Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36102365›Full record

ArticleGlobal health action2022

NGO perspectives on the challenges and opportunities for real-world evaluation: a qualitative study.

Talata Sawadogo-Lewis, Ruth Bryant, Timothy Roberton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. A systematic assessment of the demand for HTA hub services in Asia.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025
    Review
  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

3 authors.

Talata Sawadogo-LewisDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0541-1859
Ruth BryantIndependent Consultant, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6627-3736
Timothy RobertonDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6413-2289

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Global HealthOrganizationsChildHumansQualitative ResearchdonorsEvaluationmaternal and child healthNGOsnon-governmental organizations

Identifiers

PMID36102365
PMCPMC9487959

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.