Partner Hubs

Partner Hubs

International Society of Wheelchair Professionals (ISWP) logo


International Society of Wheelchair Professionals

Learn More

City University of New York School of Public Health, Center for Innovation in Mental Health

Learn More
East, Central and Southern Africa Health Community logo

East, Central and Southern Africa Health Community 

Learn More

IMAGINA Research Center, Universidad de los Andes

Learn More
UCSF logo

 University of California, San Francisco, Institute for Global Health Sciences

Learn More
AAPH logo

Africa Academy for Public Health 

Learn More

Funding

Funding Opportunities

Latest

  • Lethal Means Safety Suicide Prevention Research in Healthcare and Community Settings (R34 Clinical Trial Required)

    NIMH seeks applications to evaluate the preliminary effectiveness of therapeutic and service delivery interventions that utilize lethal means safety strategies to reduce suicide risk in healthcare and community settings. Behavioral health clinics that incorporate lethal means counseling into their programming have been…

    Open Date: June 15, 2024

    Expiration Date: January 24, 2025

  • Understanding the Intersection of Social Inequities to Optimize Health and Reduce Health Disparities: The Axes Initiative (R01 Clinical Trial Optional)

    Research shows that intersecting systems of privilege and oppression produce and sustain wide and unjust variations in health. The Axes Initiative will support research to understand health at the intersections of social statuses such as race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, and…

    Open Date: June 5, 2024

    Expiration Date: March 11, 2025

  • Pilot Effectiveness Trials for Treatment, Preventive and Services Interventions (R34 Clinical Trial Required)

    NIMH solicits clinical trial applications through a series of Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs) that cover the intervention development pipeline, from first-inhuman, early testing of new interventions, confirmatory efficacy trials, through to effectiveness trials. The purpose of this FOA is to encourage pilot…

    Open Date: May 15, 2021

    Expiration Date: October 16, 2024

  • Interventions on Health and Healthcare Disparities on Non-Communicable and Chronic Diseases in Latin America: Improving Health Outcomes Across the Hemisphere (R01 – Clinical Trial Required)

    The purpose of this Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) is to support innovative and interdisciplinary team research focused on clinical, health services, and/or community-based interventions that address health and healthcare disparities related to non-communicable and chronic diseases (NCDs) with the highest disease…

    Open Date: January 5, 2024

    Expiration Date: January 7, 2027

  • Innovative Pilot Mental Health Services Research Not Involving Clinical Trials (R34 Clinical Trial Not Allowed)

    The purpose of this Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) is to encourage innovative pilot research that will inform and support the delivery of high-quality, continuously improving mental health services to benefit the greatest number of individuals with, or at risk for developing, a…

    Open Date: January 16, 2023

    Expiration Date: May 8, 2025

Closed

  • Closed Date: November 10, 2023

    Request for Applications No. RFA-VOT-2023-001

  • Closed Date: August 18, 2023

    Request for Applications: RFA-VAC-2023-001

  • Closed Date: January 25, 2023

    Implementation Details for the NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy

  • Closed Date: October 25, 2023

    New NIH “FORMS-H” Grant Application Forms and Instructions Coming for Due Dates on or after January 25, 2023

  • Closed Date: January 25, 2023

    Implementation Changes for Genomic Data Sharing Plans Included with Applications Due on or after January 25, 2023

Honduras Country Support

Honduras Country Support

In collaboration with USAID Honduras, the HEARD Project is supporting the government to build on past efforts and to advance a national response to violence against children. Honduras was the first country in the continental Americas to implement a VACS and the first to incorporate modules on migration and gang violence into the VACS. Honduras publicly launched the VACS findings in 2019, and in 2021, the National Response Plan to Prevent Violence Against Children based on the VACS and rooted in INSPIRE strategies (NRP), was released.

In early 2024, the ISC partnered with COIPRODEN, coordinator of institutions that support the rights of children and adolescents in Honduras. COIPRODEN will develop and implement the country’s National Response Plan aimed at preventing violence against children and adolescents. This will include implementing training programs for public officials, civil society members, rights defenders and journalists and the national and municipal levels.

Photo Credits: Eva Cristescu, source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ecristescu/26805746811/
This photo is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

Moldova Country Support

Moldova Country Support

USAID Moldova supports the Government’s National Child Protection Program (NCPP) and its Action Plan. In June 2022, the Government of Moldova launched a new NCPP, the lead responsibility for which sits with the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection, with numerous Ministries indicated in the Action Plan, including Education, Health, Interior, and Justice. The NCPP follows up on and is informed by the findings from Moldova’s 2018 VACS. In late 2022, HEARD facilitated a Government-led Partner Coordination Roundtable focused on VAC. The Roundtable concluded with partner recommendations on how to advance elements of the Government’s Action Plan. Guided by the outputs from the Roundtable discussion, HEARD Project partners look forward to providing targeted support to the government’s efforts in implementing their NCPP. 

Photo Credits: Ministry of Defense of Ukraine
This photo is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

Maternal Mental Health

Maternal Mental Health

Overview
According to the World Health Organization, worldwide about 10% of pregnant women and 13% of women who have just given birth experience a mental disorder, primarily depression. In developing countries this is even higher (15.6% during pregnancy and 19.8% after child birth). The Implementation Science Collaborative (ISC) is working to bridge research and policy gaps between respectful maternal care and mental health and psychosocial support.

