Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jun 30;15(sup1):2006423.
doi: 10.1080/16549716.2021.2006423.

Strengthening effectiveness evaluations to improve programs for women, children and adolescents

Affiliations

Strengthening effectiveness evaluations to improve programs for women, children and adolescents

Agbessi Amouzou et al. Glob Health Action. .

Abstract

A full understanding of the pathways from efficacious interventions to population impact requires rigorous effectiveness evaluations conducted under realistic scale-up conditions at country level. In this paper, we introduce a deductive framework that underpins effectiveness evaluations. This framework forms the theoretical and conceptual basis for the 'Real Accountability: Data Analysis for Results' (RADAR) project, intended to address gaps in guidance and tools for the evaluation of projects being implemented at scale to reduce mortality among women and children. These gaps include needs for a framework to guide decisions about evaluations and practical measurement tools, as well as increased capacity in evaluation practice among donors and program planners at global, national and project levels. RADAR aimed to improve the evidence base for program and policy decisions in reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health and nutrition (RMNCH&N). We focus on five linked methodological steps - presented as core evaluation questions - for designing and implementing effectiveness evaluation of large-scale programs that support both the needs of program managers to improve their programs and the needs of donors to meet their accountability responsibilities. RADAR has operationalized each step with a tool to facilitate its application. We also describe cross-cutting methodological issues and broader contextual factors that affect the planning and implementation of such evaluations. We conclude with proposals for how the global RMNCH&N community can support rigorous program evaluations and make better use of the resulting evidence.

Keywords: Reproductive; accountability; adolescent health; child; effectiveness evaluation; maternal; newborn; nutrition; program evaluation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Figures

Figure 1a.
Figure 1a.
A common framework for evaluating the scale-up for maternal and child survival.
Figure 1b.
Figure 1b.
Core questions about RMNCH&N programs for program managers, governments and donors, related to the common framework for evaluating the scale-up for maternal and child survival.

References

    1. Shiffman J, Shawar YR.. Strengthening accountability of the global health metrics enterprise. Lancet. 2020. 2020 Apr 16;395:4–15. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Amouzou A, Hazel E, Shaw B, et al. Effects of the integrated community case management of childhood illness strategy on child mortality in Ethiopia: a cluster randomized trial. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2016;19:15–0586. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Munos M, Guiella G, Roberton T, et al. Independent evaluation of the rapid scale-up program to reduce under-five mortality in Burkina Faso. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2016;19:15–0585. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Raifman JG, Lam F, Keller JM, et al. Evaluating evaluations: assessing the quality of aid agency evaluations in global health. CGD Working Paper 461. 2017. cited 2020 Apr 28. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development. Available from: https://www.cgdev.org/publication/evaluating-evaluations-assessing-quali...
    1. Pritchett L. It pays to be ignorant: a simple political economy of rigorous program evaluation. J Policy Reform. 2002;5:251–269.

Publication types