Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33156940›Full record

ArticleHealth policy and planning2020

How to evaluate the implementation of complex health programmes in low-income settings: the approach of the Gavi Full Country Evaluations.

Caroline Soi, Jessica C Shearer, Ashwin Budden, Emily Carnahan, Nicole Salisbury, Gilbert Asiimwe, Baltazar Chilundo, Haribondhu Sarma, Sarah Gimbel, Moses Simuyemba and 6 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health policy and planning, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

16 authors at 9 institutions in 6 countries.

Caroline SoiHealth Alliance International, Mozambique and University of Washington, USA.
Jessica C ShearerPATH.
Ashwin BuddenD'Eva Consulting.
Emily CarnahanPATH.
Nicole SalisburyPATH.
Gilbert AsiimweGavi.
Baltazar ChilundoUniversidade Eduardo Mondlane.
Haribondhu Sarmaicddr,b.
Sarah GimbelHealth Alliance International, University of Washington.
Moses SimuyembaUniversity of Zambia.
Jasim Uddinicddr,b.
Felix MasiyeUniversity of Zambia.
Moses KamyaInfectious Diseases Research Collaboration.
Dai HozumiIntraHealth.
Julie K RajaratnamPATH.
Stephen S LimInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington.
Health Alliance International · USUniversity of Zambia · ZMEduardo Mondlane University · MZGavi · CHInfectious Diseases Research Collaboration · UGInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation · USIntraHealth International · USLink Consulting · PTProgram for Appropriate Technology in Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vaccination, like most other public health services, relies on a complex package of intervention components, functioning systems and committed actors to achieve universal coverage. Despite significant investment in immunization programmes, national coverage trends have slowed and equity gaps have grown. This paper describes the design and implementation of the Gavi Full Country Evaluations, a multi-country, prospective, mixed-methods approach whose goal was to monitor and evaluate processes, inputs, outputs and outcomes of immunization programmes in Bangladesh, Mozambique, Uganda and Zambia. We implemented the Full Country Evaluations from 2013 to 2018 with the goal of identifying the drivers of immunization programme improvement to support programme implementation and increase equitable immunization coverage. The framework supported methodological and paradigmatic flexibility to respond to a broad range of evaluation and implementation research questions at global, national and cross-country levels, but was primarily underpinned by a focus on evaluating processes and identifying the root causes of implementation breakdowns. Process evaluation was driven by theories of change for each Gavi funding stream (e.g. Health Systems Strengthening) or activity, ranging from global policy development to district-level programme implementation. Mixing of methods increased in relevance and rigour over time as we learned to build multiple methods into increasingly tailored evaluation questions. Evaluation teams in country-based research institutes increasingly strengthened their level of embeddedness with immunization programmes as the emphasis shifted over time to focus more heavily on the use of findings for programme learning and adaptation. Based on our experiences implementing this approach, we recommend it for the evaluation of other complex interventions, health programmes or development assistance.

Indexed as

Prospective StudiesBangladeshHumansMozambiqueUgandaZambiaEvaluationhealth systemsimmunizationimplementation research

Identifiers

PMID33156940
PMCPMC7646739
OpenAlexW3096492554

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.