Critical Conversations: International Maternal Newborn Health Conference (IMNHC) 2023
During IMNHC 2023, ISC partners facilitated important discussion on maternal mental health evidence and emerging policy action by drawing from examples in Sub-Saharan Africa. Moderated by University Research Co., LLC, the session, entitled “Advancing Evidence to Practice for Maternal Mental Health: Lessons learned from the Africa region,” convened the University of California San Francisco, the City University of New York, the East, Central and Southern Africa Health Community; and the Infectious Diseases Institute. Learn more about the session here.

Check out our Maternal Mental Health playlist on You Tube, which illustrates the Baby Friendly Spaces program, maternal depression treatment in HIV (M-DEPTH), and provider mental health in respectful maternal care.

The Mental Health and Psychosocial Support Learning Collaborative hosted a webinar which examines ways to strengthen maternal mental health in special populations.

Learn more about the Learning Collaborative and their MHPSS work around the world

Where We Work

Where We Work

Our activities have spanned 19 countries (and counting) across six regions thanks to investments from 11 USAID offices and six missions.

Click on a country below to learn more about the work we’ve done.

Capacity Building

Capacity Building

Enhancing capacity for global implementation science: informing more responsive, equitable, inclusive, and effective curricula and training approaches

Materials Coming Soon

Implementation science (IS) capacity has the potential to catalyze improvements in global health policies and programming. Globally, an array of IS training and curriculum resources have been developed. Join a range of experts from public health training institutions, implementation, and policy-oriented organizations along with those who support IS partnerships across the globe, to explore IS capacity development opportunities, their utility, and availability across contexts and for different audiences. Through three dynamic panels and facilitated discussion, the session will highlight perspectives on IS capacity strengthening approaches. The aim is to identify what works, major challenges and how to improve IS training aims and modalities to better meet real-world needs. The session will contextualize the value of IS capacity underscored by the recent pandemic experience and emerging mental health and development issues.

Implementation Science Evaluation

Implementation Science Evaluation

Designing Tailored Solutions

The Implementation Science Collaborative (ISC) responds to pressing needs and questions related to global health programs and policies. In service to USAID, the HEARD project has evaluated two global as well as country-focused evaluation activities in Jordan, Nigeria, Guinea, and Burkina Faso.

Our Approach 

All of our activities begin with a rapid scoping of proposed evaluations of multi-country or country-specific interventions. In addition to providing input to evaluation design, the Implementation Science Collaborative can also be engaged to evaluate any or every phase of program implementation.

Our global anchor partners The City University of New York, School of Public Health & Health Policy, and The University of California, San Francisco, Center for Global Health Delivery, Diplomacy & Economics, together with our sub-regional and technical resource partners, are mobilized to generate, analyze, and synthesize use evidence through country-driven needs and approaches. ISC’s global anchors serve as the Evaluation Lead, guiding the evaluation design and methodology and participating, as needed, in scoping activities.

In collaboration with the Evaluation Lead, the Design Lead is responsible for leading the design of the evaluation, developing the protocol and tools, and managing the data analysis process. The Evaluation Implementation Team is composed of individuals from Project Anchor partners, the ISC Core Team, and Sub-Regional Anchors for evaluations in their respective regions. Other Technical Resource Partners can be brought in through a competitive process, as needed. 

A Strategy Reference Group (SRG) is established for evaluations that would benefit from applying the consideration of a broader expert group to the evaluation findings. The SRG will review the evaluation findings and take a consensus building approach to develop recommendations in areas of interest for the client/requestor.

The ISC is establishing an Evaluation & Dissemination Group to increase the relevance of and accessibility to implementation science and evaluation study findings.

Partners

All activities are led by a combination of global and sub-regional anchors in collaboration with other partners.

Evaluation Activities

This evaluation explored the quality, management, sustainability, and USAID alignment of Health Service Delivery and its activities to expand the access to and availability of integrated health services to quality Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (RMNCH) services in Jordan. The team used a combination of qualitative data collection, surveys, facility checklists and observations, validation of select monitoring data, and analysis of secondary data sources. 

Click here for the report

USAID Guinea launched a flagship five-year HSD Activity in December 2015 to support the provision of an essential and integrated care package for maternal, neonatal child health and family planning in a consistent, high-quality manner in health facilities and surrounding communities in seven out of eight the regions Guinea (Boké, Conakry, Kindia, Mamou, Faranah, Kankan and Labé). Goals of the evaluation were to: identify and document best/good practices, lessons learned, and insights from engagement of public/private sectors, and understand factors affecting post-investment sustainability of service delivery processes and outcomes.

Final Evaluation Report – FR | EN 
Final Evaluation Report Brief – FR | EN 
Standards-Based Management and Recognition (SBMR) Case Study – FR | EN 
SBMR Case Study Brief – FR | EN 

The purpose of this assessment was to explore the status of the Positive Youth Development (PYD) approach, YouthPower’s role in facilitating PYD uptake, and strategic considerations looking forward. The assessment examined successes and challenges of YouthPower’s experience with PYD programs; the extent to which the PYD approach is understood and utilized by youth development partners in the field; YouthPower’s role in advancing PYD, and the key considerations for expanding use of the approach globally. Assessment results will inform USAID on how the agency can most effectively support PYD through future youth development procurements, including YouthPower 2. 

Final Evaluation Report –EN 
Executive Summary –EN 
PYD Assessment Presentation –EN 

The purpose of this midterm evaluation was to review Global Health Program Cycle Improvement  (GHPro) Project’s performance to date in the landscape of various support mechanisms funded by USAID’s Bureau for Global Health, with the goal of identifying opportunities to add value, improve program quality and efficiency, and reduce cost. 

