usaid/ethiopia pepfar mid-term evaluation of the ... - GH Tech

Form E -- Group Discussion: At each HC, a group discussion was held with all staff trained on IMAI. Afocused interview with open-ended qualitative questions was conducted asking participants for theiropinion and understanding of the IMAI approach; their evaluation of the IMAI training courses(including what they liked and disliked); their opinion about IMAI tools; their assessment ofmentoring and supervision received after training; and their recommendations for additional actionsneeded to help implement and improve IMAI.C. Comment on Quality of Data from SitesAlthough sites in general tried to be as helpful as possible, the team encountered a number ofproblems in obtaining data for this evaluation. There were multiple reasons for these difficulties.Some data were not compiled (as in monthly reports) and had to be extracted from registrationbooks or other handwritten records by manual counting. Although the evaluation team stronglysupports the overall conclusions and recommendations in this report, specific numerical totals forspecific questions need to be interpreted with some caution. In some cases, numbers reported invarious subcategories did not add up to the total. For example, although the numbers currently onART should reflect the number started on ART minus losses to follow-up, deaths, and transfers,these figures did not always add up. Finally, although both qualitative and quantitative data werecollected, in some cases the quantitative data did not support what was reported qualitatively. Forexample, an HC might report that it was their policy to perform HIV screening on all TB patients,but a review of the actual records in selected HCs revealed that not all TB patients had beenscreened. Recommendations for improvement of data collection and ways to improve M&E at theHC level are included as part of the team’s recommendations.Mid-term Evaluation of Ethiopia IMAI Program 15