ArticleGlobal health action2022
NGO perspectives on the challenges and opportunities for real-world evaluation: a qualitative study.
Article in Global health action, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A review and analysis of accountability in global health funding, research collaborations and training: towards conceptual clarity and better practice.BMJ global health · 2023Pooled it
- Staff Perspectives of Implementing a Community-Based Stroke Recovery Program in Regional Australia: A Qualitative Study.The Australian journal of rural health · 2026Article
- Cultural adaptation of evidence-based prevention programs for substance use and mental health issues in adolescents: a qualitative secondary analysis of barriers and facilitators.Translational behavioral medicine · 2026Article
- A systematic assessment of the demand for HTA hub services in Asia.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Review
- Exploring the Funding Challenges Faced by Small NGOs: Perspectives from an Organization with Practical Experience of Working in Rural Malawi.Research and reports in tropical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe move towards robust monitoring and evaluation (M&E) has been increasing in global health, motivated by both an accountability agenda and to increase learning from M&E activities. Many international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) receive funding from one or more large institutional donors.
objectiveTo understand NGOs' perspective on their own role in terms of accountability to both donors and the populations they serve.
methodsWe conducted a series of in-depth interviews with M&E staff in 11 NGOs with projects related to maternal and child health to better understand how M&E is being implemented in these organizations. We then examined the data based on
resultsWe found that despite flexibility from some donors, rigid reporting structures remain a barrier for NGOs to fully communicate the impact of their projects. While NGOs do utilize M&E findings, their use is limited by low staff capacity. The primary audience for the results remains the donor agency, and the primary motivation for M&E remains donor reporting. Reporting remains a burdensome affair, with ongoing limitations around streamlining results for donors. To reduce the burden of reporting for individual projects, the participants in our study suggested placing greater emphasis on process evaluations rather than impact evaluations. Participants also suggested increased data sharing between organizations working in the same regions and making better use of secondary data sources; in both cases to reduce the need for primary data collection.
conclusionWe carried out this work to advance the conversation on how NGOs currently manage their M&E - a conversation which should involve NGOs, donors, local health system actors, and the communities with whom they work. More flexibility from donors, increased use of technology, and more transparency on if and how data is being used would help NGOs with their M&E process.
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.