Click here to view the report: 

The purpose of the IMC Project was to contribute to a 50% reduction of malaria morbidity and mortality in Burkina Faso, relative to 2011 health management information system data, by improving the quality of prevention, diagnosis and treatment of malaria in 100% of the country’s public health facilities by the end of 2018. With the project originally due to end in September 2018, USAID/Burkina Faso requested an external evaluation to assess project progress and challenges related to malaria prevention and treatment efforts and to aid in the development of plans for future USAID-funded support to the national malaria control effort. 
 

The USAID Health Evaluation and Applied Research Development project supported the USAID Nigeria Mission by developing an evaluation scope to address a complex set of impact evaluation and embedded learning needs. As the USAID Mission in Nigeria was preparing to award for two new, five-year bilateral health projects, the Integrated Health Project and President’s Malaria Initiative for States Project, the Mission sought support in conceptualizing an impact evaluation design that would not only measure achievement of intended Project outcomes and impacts, but also draw insights on the comparative strengths of the different program strategies, particularly the projects’ contrasting vertical and integrated approaches to malaria care. 

Assessing the National System For Social Accountability in Health

Assessing the National System For Social Accountability in Health

The National Social Accountability System in Health Assessment Tool (NSASHAT), tested in Rwanda and Malawi, guides national governments and their stakeholders and partners, through the five key domains of Social Accountability (SA) in health, and provides a scoring process for each domain to highlight gaps and strengths. The scores will inform plans to improve their SA in health and strengthen the collaboration of rights holders and duty bearers toward improving reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health services (RMNCH) outcomes through accessible, responsive primary health services.

This assessment report presents the results of the NSASHAT pilot testing. Click here to download.

Global Landscape Analysis Featured at Largest Global Conference on Violence Against Women and Children

This year’s Sexual Violence Research Initiative (SVRI) Forum in Mexico made clear that there is a strong evidence base showing violence as a global public health and human rights issue. Further, we are no longer in the infancy stages of interventions that reduce and prevent violence. Rather, we’re on the cusp of seeing government, organizations, and donors coalesce on adaptation and scale-up. 

SVRI attracted a diverse pool of participants and presentations, ranging from ones based on compelling personal experience to those drawing from large country surveys. Three ISC partners from the Protecting Children from Violence network presented work supported by USAID’s HEARD Project. Together for Girls highlighted findings from the landscape analysis led by the City University of New York and University Research Co., LLC. The analysis presents country experiences using Violence Against Children (VAC) data. 

TPO Uganda and Washington University in St. Louis presented on the effectiveness of the Journey of Life intervention in Kiryandongo, Uganda. Other ISC partners who presented at SVRI included: Universidad de los Andes, Washington University in St. Louis, Makerere University, Population Council, and The University of Edinburgh End Violence Lab. For more information about the topics on which they presented, click here.

Dissemination Highlights

Dissemination Highlights

Stakeholder involvement and input were critical throughout each stage of the Urban Health Assessment, including during discussions about the dissemination of results. On November 22, 2019 a Dissemination Workshop was held at the at the Infectious Diseases Institute of Makerere University in Kampala, Uganda. Thirty-six stakeholders were present for the meeting, representing the national and county government (6), Katwe II slum residents (5), non-governmental organizations (17), multilateral organizations (4), and local media (4).

The purpose of this meeting was to review the case study and literature review to determine key findings and recommendations, as well as improve pathways for dissemination. The key recommendations identified are detailed below.

For urban areas, health is about equity not equality. Therefore, our focus must be on revision and regulation of current nutrition/WASH and agriculture policies to reflect the needs of the urban poor. Involvement of the urban poor in policy development is necessary to ensure their needs are being met.

Health education and marketing are needed to improve health outcomes within urban poor communities. We need to market health as other sectors may market a product to, “touch the pulse of the people.” There is an additional need to educate parents about nutritional choices to help them feed their children the right way.

There is need to strengthen stakeholder involvment and cooperation by establishing linkages between key players, ministries and the community. Additional transparency and coordination among these actors can improve the prioritization of a community’s most pressing needs.

We must improve data collection and data sharing to increase the number of available urban poor datasets. There are significant gaps in data on WASH among children and adolescents, as well as dietary practices of adolescents. Studies and surveys should intentionally sample urban environments, conduct larger scale slum surveys, and label urban poor clusters for improved data use and to expand our evidence base.

Dissemination Highlights

Dissemination Highlights

Stakeholder involvement and input were critical throughout each stage of the Urban Health Assessment. On September 30, 2019, a Dissemination Workshop was held at the Silver Springs Hotel in Nairobi, Kenya. Twenty stakeholders were present for the meeting, representing the national (7) and county government (5), Korogocho slum residents (3) and non-governmental organizations (5).

The purpose of this meeting was to review the case study and literature review to determine key findings and recommendations, as well as improve pathways for dissemination. The key recommendations identified are detailed below.

Findings from the case-study showed that children and adolescents are exposed to various nutrition and WASH vulnerabilities, which have a negative impact on their nutrition status and health. This was despite the existence of many actors and programs running in Korogocho slum. Most of the vulnerabilities faced were attributed to poverty, which highlights the need for more comprehensive programs which include an aspect of poverty alleviation.

A lack of coordination in implementation of Nutrition and WASH programs resulted in duplication of programs. A key recommendation that was made by a senior government official was the need for the Kenyan government to take up the responsibility of coordinating stakeholders currently running programs in Nairobi. This recommendation is now included in the policy brief which will be distributed to various government officials.

As the Ministry of Education is responsible for the school feeding program, it was recommended that we must increase their level of involvement to improve the nutrition of students living in urban slum environments.

