ArticleGlobal health, science and practice2020
Lessons Learned From Implementing Prospective, Multicountry Mixed-Methods Evaluations for Gavi and the Global Fund.
Article in Global health, science and practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gavi's Zero-Dose Learning Hubs: enhanced approach for evidence generation and use from local to global.Health policy and planning · 2026Article
- Any better? A follow-up content analysis of adolescent sexual and reproductive health inclusion in Global Financing Facility country planning documents.Global health action · 2024Article
- Ten Years for GHSP: Where Are We Now? Where Will We Go?Global health, science and practice · 2023Article
- Bringing a health systems modelling approach to complex evaluations: multicountry applications in HIV, TB and malaria.BMJ global health · 2020Article
- How to evaluate the implementation of complex health programmes in low-income settings: the approach of the Gavi Full Country Evaluations.Health policy and planning · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAs global health programs have become increasingly complex, corresponding evaluations must be designed to assess the full complexity of these programs. Gavi and the Global Fund have commissioned 2 such evaluations to assess the full spectrum of their investments using a prospective mixed-methods approach. We aim to describe lessons learned from implementing these evaluations.
methodsThis article presents a synthesis of lessons learned based on the Gavi and Global Fund prospective mixed-methods evaluations, with each evaluation considered a case study. The lessons are based on the evaluation team's experience from over 7 years (2013-2020) implementing these evaluations. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Framework for Evaluation in Public Health was used to ground the identification of lessons learned.
resultsWe identified 5 lessons learned that build on existing evaluation best practices and include a mix of practical and conceptual considerations. The lessons cover the importance of (1) including an inception phase to engage stakeholders and inform a relevant, useful evaluation design; (2) aligning on the degree to which the evaluation is embedded in the program implementation; (3) monitoring programmatic, organizational, or contextual changes and adapting the evaluation accordingly; (4) hiring evaluators with mixed-methods expertise and using tools and approaches that facilitate mixing methods; and (5) contextualizing recommendations and clearly communicating their underlying strength of evidence.
conclusionGlobal health initiatives, particularly those leveraging complex interventions, should consider embedding evaluations to understand how and why the programs are working. These initiatives can learn from the lessons presented here to inform the design and implementation of such evaluations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.