Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29422099›Full record

ArticleReproductive health2018

Applying the results based management framework to the CERCA multi-component project in adolescent sexual and reproductive health: a retrospective analysis.

Kathya Cordova-Pozo, Andrea J Hoopes, Freddy Cordova, Bernardo Vega, Zoyla Segura, Arnold Hagens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reproductive health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. The Need for Implementation Research for Community-based Interventions: Scientific Evidence Is Needed.International journal of community based nursing and midwifery · 2022
    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.

Kathya Cordova-PozoSouth Group, C. Ecuador O-138, Edificio Holanda, A-3A, Cochabamba, Bolivia. kathya.cordova@southgroup.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0890-8657
Andrea J HoopesKaiser Permanente Washington, 13451 SE 36th, Bellevue, WA, 98006, USA.
Freddy CordovaSouth Group, C. Ecuador O-138, Edificio Holanda, A-3A, Cochabamba, Bolivia.
Bernardo VegaUniversity of Cuenca- Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, Avenida 12 de abril S/N sector El Paraíso, Cuenca, Ecuador.
Zoyla SeguraInstituto Centroamericano de la Salud, Reparto Los Robles, Restaurante La Marsellaise 1 c. al norte 1 c. al este, casa #, 77, Managua, Nicaragua.
Arnold HagensSouth Group, C. Ecuador O-138, Edificio Holanda, A-3A, Cochabamba, Bolivia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdolescent sexual and reproductive health (SRH), problems such as unplanned pregnancies are complex and multifactorial, thus requiring multifaceted prevention interventions. Evaluating the impact of such interventions is important to ensure efficiency, effectiveness and accountability for project funders and community members. In this study, we propose Results Based Management (RBM) as a framework for project management, using the Community Embedded Reproductive Health Care for Adolescents (CERCA) as a case study for RBM. The CERCA Project (2010-2014) tested interventions to reduce adolescent pregnancy in three Latin American countries, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua. Activities were designed to increase adolescent SRH behaviors in four domains: communication with parents, partners and peers; access to SRH information; access to SRH services; and use of contraception. When the project ended, the outcome evaluation showed limited impact with concerns about accuracy of monitoring and attrition of participants.

methodsWe reviewed and analyzed a series of CERCA documents and related data sources. Key findings from these documents were organized within an RBM framework (planning, monitoring, and impact evaluation) to understand how CERCA methodology and performance might have reaped improved results.

resultsStrengths and weaknesses were identified in all three elements of the RBM framework. In Planning, the proposed Theory of Change (ToC) differed from that which was carried out in the intervention package. Each country implemented a different intervention package without articulated assumptions on how the activities of intervention would bring about change. In Monitoring, the project oversight was mainly based on administrative and financial requirements rather than monitoring fidelity and quality of intervention activities. In Impact Evaluation, the original CERCA evaluation assessed intervention effects among adolescents, without identifying success and failure factors related to the outcomes, the nature of the outcomes, or cost-effectiveness of interventions.

conclusionsThis analysis showed that multi-country projects are complex, entail risks in execution and require robust project management. RBM can be a useful tool to ensure a systematic approach at different phases within a multi-country setting.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdolescent BehaviorAdolescent Health ServicesFemaleHealth PromotionHumansPregnancyPregnancy in AdolescenceReproductive HealthReproductive Health ServicesRetrospective StudiesSexual BehaviorAdolescentsCommunity based interventionsEvaluationImplementation researchLatin AmericaMonitoringMulti-countryResults based managementSexual and reproductive healthTheory of change

Identifiers

PMID29422099
PMCPMC5806234

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.