Evaluation
What is a program evaluation?
An evaluation is a systematic assessment of an activity, project, strategy or policy. It analyzes both expected and unexpected results. It usually examines processes, contextual factors, outcomes, objectives and short and medium term impact-as well as sustainability. It should provide credible evidence based information on the impact of the program and recommendations for how to improve the program (1).
Why evaluate the maternity waiting home?
Learn ways to improve the service delivery and function of the maternity waiting home (MWH)
Demonstrate who you served and what you did
How many women stayed at the MWH?
How long did they stay?
What services and referrals were provided?
Assess whether or not progress was made towards the goals of the MWH program. For example, were referrals for facility based care increased?
Did women receive needed services?
Were women from remote areas included in services?
Did more women complete antepartum visits?
Did more women deliver at health facilities?
Did more women receive postpartum care?
Did more infants receive follow up visits and immunizations?
Higher level (more complex) measures focus on impact and the ability to make a difference in maternal and infant health.
Were maternal and infant health outcomes in your area better than they were before the MWH existed? Or better than in a similar community that does not have access to a MWH?
Pathway to measure: Evaluation Data → Outcomes → Impact
May be influenced by other variables (quality of health system)
Measurement modalities (pre/post surveys, randomized control trial of maternity waiting homes versus quasi-experimental, matching)
Qualitative approaches/Mixed methods
How do you plan for a program evaluation?
Data sources for program evaluation vary based on the desired outcomes. They may include collecting data from logbooks/health records, surveys, and/or stakeholder interviews. Regardless of the data collection method, it is important to have goals/objectives that are driven by the purpose of the program. Below are two examples of creating purpose-driven goals/objectives.
SMART Goals or Objectives (2)
The SMART acronym is a tool designed to help organizations set goals or objectives that an organization is hoping to achieve or evaluate. The SMART acronym translates to goals or objectives that are:
Specific – outline the concept that is being measured (Who and What?)
Measurable – include a measure to capture the concept and to monitor progress and know when the objective has been achieved (How much?)
Achievable - the goal or objective is achievable; can actually be measured within the desired timeframe and with available resources (Why?)
Realistic - accurately address the scope of the problem and the steps to achieve stated goals/outcomes (How?)
Time-bound – agree the date by which the outcome must be achieved or the time frame for measurement (When?)
Logic Models
Logic models are another approach to both program design and evaluation. A logic model is a graphic representation of what a program intends to do and how the activities of the program would lead to the results. Creating logic models with groups of stakeholders is a way to bring multiple perspectives into the design and evaluation of an intervention. Working together a group can use a logic model to come to a shared understanding of the current situation, the changes the program would address, how the activities planned would improve the situation, what resources are needed, how change would be measured, and what external factors could influence the results (3). The key components of a logic model are:
Situation: This includes your problem statement (What problem does your program address?) and goals (What is the overall purpose of the program?)
Rationale and Assumptions: What are the underlying assumptions and important external factors that should be considered?
Inputs: What resources are available? Financial? Staff? Equipment?
Activities: What will you do? When, where and for/with whom?
Outputs: What are the tangible products of your work?
Outcomes: What changes do you expect to occur as a result of your work? Short term? Medium term? Long term? Think about connections between the outcomes
What do you evaluate?
Data for evaluation purposes can take a range of formats and should be matched to the desired outcomes. For example, descriptive data provides a summary of the data and meaningful statistics to demonstrate use of the MWH. Descriptive data generally includes information that is routinely collected in logbooks. However, it can also be helpful to tailor descriptive data to match the purpose of the MWH (e.g., remote, high-risk pregnancies). Examples of descriptive data may include:
Number of patients served
Length of stay
Types of services
Distance from MWH
Complications/High-risk
Patient satisfaction
Evaluation data focuses on measurable outcomes that demonstrate impact in the long-term. These may focus on larger areas such as maternal health, child health, education, and skills training. See table below for some common examples of evaluation data, outcomes, and impact.
Here is another example from the plan for a country-level MWH evaluation. This example is focused more on HOW to carry out an evaluation.
Collecting Information from Stakeholders
In addition to quantitative information on outcomes, program evaluation usually includes focus groups and individual interviews of community members (both those who used, and those who did not use the MWH), health care providers at referral facilities, policy makers, and groups that provided funding or support for the MWH. There are example interview guides in the “Downloadable PDFs” drop below section below.
