Tailoring Process and Impact Evaluation of a "Cash-Plus" Program: The Value of Using a Participatory Program Impact Pathway Analysis.
Program Impact Pathway
cash transfer program
impact evaluation
implementation science
process evaluation
theory of change
theory-driven evaluation
Journal
Current developments in nutrition
ISSN: 2475-2991
Titre abrégé: Curr Dev Nutr
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101717957
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2020
Jul 2020
Historique:
received:
24
03
2020
revised:
15
05
2020
accepted:
22
05
2020
entrez:
16
7
2020
pubmed:
16
7
2020
medline:
16
7
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Evaluations are often limited to affirming what impact health and nutrition interventions have, without providing enough insights into "how/why" impacts are achieved. This article describes how a Program Impact Pathway (PIP) analysis was used to tailor theory-driven impact and process evaluation of a "Cash-Plus" program combining unconditional cash transfers with behavior change communication (BCC) activities, which was implemented to improve children's growth in Togo. A theoretical PIP diagram was developed using existing literature, program documentation, and interviews with the program's stakeholders at the central level. Next, the PIP diagram was refined through 2 regional participatory workshops, 6 mo after the program began. Workshop participants were multilevel field implementers and were asked to The PIP analysis identified 3 impact pathways, all based on the synergy between cash and raised women's knowledge. Along these pathways, the motivation and workload of frontline workers, along with issues in cash flow, were identified as factors that may affect the delivery of activities, whereas women's control over resources, time availability, support from relatives, and the presence of markets and health and school services were recognized as factors that may influence the uptake of activities. Improved communication between stakeholders and increased involvement of husbands were suggested for better impact achievement. The participatory PIP analysis helped implementers and evaluators to share a common vision of the program's objective and logic, encouraged communication across sectors, and facilitated course-adjustments of the program.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Evaluations are often limited to affirming what impact health and nutrition interventions have, without providing enough insights into "how/why" impacts are achieved.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
This article describes how a Program Impact Pathway (PIP) analysis was used to tailor theory-driven impact and process evaluation of a "Cash-Plus" program combining unconditional cash transfers with behavior change communication (BCC) activities, which was implemented to improve children's growth in Togo.
METHODS
METHODS
A theoretical PIP diagram was developed using existing literature, program documentation, and interviews with the program's stakeholders at the central level. Next, the PIP diagram was refined through 2 regional participatory workshops, 6 mo after the program began. Workshop participants were multilevel field implementers and were asked to
RESULTS
RESULTS
The PIP analysis identified 3 impact pathways, all based on the synergy between cash and raised women's knowledge. Along these pathways, the motivation and workload of frontline workers, along with issues in cash flow, were identified as factors that may affect the delivery of activities, whereas women's control over resources, time availability, support from relatives, and the presence of markets and health and school services were recognized as factors that may influence the uptake of activities. Improved communication between stakeholders and increased involvement of husbands were suggested for better impact achievement.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The participatory PIP analysis helped implementers and evaluators to share a common vision of the program's objective and logic, encouraged communication across sectors, and facilitated course-adjustments of the program.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32666032
doi: 10.1093/cdn/nzaa099
pii: nzaa099
pmc: PMC7326474
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
nzaa099Informations de copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) on behalf of the American Society for Nutrition 2020.
Références
Lancet. 2013 Aug 10;382(9891):536-51
pubmed: 23746780
J Nutr. 2019 Dec 1;149(Suppl 1):2281S-2289S
pubmed: 31793648
Food Nutr Bull. 2014 Sep;35(3 Suppl):S97-107
pubmed: 25902579
Food Nutr Bull. 2014 Sep;35(3 Suppl):S108-16
pubmed: 25902580
Food Nutr Bull. 2013 Sep;34(3 Suppl):S195-211
pubmed: 24261077
Curr Dev Nutr. 2018 Oct 13;3(3):nzy080
pubmed: 30864563
Food Nutr Bull. 2013 Sep;34(3 Suppl):S212-25
pubmed: 24261078
J Nutr. 2013 Dec;143(12):2029-37
pubmed: 24068790
J Nutr. 2014 Oct;144(10):1627-36
pubmed: 25143372
Clin Infect Dis. 2015 Dec 15;61 Suppl 7:S752-8
pubmed: 26602304
Adv Nutr. 2014 Jan 01;5(1):27-34
pubmed: 24425719
Eval Program Plann. 2016 Jun;56:11-22
pubmed: 27003730
Matern Child Nutr. 2009 Jan;5(1):33-48
pubmed: 19161543
Lancet. 2008 Mar 8;371(9615):828-37
pubmed: 18328930
Eval Program Plann. 2018 Jun;68:47-56
pubmed: 29475057
Dev Policy Rev. 2017 Summer;35(5):621-643
pubmed: 31363343
BMJ Glob Health. 2020 Apr 16;5(4):e002269
pubmed: 32377405
Matern Child Nutr. 2019 Jul;15(3):e12766
pubmed: 30536582
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2002 Feb;56(2):119-27
pubmed: 11812811