How to evaluate the implementation of complex health programmes in low-income settings: the approach of the Gavi Full Country Evaluations

A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance

The UK Medical Research Council's widely used guidance for developing and evaluating complex interventions has been replaced by a new framework, commissioned jointly by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health Research, which takes account of recent developments in theory and methods and the need to maximise the efficiency, use, and impact of research.

A scoping review of implementation science theories, models, and frameworks - an appraisal of purpose, characteristics, usability, applicability, and testability

BACKGROUND

A proliferation of theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) have been developed in the implementation science field to facilitate the implementation process. The basic features of these TMFs have been identified by several reviews. However, systematic appraisals on the quality of these TMFs are inadequate. To fill this gap, this study aimed to assess the usability, applicability, and testability of the current TMFs in a structured way.

METHODS

A scoping review method was employed. Electronic databases were searched to locate English and Chinese articles published between January 2000 and April 2022. Search terms were specific to implementation science. Additionally, hand searches were administered to identify articles from related reviews. Purpose and characteristics such as the type of TMF, analytical level, and observation unit were extracted. Structured appraisal criteria were adapted from Birken et al.'s Theory Comparison and Selection Tool (T-CaST) to conduct an in-depth analysis of the TMFs' usability, applicability, and testability.

RESULTS

A total of 143 TMFs were included in this analysis. Among them, the most common purpose was to identify barriers and facilitators. Most TMFs applied the descriptive method to summarize the included constructs or the prescriptive method to propose courses of implementation actions. TMFs were mainly mid-range theories built on existing conceptual frameworks or demonstrated grand theories. The usability of the TMFs needs to be improved in terms of the provision of conceptually matched strategies to barriers and facilitators and instructions on the TMFs usage. Regarding the applicability, little attention was paid to the constructs of macro-level context, stages of scale-up and sustainability, and implementation outcomes like feasibility, cost, and penetration. Also, fewer TMFs could propose recommended research and measurement methods to apply the TMFs. Lastly, explicit hypotheses or propositions were lacking in most of the TMFs, and empirical evidence was lacking to support the claimed mechanisms between framework elements in testability.

CONCLUSIONS

Common limitations were found in the usability, application, and testability of the current TMFs. The findings of this review could provide insights for developers of TMFs for future theoretical advancements.

Monitoring and Evaluation of National Vaccination Implementation: A Scoping Review of How Frameworks and Indicators Are Used in the Public Health Literature

An effective Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) framework helps vaccination programme managers determine progress and effectiveness for agreed indicators against clear benchmarks and targets. We aimed to identify the literature on M&E frameworks and indicators used in national vaccination programmes and synthesise approaches and lessons to inform development of future frameworks. We conducted a scoping review using Arksey and O'Malley's six-stage framework to identify and synthesise sources on monitoring or evaluation of national vaccination implementation that described a framework or indicators. The findings were summarised thematically. We included 43 eligible sources of 4291 screened. Most (95%) were in English and discussed high-income (51%) or middle-income (30%) settings, with 13 in Europe (30%), 10 in Asia-Pacific (23%), nine in Africa (21%), and eight in the Americas (19%), respectively, while three crossed regions. Only five (12%) specified the use of an M&E framework. Most (32/43; 74%) explicitly or implicitly included vaccine coverage indicators, followed by 12 including operational (28%), five including clinical (12%), and two including cost indicators (5%). The use of M&E frameworks was seldom explicit or clearly defined in our sources, with indicators rarely fully defined or benchmarked against targets. Sources focused on ways to improve vaccination programmes without explicitly considering ways to improve assessment. Literature on M&E framework and indicator use in national vaccination programmes is limited and focused on routine childhood vaccination. Therefore, documentation of more experiences and lessons is needed to better inform vaccination M&E beyond childhood.

Lessons Learned From Implementing Prospective, Multicountry Mixed-Methods Evaluations for Gavi and the Global Fund

Lessons learned from implementing evaluations for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and the Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria can help inform the design and implementation of ongoing or future evaluations of complex interventions. We share 5 lessons distilled from over 7 years of experience implementing evaluations in 7 countries.

Introduction:

As global health programs have become increasingly complex, corresponding evaluations must be designed to assess the full complexity of these programs. Gavi and the Global Fund have commissioned 2 such evaluations to assess the full spectrum of their investments using a prospective mixed-methods approach. We aim to describe lessons learned from implementing these evaluations.

Methods:

This article presents a synthesis of lessons learned based on the Gavi and Global Fund prospective mixed-methods evaluations, with each evaluation considered a case study. The lessons are based on the evaluation team’s experience from over 7 years (2013–2020) implementing these evaluations. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Framework for Evaluation in Public Health was used to ground the identification of lessons learned.

Results:

We identified 5 lessons learned that build on existing evaluation best practices and include a mix of practical and conceptual considerations. The lessons cover the importance of (1) including an inception phase to engage stakeholders and inform a relevant, useful evaluation design; (2) aligning on the degree to which the evaluation is embedded in the program implementation; (3) monitoring programmatic, organizational, or contextual changes and adapting the evaluation accordingly; (4) hiring evaluators with mixed-methods expertise and using tools and approaches that facilitate mixing methods; and (5) contextualizing recommendations and clearly communicating their underlying strength of evidence.

Conclusion:

Global health initiatives, particularly those leveraging complex interventions, should consider embedding evaluations to understand how and why the programs are working. These initiatives can learn from the lessons presented here to inform the design and implementation of such evaluations.