strong engagement of VDCs
• Birthing center establishment
Wellshare Save
• VHC establishment
• Long distance drivers – em trans & health ed
• Health advocates in 2 marginalized tribes
• AFYA 1-2-3 BCC campaign
(3 key messages / intervention area)
• TBA/CORPs-led community activities
• TBA-led Survive & Thrive
Groups, registers, home visits
• TBAs repositioned
• IMNC training manual
• CBMNC package
• KMC expansion
• ENC promotion (agogo)
28
Concern Relief
• CHW peer support groups
• CHW home visits w/ counseling
• Community mobilization database
• IMCI bulletin
• Infrastructure development
• Women’s health groups
• Home visits
• HW & CHW HH/C-IMCI training
• TBAs repositioned as delivery companions
GOAL PSI
• Adapted care groups
• CGV home visits
• CGV referrals & follow-ups
• Worked at health post level – capacity,
supportive supervision, QOC
• Social marketing + behavior change
• Targeted outreach communications
• Communication material development
• Helped with zinc inclusion in EDL
Summary of information included
in/missing from KPC reports
29
PVO Information provided in KPC Report
CARE 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
together
Concern 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 SAs
PLAN 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 discussion
Save 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 design
Wellshare 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.
[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.
Health Facility Delivery:
A comparison of KPC and DHS data (2006/7 – 2011)
30
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Save Malawi
CARE Nepal
Plan Nepal
Wellshare Tanzania
Baseline DHS
Endline DHS
Baseline KPC
EndlineKPC