Program Evaluation Summary
Program evaluation is an important component of MWH development and sustainability and should be considered before any MWHs are built. Overall, program evaluation metrics should be carefully considered based on the purpose of the MWH, should include a data collection method that matches the purpose and is feasible, and should include metrics that include measurable outcomes and long-term impact. Program evaluation can help demonstrate long-term impacts for policy changes, financial sustainability, and community uptake.
-
*denotes open access
(1) Wholey, J., Hatrey, H., Newcomer, K. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of practical program evaluation (3rd Edition). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. doi:196.190.117.157:8080
(2) *Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018). Writing SMART Objectives. Evaluation Brief No. 3. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/evaluation/pdf/brief3b.pdf
(3) *Taylor-Powell, E., Jones, L., & Henert, E. (2003) Enhancing Program Performance with Logic Models. Retrieved March 1, 2003, from the University of Wisconsin-Extension web site: http://www.uwex.edu/ces/lmcourse/ https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/programdevelopment/files/2016/03/lmcourseall.pdf
Additional References:
*Buser, J. M., Moyer, C. A., Boyd, C. J., Zulu, D., Ngoma-Hazemba, A., Mtenje, J. T., ... & Lori, J. R. (2021). Maternal knowledge of essential newborn care in rural Zambia. Health Care for Women International, 42(4-6),778-793. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399332.2020.1781125
*Buser, J. M., Munro-Kramer, M. L., Veliz, P. T., Zhang, X., Lockhart, N., Biemba, G., ... & Lori, J. R. (2021). How maternity waiting home use influences attendance of antenatal and postnatal care. Plos One, 16(1), e0245893. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245893
*Dadi, T. L., Bekele, B. B., Kasaye, H. K., & Nigussie, T. (2018). Role of maternity waiting homes in the reduction of maternal death and stillbirth in developing countries and its contribution for maternal death reduction in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Health Services Research, 18(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3559-y
*Fogliati, P., Straneo, M., Mangi, S., Azzimonti, G., Kisika, F., & Putoto, G. (2017). A new use for an old tool: maternity waiting homes to improve equity in rural childbirth care. Results from a cross-sectional hospital and community survey in Tanzania. Health Policy and Planning, 32(10), 1354-1360. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czx100
*Henry, E. G., Semrau, K., Hamer, D. H., Vian, T., Nambao, M., Mataka, K., & Scott, N. A. (2017). The influence of quality maternity waiting homes on utilization of facilities for delivery in rural Zambia. Reproductive Health, 14(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-017-0328-z
*Innovation Network (n.d.). Logic model workbook. http://innonet.org/media/logic_model_workbook_0.pdf
*Kurji, J., Gebretsadik, L. A., Wordofa, M. A., Morankar, S., Bedru, K. H., Bulcha, G., ... & Kulkarni, M. A. (2020). Effectiveness of upgraded maternity waiting homes and local leader training on improving institutional births: a cluster-randomized controlled trial in Jimma, Ethiopia. BMC Public Health, 20(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09692-4
*Singh, K., Speizer, I., Kim, E. T., Lemani, C., & Phoya, A. (2017). Reaching vulnerable women through maternity waiting homes in Malawi. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 136(1), 91-97. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12013
*Singh, K., Speizer, I. S., Kim, E. T., Lemani, C., Tang, J. H., & Phoya, A. (2018). Evaluation of a maternity waiting home and community education program in two districts of Malawi. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 18(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-018-2084-7
*Tiruneh, G. T., Getu, Y. N., Abdukie, M. A., Eba, G. G., Keyes, E., & Bailey, P. E. (2019). Distribution of maternity waiting homes and their correlation with perinatal mortality and direct obstetric complication rates in Ethiopia. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 19(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2356-x
*University of Kansas (2022). Caja de herramientas comunitarias: Sección 1. Desarrollar un modelo lógico o teoría de cambio. https://ctb.ku.edu/es/tabla-de-contenidos/vision-general/modelos-de-desarrollo-para-la-salud-en-la-comunidad/modelo-logico-de-desarollo/principal
*Wild, K., Barclay, L., Kelly, P., & Martins, N. (2012). The tyranny of distance: maternity waiting homes and access to birthing facilities in rural Timor-Leste. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 90, 97-103. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.11.088955
-
Interview Guide: Community Members [click to view]
Interview Guide: Healthcare Providers [click to view]
Interview Guide: Stakeholders [click to view]