scholarly journals A retrospective mixed-methods evaluation of a national ORS and zinc scale-up program in Uganda between 2011 and 2016

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Felix Lam ◽  
Damien Kirchhoffer ◽  
Dennis Mike Buluma ◽  
Lorraine Kabunga ◽  
Patricia N Wamala-Mucheri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Mixed Methods Evaluation

scholarly journals The Use of Mixed Methods Evaluation for Effective Program Scale up

2012 ◽  
Vol 26 (S1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Erica Lyn Phillips ◽  
David Pelletier ◽  
Suzanne Gervais ◽  
Rebecca Stoltzfus ◽  
Sera Young ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Mixed Methods Evaluation ◽  
Effective Program

scholarly journals Feasibility and acceptability of living systematic reviews: results from a mixed-methods evaluation

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tanya Millard ◽  
Anneliese Synnot ◽  
Julian Elliott ◽  
Sally Green ◽  
Steve McDonald ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Mixed Methods Evaluation ◽  
Long Run ◽  
Number Of Citations

Abstract Background Living systematic reviews (LSRs) offer an approach to keeping high-quality evidence synthesis continually up to date, so the most recent, relevant and reliable evidence can be used to inform policy and practice, resulting in improved quality of care and patient health outcomes. However, they require modifications to authoring and editorial processes and pose technical and publishing challenges. Several teams within Cochrane and the international Living Evidence Network have been piloting living systematic reviews. Methods We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation with participants involved in six LSRs (three Cochrane and three non-Cochrane). Up to three semi-structured interviews were conducted with 27 participants involved with one or more of the pilot LSRs. Interviews explored participants’ experiences contributing to the LSR, barriers and facilitators to their conduct and opportunities for future development. Pilot team members also completed monthly surveys capturing time for key tasks and the number of citations screened for each review. Results Across the pilot LSRs, search frequency was monthly to three-monthly, with some using tools such as machine learning and Cochrane Crowd to screen searches. Varied approaches were used to communicate updates to readers. The number of citations screened varied widely between the reviews, from three to 300 citations per month. The amount of time spent per month by the author team on each review also varied from 5 min to 32 h. Participants were enthusiastic to be involved in the LSR pilot. They highlighted the importance of a motivated and well-organised team; the value of technology enablers to improve workflow efficiencies; the need to establish reliable and efficient processes to sustain living reviews; and the potential for saving time and effort in the long run. Participants highlighted challenges with the current publication processes, managing ongoing workload and the lack of resources to support LSRs in the long term. Conclusions Findings to date support feasibility and acceptability of LSR production. There are challenges that need to be addressed for living systematic reviews to be sustainable and have maximum value. The findings from this study will be used in discussions with the Cochrane community, key decision makers and people more broadly concerned with LSRs to identify and develop priorities for scale-up.

scholarly journals Human resources and curricula content for early child development implementation: multicountry mixed methods evaluation

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. e032134
Author(s):  
Maya Kohli-Lynch ◽  
Victoria Ponce Hardy ◽  
Raquel Bernal Salazar ◽  
Sunil S Bhopal ◽  
Alexandra Brentani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Child Development ◽  
Human Resources ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Early Child Development ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
The Sustainable Development ◽  
Early Child ◽  
Mixed Methods Evaluation ◽  
Training And Supervision

ObjectiveThe WHO recommends responsive caregiving and early learning (RCEL) interventions to improve early child development (ECD), and to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals’ vision of a world where all children thrive. Implementation of RCEL programmes in low and middle-income countries (LMIC) requires evidence to inform decisions about human resources and curricula content. We aimed to describe human resources and curricula content for implementation of RCEL projects across diverse LMICs, using data from the Grand Challenges Canada Saving Brains ECD portfolio.SettingWe evaluated 32 RCEL projects across 17 LMICs on four continents.ParticipantsOverall, 2165 workers delivered ECD interventions to 25 909 families.InterventionProjects were either stand-alone RCEL or RCEL combined with health and nutrition, and/or safety and security.Primary and secondary outcomesWe undertook a mixed methods evaluation of RCEL projects within the Saving Brains portfolio. Quantitative data were collected through standardised reporting tools. Qualitative data were collected from ECD experts and stakeholders and analysed using thematic content analysis, informed by literature review.ResultsMajor themes regarding human resources included: worker characteristics, incentivisation, retention, training and supervision, and regarding curricula content: flexible adaptation of content and delivery, fidelity, and intervention duration and dosage. Lack of an agreed standard ECD package contributed to project heterogeneity. Incorporation of ECD into existing services may facilitate scale-up but overburdened workers plus potential reductions in service quality remain challenging. Supportive training and supervision, inducement, worker retention, dosage and delivery modality emerged as key implementation decisions.ConclusionsThis mixed methods evaluation of a multicountry ECD portfolio identified themes for consideration by policymakers and programme leaders relevant to RCEL implementation in diverse LMICs. Larger studies, which also examine impact, including high-quality process and costing evaluations with comparable data, are required to further inform decisions for implementation of RCEL projects at national and regional scales.

