The External Advisory Board of the COHESION-I research project was held virtually on July 3, 2024, to discuss progress on the co-design process and obtain feedback on the intervention evaluation data collection tools.
Progress on the six-stage co-design process being conducted in Mozambique, Nepal, and Peru was shared during the second meeting of the COHESION-I Project External Advisory Board. This included discussing the challenges faced and their implications in each country. In Mozambique, for instance, after a tropical cyclone and floods, various health facilities were affected (see here) and health workers were on strike for five weeks (see here), limiting the offering of local health services. These caused important delays in the activities planned and some changes in the settings previously prioritized for intervention to be able to advance the project. Co-design activities in Nepal and Peru progressed as planned without major delays.
The second part of the meeting focused on receiving feedback from the External Advisory Board members on the data collection tools of the evaluation studies. Before the meeting, some advisors were asked to review in detail a specific set of data collection tools based on their experience conducting similar studies and using the guiding frameworks. They received the material in advance and shared their recommendations via email or live during the meeting. The discussion was initiated by reminding meeting participants about the overall and specific objectives for each evaluation. Written feedback shared before the meeting was presented by research team members, while other was provided live during the meeting by other advisors.
Recommendations for the quantitative evaluation included revising the primary and secondary outcomes considering the theory of change bearing in mind the Hawthorne effect, and trying to minimize as much as possible the frequency of contact. Advisors considered the qualitative research instruments well-designed, covering all the different aspects of the topics. Specific suggestions to improve the wording and capture more deeply the experiences of health users and providers were also indicated. Advisors also recommended ensuring the meaning of the questions remains clear when translated to the local language. Regarding the economic evaluation, the feedback revolved around the importance of considering cost savings from the potential prevention of complications at the primary healthcare level. Comments on the process evaluation encompassed how to improve the clarity and structure of the instruments, the importance of also documenting team members’ experiences along the process, and to take into account how the context has influenced the intervention.
We thank Dr. Pablo Perel, Dr. Nadina Luca, Ms María Kathia Cárdenas, and Dr. Edward Fottrell for revising and providing detailed feedback on each of the evaluation instruments shared with them before the meeting. We also thank all the External Advisory Board members who participated in the meeting for their insights and recommendations. The rich feedback and discussion will help to improve the evaluation research tools.
The next session of the External Advisory Board is scheduled for November 2024.