Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26965038›Full record

ArticleHealth policy and planning2016

Measuring implementation strength: lessons from the evaluation of public health strategies in low- and middle-income settings.

James R M Hargreaves, Catherine Goodman, Calum Davey, Barbara A Willey, Bilal Iqbal Avan, Joanna Rm Armstrong Schellenberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health policy and planning, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Did a quality improvement intervention improve quality of maternal health care? Implementation evaluation from a cluster-randomized controlled study.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2020
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

James R M HargreavesFaculty of Public Health and Policy, james.hargreaves@lshtm.ac.uk.
Catherine GoodmanFaculty of Public Health and Policy.
Calum DaveyFaculty of Public Health and Policy.
Barbara A WilleyFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health and.
Bilal Iqbal AvanFaculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.
Joanna Rm Armstrong SchellenbergFaculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K012126/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evaluation of strategies to ensure evidence-based, low-cost interventions reach those in need is critical. One approach is to measure the strength, or intensity, with which packages of interventions are delivered, in order to explore the association between implementation strength and public health gains. A recent systematic review suggested methodological guidance was needed. We described the approaches used in three examples of measures of implementation strength in evaluation. These addressed important public health topics with a substantial disease burden in low-and middle-income countries; they involved large-scale implementation; and featured evaluation designs without comparison areas. Strengths and weaknesses of the approaches were discussed. In the evaluation of Ethiopia's Health Extension Programme, implementation strength scoring for each kebele (ward) was based on aggregated data from interviews with mothers of children aged 12-23 months, reflecting their reports of contact with four elements of the programme. An evaluation of the Avahan HIV prevention programme in India used the cumulative amount of Avahan funding per HIV-infected person spent each year in each district. In these cases, a single measure was developed and the association with hypothesised programme outcomes presented. In the evaluation of the Affordable Medicines Facility-malaria, several implementation strength measures were developed based on the duration of activity of the programme and the level of implementation of supporting interventions. Measuring the strength of programme implementation and assessing its association with outcomes is a promising approach to strengthen pragmatic impact evaluation. Five key aspects of developing an implementation strength measure are to: (a) develop a logic model; (b) identify aspects of implementation to be assessed; (c) design and implement data collection from a range of data sources; (d) decide whether and how to combine data into a single measure; and, (e) plan whether and how to use the measure(s) in outcome analysis.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth Plan ImplementationProgram EvaluationPublic HealthEthiopiaEvidence-Based MedicineHIV InfectionsHumansIndiaInfantMalariaAfricaAsiaEvaluationHIV/AIDSimplementation strengthmalariamaternalnewborn and child health

Identifiers

PMID26965038
PMCPMC4977426

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.