Undernutrition among infants and young children were attributed to lack of sufficient time for child care, as most caregivers were involved in income generating activities. Consequently, mothers opted to leave their children in day care centers, but the quality of care offered in most of these centers was poor. This highlights the need for regulation of daycare centers in informal settlements so as to ensure that children receive adequate care.

The lack of adolescent friendly health services was highlighted as a major barrier to utilization of health services, including problems like a lack of privacy and long lines. There is therefore a need to increase the demand for health services among adolescents, which can be achieved by having specific times when adolescents are attended to.

Dissemination Highlights

Dissemination Highlights

Stakeholder involvement and input were critical throughout each stage of the Urban Health Assessment, including during discussions about the dissemination of results. On November 14th, 2019 a Dissemination Workshop was held at the Morena Hotel in Dodoma, Tanzania. Sixteen stakeholders were present for the meeting, representing the national and county government (5), Tandale slum residents (1), non-governmental organizations (9), and multilateral organizations (1).

The purpose of this meeting was to review the case study and literature review to determine key findings and recommendations, as well as improve pathways for dissemination. The key recommendations identified are detailed below. Additionally, the Tanzania Case Study was featured in a recent webinar hosted by USAID’s Health Research Program. View the webinar here.

Participants from the Tanzanian National Bureau of Statistics informed the team that they are now in preparation to conduct a National Health Survey (DHS). They agreed that they need to oversample clusters from slums to be able to have national representative information. They also highlighted that they will segregate the results based on urban and rural and urban poor and rich.

The national team agreed that the urban population requires special consideration and specific interventions. They agreed that during the planning session and review of the National Multisectoral Nutrition Action Plan, they will incorporate interventions/activities for the urban poor population.

Stakeholders advised Ifakara Health Institute to leverage their role in the country to raise awareness of the published policy brief. Additionally, UNICEF agreed to organize a Nutrition Development Partners Meeting to further disseminate the findings.

Stakeholders highlighted the strong need to have policies and guidelines addressing the need of urban poor. The Tanzania Food and Nutrition Centre agreed to add a statement in their nutrition policy addressing the need of urban poor.  

A representative from the Partnership for Nutrition in Tanzania agreed to take full responsibility to advocate for more engagement in urban slums and come up with the package on interventions targeting urban poor population.

Tanzania-Urban Health

Tanzania

Tanzania’s rapid rate of urbanization has resulted in a high proportion (60%) of people living in informal settlements. It is estimated that more than half of the population (55.40 to 63.12%) will live in an urban area by 2030. The drivers of rural-urban migration are employment opportunities and higher education, as well as rural youths being drawn to an urban lifestyle. To address nutrition and WASH challenges, the assessment findings identify gaps and opportunities to use evidence to inform action.

Source: Tanzania Country Brief

“In our area, availability of water is a challenge. We have pipes but sometimes no water. In time of water shortage they sell one bucket for 200 or 150 or more.”

Adolescent FGD Respondent
Tandale Slum

Tanzania Country Brief
Tanzania Community Case Study
Dissemination Highlights

Kenya-Urban health

Kenya

Kenya’s urban population is rapidly increasing, with approximately 32% of the population residing in urban areas. This increase has put pressure on basic facilities such as water, sanitation, security, housing and transportation. In Nairobi, over half of the population resides in slums. 

The assessment findings reinforce the range of challenges facing poor urban children and adolescents. While there is relatively more evidence, data and a more supportive policy environment than in other countries in the region, opportunities remain to use information to inform action, especially for adolescents.

Source: Kenya Country Brief

“Nutrition for adolescents is not good and this is caused by poor economic background, maybe their families are not financially able and this contributes to many adolescents going to dump sites. Like right now the largest population at the dumpsite is of our young age, someone eats dirty food that has not been inspected and many fall sick. All this is because they are not financially stable.” 

Adolescent Resident
Korogocho Slum

Kenya Country Brief
Kenya Community Case Study
Dissemination Highlights

Uganda Urban health

Uganda

Although Uganda is rural, with only 18% urbanized land, it is among the most rapidly urbanizing countries in sub-Saharan Africa.  According to World Bank indicators, 53.6% of Uganda’s urban population was living in slums as of 2015. To meet nutrition and WASH challenges, among others, the Ugandan government and partnering organizations have made progress developing policies and strategies that address the urban poor. The assessment findings highlight additional gaps and opportunities to use evidence to inform action.

Source: Uganda Country Brief

This week, the floods destroyed the houses of many residents in Base zone, and many people including their little children do not have where to stay and their property has been destroyed.

Community Leader
Katwe II Slum

Uganda Country Brief
Uganda Community Case Study
Dissemination Highlights

Community Partner Team Members

Mrs. Resty Babirye Okello
Graduate Student
Makerere University School of Public Health

Ms. Teddy Kisembo
Researcher
Makerere Urban Action Lab

Ms. Judith Mbabazi
Researcher
Makerere Urban Action Lab

Mr. George Mugoma
Community Mobilisation and Youth leader
National Slum Dwellers Federation of Uganda (Makindye)

Mr. Frederick Mugisa
Programmes Coordinator
ACTogether Uganda

 Infectious Diseases Institute Team

Ms. Sharon Among
HEARD project Administrative Assistant

Mr. Joseph Ssenkumba
Senior Grant Manager

Mr. Tom Kakaire
Head of Strategic Planning and Development

Dr. Agnes Nanyonjo
Locum

Dr. Jane. F.N. Wanyama
Senior Technical Lead of the HEARD Project

Urban Health

Urban Health

The Implementation Science Collaboration on Urban Health in East Africa was born out of an initial round table consultation hosted by the East, Central and Southern African Health Community (ECSA-HC) which identified critical nutrition and water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) evidence gaps in the region. The Collaboration’s combination of policy advocacy and practical research influenced a regional Health Minister’s resolution (“ECSA/HMC/67/R3”). The resolution underscores the importance of evidence-based approaches that serve the specific needs of the urban poor.  Within the national contexts of Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda, the stakeholder-engaged process accelerated advances related to policy, program and future research needs for children and adolescents in urban poor settings. 

