ArticleEast African journal of applied health monitoring and evaluation2018
Improving the ability of districts in Uganda to monitor their HIV programs.
Article in East African journal of applied health monitoring and evaluation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Key informant perspectives on the challenges and opportunities for using routine health data for decision-making in Senegal.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- User-provider experiences of the implementation of KidzAlive-driven child-friendly spaces in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.BMC public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough district health teams (DHT) in Uganda are supposed to monitor and support facilities to ensure quality HIV data collection, reporting and use, they are often ill-equipped to do so. We implemented a program designed to build the capacity of districts to manage and use their own HIV-related program data and to assist facilities to collect and evaluate their own data.
methodsWe conducted a baseline assessment of the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) capacity of 38 districts. In the 10 worst-performing districts, we identified and trained district-level staff to become M&E mentors who in turn trained and supervised facility-level staff. We collected information on action plans developed by facilities to address major issues of concern. Following the intervention, we reassessed M&E capacity of the 10 targeted districts.
resultsAmong the 38 districts assessed, one-half did not have a biostatistician, less than one-quarter had staff trained in the basics of M&E or data analysis, and less than one-quarter had an M&E plan. The main concerns of facilities included lack of updated data collection tools, lack of supervision, inaccurate data recording, and limited ability to analyze and use data. In the 10 targeted districts, comparison before and after the intervention showed that the number of districts with trained M&E staff increased (4 to 9), the number of M&E plans increased (3 to 6), and the number using data for programming increased (4 to 8). Implementation of action plans by facilities successfully addressed many issues and led to improved programming.
conclusionChallenges of district M&E in Uganda mainly result from a lack of skilled human resources. On-the-job training and direct involvement of district staff to provide support to facilities can lead to improvements in data quality and use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30918924PMC6433397What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.