A Mixed Methods Evaluation of a Multi-Country, Cross-Sectoral Knowledge Transfer Partnership to Improve Health Systems Across Africa

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 136-148
Author(s):  
Erika Linnander ◽  
◽  
Katherine LaMonaca ◽  
Marie A. Brault ◽  
Medha Vyavahare ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Knowledge Transfer ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Mixed Methods Evaluation ◽  
Improve Health

A Mixed Methods Evaluation of the Effects of an Innovative Art-Based Rehabilitation Program for Youths with Stabilized Psychiatric Disorders

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 212-224
Author(s):  
Kim Archambault ◽  
Isabelle Archambault ◽  
Sarah Dufour ◽  
Frederic N. Briere ◽  
Patricia Garel
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Psychiatric Disorders ◽  
Rehabilitation Program ◽  
Mixed Methods Evaluation

Mixed-Methods Evaluation as Scaffold to the Development of a Mobile Health Application to Support the Prescription of Wheelchairs and Postural Support Devices (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adriana Klein ◽  
Roseli de Deus Lopes ◽  
Rodrigo Suigh
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Mobile Health ◽  
Second Phase ◽  
The Third ◽  
Evaluation Approach ◽  
Mixed Methods Evaluation ◽  
Usability Tests ◽  
Third Phase ◽  
Postural Support ◽  
Support Devices

BACKGROUND EasySeating is a mobile health (mHealth) app that supports the prescription of wheelchair and postural support devices (WPSD). It can be used by occupational therapists (OT) and physiotherapists (PT) who prescribe WPSD. The app offers a standardization of the prescription procedure, showing images, metrics and details that guide the prescriber to decide on the best equipment. It was developed with an iterative mixed-methods evaluation approach. Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the processes involved in the prescription of WPSD and to propose, develop and evaluate a mHealth to support OT and PT prescribers. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to investigate the processes involved in the prescription of WPSD and to propose, develop and evaluate a mHealth to support OT and PT prescribers. METHODS This study was divided into three phases and was carried out as an iterative process composed of user consulting/testing (using a mixed-methods evaluation approach), system (re)design and software development. The first phase consisted of the collection of qualitative and quantitative data to map and understand the users requirements and of the development of the first prototype (v1) of the app. This data collection was performed through semi-structured interviews with 14 OT and PT prescribers, 5 specialized technicians and 5 WPSD users. The second phase aimed at improving the overall functionality of the app and consisted in the development, test and evaluation of the prototypes v1, v2, v3 and v4. A total of 59 prescribers tested and evaluated these prototypes by means of open interviews, semi-structured questionnaires and focus groups. The third phase focused in the usability aspects of the app. It consisted in the development and test of the prototype v5. Eight technology specialists assessed its usability through heuristics evaluation. RESULTS Data collected in phase one indicated there is a lack of standardization on the prescription of postural support devices (PSD). A divergent nomenclature for the PSDs was also found and classified in eight categories. These information guided the development of the first prototype of the EasySeating app. Phase two results pointed that the prescribers value the insertion of the app into their clinical practice, as it accelerates and increases the quality of the evaluation process and improves the organization of the prescription information. Significant suggestions for the improvement of the app were given during the users tests, including the use of images to represent the PSDs. The usability tests from the third phase revealed two strong issues that must be solved: the need of greater feedback and failures in the persistence of the input data. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrated that there is a lack of systematization of the WPSD prescription process. The evaluation of the developed EasySeating app demonstrated that there is a potential to standardize, integrate and organize the WPSD prescription information, supporting and facilitating the decision making process of the prescribers. CLINICALTRIAL This study was approved by the Research Ethics Board of the Universidade de São Paulo (registered protocol n°53929516.6.0000.0065) URL - http://plataformabrasil.saude.gov.br/login.jsf

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document