Click Here for the Overview Brief

Our Approach 

Policy/Advocacy
Stakeholder
Engagement
Process

Consultative
stakeholder
engagement around
urban NUT/WASH
priorities

Continued awareness
and dialogue among
policy/advocacy
platforms at all levels

Policy/program
commitment to
addressing NUT/
WASH in the region

Opportunities for
policy and practice
changes are realized

Enable Parallel Processes to Advance IS Goals

Research
Process

Development of
relevant IS questions

Study
implementation,
including evidence
review, data collection,
and analysis

Packaging
of findings

Wider
dissemination

Nutrition and WASH Country Activities

Kenya

Click here for more information.

Tanzania

Click here for more information.

Uganda

Click here for more information.

Resources

Learning and Sharing

Learning and Sharing

UNFPA and UNICEF

Webinar Series: Strengthening & Sustaining

Click to watch the video
hands holding a Self Injectable Contraceptive device.

Person-Centered Respectful Maternal Care: Optimizing Approaches to Self-Injectable Contraceptives

Click to watch the video
Happy young mother carrying a newborn baby

Perspectives from Kenya & Uganda

Click to watch the video
a happy African woman carrying a baby her back

Provider Well-Being and Respectful Maternity Care in Malawi

Click to watch the video

Findings From a Scoping Review and Crowdsourcing of RMC Intervention & Implementation Evidence 

Click to watch the video

Research

Relation of SAR4P to WHO PRS

SAR4P & WHO Program Reporting Standards

Programme Reporting Standards (PRS)

In 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) published Programme Reporting Standards (PRS) for Sexual, Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health. While the PRS aims to improve reporting about contextual factors (among other things), the PRS is not tailored for social accountability.  To build on and align our work with existing efforts we compare below how each domain of the The Social Accountability Reporting Checklist for Practitioners (SAR4P) relates to the WHO PRS. All text within the boxes is quoted from the WHO PRS. For more information you can click on the hyperlinked page number to see the section these quotes come from, or download the WHO PRS. 

Who are you?

This SA content should be integrated into Element 4 (Stakeholders ) of the WHO PRS.  See page 14 for additional information.

Item 4: Stakeholders

4a. Target population, described using key sociodemographic characteristics (e.g. age, gender, education level)

Describe the programme’s target population and indicate at what level the interventions operate (i.e. individual, group, wider population). For example, the description could be “never-married, in-school adolescent females” or it could be “rural pregnant women”. Include a description of known key sociodemographic characteristics for the population, such as age, gender, education level, income bracket, household structure, religion/ethnic group, etc.

4b. Implementing organization(s)

State the name(s) of the organization(s) involved in developing, implementing and evaluating the programme.

4c. Partners and other stakeholders (e.g. local authorities, community leaders)

List any other stakeholders that were involved in/provided input on the programme, such as community leaders/members, religious leaders, civil society organizations, local authorities and government bodies, young people, private sector partners. This can also include existing or planned support networks outside the structure of the programme that could be relied upon in difficult situations (e.g. referral networks).

4d. Description of the involvement of different stakeholders in programme development and/or implementation

Explain the specific roles of the different stakeholders (mentioned in 4c) in developing, implementing and evaluating the programme. For example, were community members involved in or consulted on the programme design? Which stakeholders were responsible for designing, implementing or evaluating which activities, and at what levels?

How do you define social accountability?
What is the context in which your SA activities were carried out?

This SA content should be integrated into Element 3 (Setting and Context) of the WHO PRS. See page 13 for additional information.

Item 3: Setting and context

3a. Location, i.e. country/place name(s), specific site(s), type of environment (e.g. urban or rural)

Provide information about the geographical location of the programme, including whether it was conducted in multiple sites or a single location, the name of the country/countries and the specific place (state/province/district/ city/town/village), and a description of the environment at each site (e.g. urban/rural/suburban/peri-urban/semirural/slum; coastal/forest/mountain/isolated; humanitarian/crisis setting).

3b. Overview of the context if pertinent to the programme (i.e. political, historical, sociocultural, socioeconomic,legal and/or health system)

Describe location-specific contextual aspects that are pertinent to the programme. With reference to the definition on. p. 5 (see: 2.5 The role of context), include characteristics and circumstances that had an influence on the programme planning and implementation efforts, such as the legal situation (laws and policies), political and/or historical events (e.g. war and conflict), the health system (e.g. human/financial/physical resources, levels and quality of care) and any related sociocultural/socioeconomic factors (e.g. social norms or related prevailing practices, income/poverty levels).

While it may not be possible to describe all contextual aspects in detail, it is important to provide an overview and also to refer readers to additional sources that will further elaborate on the context of the programme.

How did you think change would happen?

This SA content should be integrated into Elements 6 (Theory of Change and/or /Logic Model) and 7 (Human Rights Perspectives) of the WHO PRS.  See page 14 & page 15 for additional information.

