Journal Home
Search for

Volume 83, Issue 1, Pages 94-104 (September 2007)


View previous. 11 of 15 View next.

Setting priorities for safe motherhood programme evaluation: A participatory process in three developing countries

the EQ1Banyana Cecilia MadiaCorresponding Author Informationemail address, Julia Husseina, Sennen Hountonb, Lucia D’Ambruosoa, Endang Achadic, Daniel Kojo Arhinfuld

published online 22 February 2007.

Abstract 

A participatory approach to priority setting in programme evaluation may help improve the allocation and more efficient use of scarce resources especially in low-income countries. Research agendas that are the result of collaboration between researchers, programme managers, policy makers and other stakeholders have the potential to ensure rigorous studies are conducted on matters of local priority, based on local, expert knowledge.

This paper describes a process involving key stakeholders to elicit and prioritise evaluation needs for safe motherhood in three developing countries. A series of reiterative consultations with safe motherhood stakeholders from each country was conducted over a period of 36 months. In each country, the consultation process consisted of a series of participatory workshops; firstly, stakeholder's views on evaluation were elicited with parallel descriptive work on the contexts. Secondly, priorities for evaluation were identified from stakeholders; thirdly, the evaluation-priorities were refined; and finally, the evaluation research questions, reflecting the identified priorities, were agreed and finalised. Three evaluation-questions were identified in each country, and one selected, on which a full scale evaluation was undertaken.

While there is a great deal written about the importance of transparent and participatory priority setting in evaluation; few examples of how such processes could be implemented exist, particularly for maternal health programmes. Our experience demonstrates that the investment in a participatory priority-setting effort is high but the process undertaken resulted in both globally and contextually-relevant priorities for evaluation. This experience provides useful lessons for public health practitioners committed to bridging the research–policy interface.

a IMMPACT University of Aberdeen, Department of Public Health, United Kingdom

b IMMPACT Centre Muraz, Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso

c IMMPACT Centre for Family Welfare, University of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia

d IMMPACT Noguchi Memorial Institute for Medical Research, University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana

Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +44 1323 460647; fax: +44 1323 460647.

1 The work reported in this paper was a joint effort by a large group of people from IMMPACT and stakeholders in the countries who participated in various ways as mentioned in the acknowledgements (EQ stands for Evaluation Questions).

PII: S0168-8510(07)00023-1

doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.01.006


View previous. 11 of 15 View next.