Transcript Polio Communication Indicators

Polio Communication
Indicators
Reflections from Polio
Communication TAG/Review
Process
Review panel
Field Trip
National and subnational
presentations
Recommendations.
2008 TAGS + Local
Review panel
Multiple
presentations
Recommendations
2007 National
Review panel
Multiple national
presentations
Recommendations
2006 Regional
2005 Global
History and Background
Review panel
Field Trip
Sub-national focus
and chair
Recommendations.
Communication
representation on
TAGs/ERC
What follows flows from this process and is based on the
reflections of several of the panelists. It focuses on the needs and
conditions of polio communication programmes in the four
endemic countries and specifically on communication for HRAs.
Present situation

Polio eradication challenges:




Need to maintain overall awareness.
Need to respond to issues within specific groups or
localities (fatigue, refusals, mis-information, gender
relations, cross border coordination, nomads,
security, access etc)
Need to maintain morale and commitment among
communities, teams, local and national leaders,
global donors.
Need to do all of this in the context of diminishing
resources.
Present situation

Routine Immunization and polio




The eradication of polio has been a huge effort and there are
lessons to be learned across many sectors of health including
communication
The ultimate success of PEI (global certification) depends on
successful RI
Successful RI will depend in part on strong communication both
in terms of national awareness and in terms of building political
commitment, accessing local and global resources, building
demand and ownership amongst disparate communities
Many of the indicators that make sense for Polio will make sense
for RI
Key Questions 1 of 4

Are key programme messages being heard and are they
resonating with caregivers, health professionals and
community leaders across a range of cultural, religious,
ethnic, urban and rural differences:





Are messages being appropriately tailored to different groups?
Are those groups confident in the safety of OPV?
Do they understand and believe the need for multiple doses and
rounds?
Do they accept and want their newborns to receive OPV?
What are the reasons for missed children and are conversion
rates improving?
Key Questions 2 of 4

Is the programme building an environment of ownership
and trust:




Are communities and influencers participating in activities like
flag-offs/inaugurations?
Do community meetings on polio have good attendance and real
participation and do they achieve the kinds of positive action or
outcome they were held to engender?
Is the media covering polio accurately, how receptive is it to
epidemiological and campaign information and is the overall tone
of media coverage positive, negative or neutral?
Are religious, political and other leaders behind the campaign at
all levels but especially in HRAs?
Key Questions 3 of 4

Does the programme have the people in place to do the
work:




Are the posts filled for all the roles the programme requires
(these may vary from country to country but for example national, regional and district polio coordinators, supervisors,
vaccinators, underserved coordinators, independent monitors,
CMCs, BMCs etc)
Are they adequately trained and motivated to do the
communication aspects of their jobs well?
Are there enough of them and are they placed appropriately to
cover the communication needs of especially though not
exclusively prioritised HRAs and groups?
Are they appropriate to the communities they are working with in
terms of gender, religion, ethnicity etc.
Key Questions 4 of 4

Is the programme well planned and monitored:





Is essential programme data being collected accurately and
analysed from a communication perspective?
Are there national, regional and local communication plans in
place?
Does each micro-plan have a strong communication component
which is reviewed and updated after each round?
Is media tonality being monitored and are there plans in place to
work with media regularly?
Is there an accepted cycle of monitoring the programme that
incorporates data collection, analysis, strategic reflection and
revision of communication plans between each round at all
levels?
These questions led us to…

A set of 14 example indicators we hoped would help to:






Facilitate discussion within countries seeking to strengthen their
own indicators
Utilise data collected from campaigns, surveillance and
programme research effectively from national to lowest
administrative level.
Guide planning, monitoring and resource allocation.
Ensure a flexible approach focused on needs of high risk areas
while maintaining high general awareness.
Establish trend data related to strategies and activities.
View communication as an ‘internal’ tool for improving
operations and maintaining morale etc as well as an ‘external’
tool for building ownership, demand and immunisation seeking
behaviour.
5 example indicators 1 of 5

Use AFP surveillance, control room and PCM data to
analyse case characteristics and data on zero, low dose
and missed children to identify where the highest risk
areas are among what populations with what
characteristics.
Communication Indicator 1:
Percentage of high risk areas/population groups have
been reached with communication strategies
specifically designed to respond to problems in those
areas (ie reaching underserved populations,
increasing newborn vaccination or reducing low dose
children). Target = 100%
5 example indicators 2 of 5

Use PCM and independent monitoring data to analyse
the number and location of areas with poor coverage by
reason and the percentage of children and households
converted between rounds.
Communication Indicator 2:
Percentage of areas with coverage <95% in previous
round that have updated social maps to track
conversions by reason in subsequent round. Target =
100%
5 example indicators 3 of 5

Use KAPB and other studies along with PCM
data to measure key PEI knowledge and
information sources.
Communication Indicator 3:
Percentage of households that know about the round
before by source of information. Target 80%
Percentage of households that can recall at least 2 of
3 key messages. Target = 80%
5 example indicators 4 of 5

Use staff performance reports to track between
round revisiting.
Communication Indicator 4:
Percentage of non-converted refusal households in
prior round visited by an influential person between
rounds. Target = 80%
5 example indicators 5 of 5

Use regular media monitoring reports to track
international, national and local media coverage,
respond to mis-information and develop media
management/engagement strategies.
Communication Indicator 5:
Percentage of media stories by tonality. Target =
80% positive or neutral.
Percentage of media stories with one or more error of
polio fact. Target = Less than 5%.