Item 6: Theory of change and/or logic model

6a. Theory of change, assumptions and/or logic model underlying the programme, with details for how this guided the programme design, implementation and evaluation plans

Describe the programme’s theory of change – explaining why a certain effect or change is expected to happen and any assumptions that underlie this theory – and/or use a logic model (also known as a logical framework or “log frame”) to depict the relationship between objectives, input, activities, output and outcomes. Explain how the theory of change and/or logic model was used to guide the programme plans and the anticipated changes based on learning during the implementation and/or evaluation phases.

Item 7: Human rights perspectives

7a. Information about whether or not gender, equity, rights and ethical considerations were integrated into the programme, and if so, how

Describe if and how the programme took into account relevant ethical and human rights considerations (in accordance with international human rights standards) and whether issues related to sex, gender, age, disability and other aspects of human rights issues were directly or indirectly addressed by the programme.

7b. Information about whether or not an accountability framework was adapted to define the programme’s commitments and objectives, and if so, how this was done and how the framework will be implemented

Describe if and how an accountability framework was developed to define the programme’s commitments, including its aims, actions and the mechanisms put into place to ensure accountability for these commitments, as well as indicating which stakeholders the programme is accountable to. Explain any tools developed and processes undertaken at specific points during the programme to implement the accountability framework.

What happened, when?

This SA content should be integrated into Elements 13 (Coverage/Reach and Drop Out Rate), 14 (Adaptations), and 17 (Factors Affecting Implementation) of the WHO PRS. See page 17 & page 18 for additional information.

Item 13: Coverage/reach and dropout rate

13a. Uptake (utilization) of each programme activity reported, disaggregated by key sociodemographic characteristics (e.g. age, gender, education level)

Report the coverage or uptake of the programme activities among members of the target population, disaggregated by key sociodemographic characteristics such as age, gender, socioeconomic status and education, and indicate whether coverage differed for different activities (as compared to what was planned). Indicate how this changed over the programme life cycle.

13b. Coverage of the programme activities, including differential reach within and outside of the target population

Describe the actual coverage or reach of programme activities beyond the target population, including an assessment of differential reach within and outside of the target population, and whether coverage differed for different activities (as compared to what was planned). Indicate how this changed over the programme life cycle.

13c. Non-participation and dropout rates among the target population, reported by key sociodemographic characteristics and reasons given, as well as a description of any actions taken to reach out to these individuals

Estimate the extent of dropout (if applicable) and non-participation among participants, and the key sociodemographic factors of those who did not use/attend activities. If possible and if applicable, provide reasons for why participation was lower than expected.

Item 14: Adaptations

14a. Information about whether or not the programme was delivered as intended, including description of any discrepancies between programme design and actual implementation, and the degree of match between programme content and theory of change

Describe whether the programme activities were delivered as originally planned (i.e. fidelity to the design/plans/ theory of change). What was done differently, if anything, and why? Were the adapted components still in line with the theory of change?

14b. Description of ongoing adaptation of programme activities to better fit the context, and the fidelity to the activity plan

Describe if, how and why any adaptations were made to plans and/or activities based on learning during programme implementation, in order to better fit the local context and circumstances.

Item 17: Factors affecting implementation

17a. Description of key barriers and facilitators to programme implementation, including contextual factors (e.g. social, political, economic, health systems)

Elaborate on the main challenges and opportunities faced during programme implementation. This may include internal factors (e.g. staffing and other resources, policies) and external events (e.g. weather, humanitarian situation, industrial strike action) as well as aspects of the political, sociocultural, health systems or other contextual circumstances.

What are the learnings within and beyond your context?

This SA content should be integrated into Elements 21 (Lessons Learnt) and 24 (Possibilities for Implementation in other Settings) of the WHO PRS. See page 20 & page 22 for additional information.

Item 21: Lessons learnt

Appraisal of the weaknesses and strengths of the programme, what worked well, and what can be improved

This item is central to programme reporting as it offers space for reflection on the key strengths and weaknesses that may help inform future decisions. While understanding what worked (and why) is critical, it is equally important to describe what did not work so that others can learn from these experiences.

Item 24: Possibilities for implementation in other settings

Reflections on the context-dependence of the programme and on the degree of effort that would be needed to implement it in/adapt it to other settings

It is important to reflect on the extent to which the programme model could be implemented in other settings that may or may not be similar to the setting where it was first implemented. It may be helpful to address these questions:

– Is it likely that the programme model would work in another context/setting?
– Are there any context-specific components and if so, what are they?
– Which components could be readily implemented in other settings, and why?
– Are there any particular considerations others should take into account when implementing the programme in another setting?

Examples of Good Practices

Examples of Good Practices

While the SAR4P can be useful for practice, the way practitioners report inevitably varies. To better explain the SAR4P, video interviews were conducted with practitioners on how they go about reporting on each domain in the SAR4P in their own work. These videos aim to provide examples of how the different domains of the SAR4P can be reported on. These videos do not aim to be exhausted, but attempt to provide examples that might stimulate further thinking. Further information on the content discussed in the videos can be found on the example documents provided by the video participants below. 

Examples of best practices by Andreas Sihotang and Rikardus Wawo, World Vision.

Reporting example

Examples of best practices by Courtney Tolmie, Results for Development and Wonderlight Consulting.

Reporting examples:

Examples of best practices by Alice Monyo, Sikika.

Reporting example

Examples of best practices by Fernando Jerez, Centro de estudios para la equidad en los sistemas de salud.

Reporting example

Examples of best practices by Sarah Miller Frazer, RTI International.

