Transcript - Africa Hub

Log frame commitments &
monitoring processes
Overview of logframe
• These are commitments which we must report
against to DFID
• The time frame for reporting is:– Milestone 1 – Sep 30, 2013
– Milestone 2 – Sept 30, 2015
– Milestone 3 – Dec 31, 2016
• Data collected through:–
–
–
–
Ongoing research
Monthly reporting
Routine data
Expert review
Program Goal
• Indicator - Utilization of quality primary health
care services in study areas described on a
country-specific basis
• Baseline measurements to be conducted
during Year 1
• Baseline measures to be used to set indicator
targets
Country
Possible indicators
Source
Data available year 1
Afghanistan
BSC scorecard indicator..
Community
scorecard
measures
yes
Bangladesh
Number of drugs prescribed per OP
visit
Rational drug use (?)
Exit interview ?
China
Infant hospitalization mortality rate
Inpatient mortality rate
No. of outpatient visits per capita for
poor and non-poor in catchment area
Number of hospitalizations per capita
for poor and non-poor in rural
catchment area
Hospital data
NCMS
India
Patient satisfaction scores at primary
care providers
Percentage of childhood illness
episodes treated by a qualified health
care provider
Exit interview Yes
Coverage of (i) ANC (ii) attended
deliveries and (iii) postnatal care
Facility
records
Uganda
Probably yes
Hhold survey
Yes
Program Purpose
• Indicator - Number of new (i) policies (ii)
programmes and initiatives and (iii) practices
that reflect RPC research, or changes to
existing policies, programmes and practices
• Targets
– Sept 30, 2013; policies – 0; programs – 4; practices
–8
– End project: policies – 6; programs – 16; practices
– 32
Achievements to-date (end March)
• Policy change – substantial policy engagement, but no
policy change reported yet
• Change in programs or initiatives – 1 (Uganda Kamuli
district health office trial of ambulances)
• Change in practices – 2 (Uganda Bugabula district,
tricycle ambulance scheme; District health authorities
recruiting and posting more health workers to health
units)
• Questions:
– Can we clearly distinguish between policies, programs and
practice?
– Do we need to improve reporting standards (eg. JHSPH)
Indicators for outputs 1-3
Sept 30 2013
Sept 30 2015
Dec 31 2016
Cumulative number of peer review 3
publications on unlocking
community capabilities accepted
for publication
8
15
Cumulative number of peer review 3
papers on technical and
organizational innovation
accepted for publication
8
15
Best practice in establishing rapid
learning cycles, and facilitating
learning by diverse health service
stakeholders identified.
6
10
2
Papers to-date
Submitted
Accepted
UCC
1 (JHSPH)
2 (JHSPH)
Innovation
0
3 (China)
Learning by doing
0
0
CAS
2 (IDS)
1 (JHSPH)
Other
2 (India)
1 (IDS)
1 (IDS)
4 (JHSPH)
Not that far “off-target” with exception of Learning by doing –
would be good if CAS could replace learning by doing.
Also note large number of “other” papers
Indicators for Output 4 – PIRU
• Policymakers and practitioners find FHS
outputs, relevant, accessible and timely
– Average number of unique web visitors per month
during past six months
– Number of e-newsletter subscribers (Please note
that individuals need to request to be added to
the FHS contact list)
– Expert panel assess FHS products to be relevant,
accessible and timely for policy makers
Targets and achievements to-date PIRU
baseline
current
Target Sept 30,
2013
Web visitors per
month
575
1154
1100
# e-newsletter
subscribers
75
254
250
Indicators for Output 5 – capacity
development
• Capacity for high quality, policy-relevant, health
services and systems research strengthened in focal
and African hub countries
– Proportion of respondents in Schools of Public Health in
the African hub who agree or strongly agree with positive
statements about institutional capacity for health systems
research
– Cumulative number of faculty receiving capacity
development support through FHS from (i) training
workshops (ii) formal mentoring arrangements or (iii) small
grant opportunities
– Number of papers accepted by peer review journals in
which junior researchers in the FHS team have been (i)
lead authors (ii) co-authors
Respondents agreeing with statements about
institutional capacity across African Hub
Jimma
I feel confident that there 3.92
are individuals in this
college who can provide
high level leadership for
HSR
Staff in this college have
adequate knowledge to
teach HSR
3.54
KEY:
Strongly Disagree = 1
Disagree = 2
Neither agree nor disagree = 3
Agree = 4
Strongly agree = 5
Mean Scores from Institutions
MakSPH Kinshasa Muhimbili Moi
4.53
4.1
3.88
4.50
4.07
4.0
3.69
3.63
Numbers faculty (i) trained (ii)
mentored (iii) receiving grants
To-date
# faculty receiving
capacity development
support from training
workshops
31 (16 male, 15 female)
# faculty receiving
mentoring support
6 male, 2 female
Target Sept 30, 2013
Male – 15, female - 15
Note:
1. Under-reporting: no trainings reported by Bangladesh, China, JHSPH
Monitoring processes
• Teams submit monthly reports at end of each
month
– 0verall working smoothly
– JHSPH collates in spread sheets
– SB, DL, JK discuss, plan follow-up
• Other things measured besides indicators
above: research implementation process,
gender issues, lessons learnt, non-peer review
products, risks
Questions
• How is the monitoring process working for
you?
• Is it worthwhile seeking to negotiate any
changes in our log frame?