1 / 7

IAWG Global Evaluation: Literature Review

IAWG Global Evaluation: Literature Review. Global Evaluation Steering Committee Meeting February 12, 2014. Methodology. Overarching question: what is the evidence regarding RH services provided in humanitarian settings and what is the quality of that evidence?

myrna
Download Presentation

IAWG Global Evaluation: Literature Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IAWG Global Evaluation:Literature Review Global Evaluation Steering Committee Meeting February 12, 2014

  2. Methodology • Overarching question: what is the evidence regarding RH services provided in humanitarian settings and what is the quality of that evidence? • Is the level of RH services being provided going beyond the basics to provide the recommended standard of care? • Which RH technical services are better covered than others? • How well are the services being implemented? • Are services/programs being evaluated?

  3. Recommended standard of care for each RH technical area • EmOC: all signal functions available 24/7 • FP: all methods including long-acting and permanent • HIV: ARVs, PMTCT with triple therapy • GBV: clinical care including EC, PEP, STI prophylaxis and treatment of injuries, referral to psychosocial care

  4. No. of records identified through database searching: Ovid Medline + PubMed +PopLine+ Jstor (duplicates removed) = 4,797 No. of records excluded based on a review of the title or abstract: 4,190 No. of records excluded based on the abstract or full-text review as needed: 291 No. of records for abstract or full-text review: 333 No. of studies included in qualitative synthesis: 41which describe 33different programs or settings

  5. Preliminary results • Which RH technical services are better covered than others? • EmOC/safe motherhood: 9 • FP: 7 • HIV/STI: 14 • GBV: 6 • General RH: 1 (FP and ANC mentioned)

  6. Types of studies • Facility assessment or other general assessments not linked to specific programs or baseline only: 11 • Pre/post evaluation: 5 • Cross-sectional studies: 4 • Cohort study: 1 • Program data: 8 • Qualitative methods: 4 • 16 not linked to programs (or present only baseline data) • 20 linked to programs

More Related