Reporting example

Social Accountability Reporting Checklist for Practitioners

Social Accountability Reporting Checklist for Practitioners 

The Social Accountability Reporting Checklist for Practitioners (SAR4Practice) is intended to be used by practitioners implementing SA activities in health together with the World Health Organization’s Programme Reporting Standards (WHO PRS). SAR4Practice emphasizes the particular facets of SA that would be useful to report on in addition to what a typical program report would include. For each domain in the SAR4Practice checklist, we identify the element of the WHO PRS where the SA-specific content could be integrated. The asterisks(*) in the domains below indicate a link with the WHO PRS.

Download SARC4P Checklist (PDF Format) Download SARC4P Checklist Editable Template

Who are you?

To explain the background of your social accountability activity, it is important for people to know who you and your organization are, as well as your role in the health system. This clarifies your position so that others can see how you are placed in the field, and how they can(not) relate to you and your social accountability activity.

In this section, the purpose is to make your positionality clear in why and how your social accountability activity happened the way it did. This also requires making clear your basic assumptions such as how you define social accountability.

Why is it important?

This helps readers understand the lens and perspective through which you tell the story.

What it includes and guiding questions

– Who are you in relation to the SA activities described in this document and how do you relate to other stakeholders
– Who are your partners? How do you relate to them?
– What was your role in designing and implementing the described SA activities? What was the role of the partners?
– Who funded this work and what is their interest in this type of work?

How to document it

– Reflect on your own and your organization’s role within broader landscapes of health and politics.

This SA content should be integrated into Element 4 (Stakeholders ) of the WHO PRS.  See page 14  and the SARC4P page for additional information.

How do you define social accountability?
What is the context in which your SA activities were carried out?

To explain the story of a social accountability activity, consider the details. In addition to including both community (e.g., collective efficacy) and health outcomes, describe the context in which the activity took place and explain why this particular design made sense at this specific time and place. This includes the larger structural situation such as epidemiological, demographic, social, political, historical, and economic information at national and regional levels. This also refers to the local environment – e.g. existing power dynamics within the community(ies), local health care capacity, local health workforce capacity, resource availability, and power dynamics/relationships across different levels of the system. Through consultations we learned that organizations are less likely to formally report on local environmental factors, although this information is critically important to sharing learning practices. Also consider your funding context for your social accountability activity.

Why is it important?

This can help readers compare situations and learn from each other and apply it to their own situation.

What it includes and guiding questions

– How do you define SA, in theory and in practice?
– Who are the actors (agents of change or resistance to change) involved?
– What is happening locally in terms of politics, historic and socio-economic trends, community engagement, health issues etc?
– Which of these factors catalyzed your decision to engage in SA?
– Why did you prioritize work on SA on selected issues?
– What are existing accountability structures and spaces (formal, informal, invited, and non-invited)?
– What was advantageous of the selected SA model over others considered?
– How did answers to these questions factor into your thinking of what you wanted to achieve?
– How did the funding contexts and timescales influence the design of your social accountability activity?

How to document it

– Call upon existing literature that discusses different definitions of social accountability to make clear your philosophy of the activities.
– Review and discuss your planning documents, look at policy documents, look back at scoping studies, use media reports, etc.

This SA content should be integrated into Element 3 (Setting and Context) of the WHO PRS. See page 13 and the SARC4P page for additional information.

How did you think change would happen?

The question of how and why you thought change would happen is important because it details the assumptions you made when designing the program to bring about the desired change (results and activities). Consider how the initial reactions and inputs of stakeholders on a local, national, and international scale influenced how you expected change to happen. Also, consider who you expected to do what to make change happen and why (i.e. who would do what and for which activity) and how they may have fit with or departed from what you originally thought would bring about change. Make explicit how your assumptions of change fit with or are different from an explicit theory of change.

Why is it important?

By identifying these assumptions, the reader can understand the gaps between theory and practice that may also be relevant to their own context.

What it includes and guiding questions

– What did you think your program would look like? *(Rationale for the program and how it contributes.)
– What did you plan to happen and how did you expect change to happen? (What was the theory of change?)
– Who did you expect to do what and when?
– Why did you think it would make a change in your context?

How to document it

– If you had already developed a theory of change (TOC) at the start of the program, revisit it with these points in mind. If you did not already have a TOC, discuss and reflect with your colleagues, using these prompts and acknowledging the relative timing of this discussion vis-à-vis the implementation of the activity.
– Discuss and reflect with colleagues about what change you wanted to achieve and how you thought change would happen. Expand the discussion to include changes in relation to power structures and changes in relation to sector outcomes and how they relate.
– Explain how you expect specific activities and outputs to bring about changes that contribute to longer-term goals.
– Describe your key assumptions about the scope, pace, and nature of anticipated change.

This SA content should be integrated into Elements 6 (Theory of Change and/or /Logic Model) and 7 (Human Rights Perspectives) of the WHO PRS.  See page 14, page 15, and the SARC4P page for additional information.

What happened, when?

Concretely explain what happened as part of your activities to inform readers of how program realities may have differed from what you had originally thought would happen. While a surplus of data may be common in some reporting documents, consider explaining and analyzing what these data means for the program. This analysis should link what happened to previously identified contextual factors in the why and how, both at a broader and more local scale. In addition to numbers, focus on concrete events and key actors that determined what results were produced and what data were collected and by whom; consider telling a story of these events in a narrative form. While telling this story, explicitly include who did what, when. Compare and contrast what happened relative to original designs/plans. What proved to be as expected or not? Explain what concrete events helped to bring about change.

Why is it important?

This helps to understand the strengths and weaknesses of change pathways for future practice.

What it includes and guiding questions

– What happened and who implemented and participated in the first year or two?
– What happened in the later years and were any new individuals or groups involved?
– Who was involved in the activities and what did they do?*
     *(Social accountability intervention: development, approaches & implementation)
– Throughout the project, what was supposed to happen, but didn’t? Why?
– What determining factors (e.g. resources, time – including reflections on how much time was allotted vs. how much was needed, capacity) and specific events were influential to implementation and why?*
     *(Setting or context of the intervention, highlighting factors that influenced its design and implementation)
– What adjustments did you make from what you planned and why? Did anything happen that was unexpected? What did you do in response?*
     *(Implementation stages)
– What, if any, changes occurred in power structures and health, development, and governance outcomes (positive and negative)?
– Were there any unexpected outcomes (good or not-so-good)?*
     *(Interpret all findings, balancing benefits and harms and considering other relevant evidence)

How to document it

– Retrospectively reflect and report on what happened during the activities and why, including the timeline along which activities or events took place. Discuss how it compared to the original plan.
– Identify contextual factors and events, key actors, from local partners to global funders, and their influence on the story of change.
– Describe who shaped and/or was involved in SA activities and change.
– Report results, actors involved, modifications of research practice, and overall learnings.
– Explain pathways of how change led to intervention outcomes and/or other intended or unintended consequences.
– Present major and minor themes for different groups/stakeholders.
– Detail ‘successes’ and ‘failures.’
– Reflect on changes at different levels – individual, community, local, regional, and national.

This SA content should be integrated into Elements 13 (Coverage/Reach and Drop Out Rate), 14 (Adaptations), and 17 (Factors Affecting Implementation) of the WHO PRS. See page 17, page 18, and the SARC4P page for additional information.

What are the learnings within and beyond your context?

Following the production of program results, answer what these results mean and why they matter. Consider the implications of the entire social accountability program, as well as specific activities within the program that may provide more nuanced implications. Remain aware that findings can imply different things for different people. For example, what does this program imply for decision-makers’ behavior, for health providers, for engaging vulnerable and or unheard voices? Make clear what the program results imply for the ongoing work of the program stakeholders, as well as the ongoing and future work of organizations working in similar contexts. Make explicit ties between contextual factors and program implications so organizations working in similar, yet different contexts can understand what these results may mean for their practices. Finally, comment upon what these results imply for the overarching theory of change adopted in the program.

Why is it important?

This provides the reader with explicit points to consider in their own contexts and practices.

What it includes and guiding questions

– What was surprising about your experience and results, relative to what you expected when you developed your theory of change?
– What did you learn that you will apply to future work, in this context?
– What would you do differently? What would you maintain?
– What do you think you learned that others might be able to apply to their future SA activities, in similar contexts?*
*(Discuss the transferability of findings taking into account study population, intervention characteristics, length of follow-up, incentives, compliance rates, and specific site/contextual issues).

How to document it

– Discuss and reflect on what characteristics of your results may hold implications for your district or region, country, and other contexts.
– Interpret findings, acknowledging benefits and harms, in a way that makes clear the significance of results within local context.
– Address characteristics and factors that may have skewed results.
– Discuss what your results mean in respect to broader theories of change, and the implications for social accountability in similar contexts.

This SA content should be integrated into Elements 21 (Lessons Learnt) and 24 (Possibilities for Implementation in other Settings) of the WHO PRS. See page 20, page 22, and the SARC4P page for additional information.

Monitoring & Evaluation

Routine Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) for Respectful Maternal Care (RMC) 

Published in Global Health: Science and Practice, “A rapid review of available evidence to inform indicators for routine monitoring and evaluation of respectful maternal care” originated with stakeholders from Tanzania (among others) asking: “Which RMC indicators should we use?” To begin to respond to this question, we undertook a rapid review of the available evidence and look forward to this work informing the consultative process around the development of routine M&E for RMC in Tanzania and beyond.

Social Accountability 

Social Accountability

We have contributed to social accountability knowledge and tools through (1) the development of the Social Accountability Reporting Checklist for Practitioners (SAR4P), which highlights facets of social accountability that would be useful to integrate into typical reporting systems; and (2) a case study that examined the implementation of the National Social Accountability System in Health Assessment Tool (NSASHAT) in Rwanda and Malawi. Check our Resources section below for more information.  

Our Approach 

Investigation

To increase the evidence on what works in scaling up social accountability, we investigate successful examples in low- and middle-income countries.

Data Collection 

Our partners develop tools to facilitate data collection through key informant interviews and Focus Group Discussions at country level with local stakeholders.  

Recommendations

Findings from the analysis will inform recommendations and shared practices that contribute to the institutionalization of programs/systems for social accountability in health at a national level. 

Partners

Partner Activities

Resources

Partner Activities

Social Accountability Reporting Checklist for Practitioners
(SAR4P)

Click here for more information.

Examples of Good Practices

Click here for more information.

Relation of SAR4P to WHO Program Reporting Standards

Click here for more information.

Case Study of Social Accountability from Malawi and Rwanda

Click here for more information.

Resources

MHPSS Intervention Evidence Database

Intervention Evidence Database

The Mental Health and Psychosocial Support Intervention Evidence Database tracks available evidence for MHPSS interventions implemented in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). The database informs when, where, and for whom particular interventions have been scientifically proven to work in addressing specific issues or improving targeted MHPSS-related outcomes (e.g., symptoms of distress, functioning, child development).  

The database is an expansion of a psychosocial support database created by researchers at Johns Hopkins University in 2017 for the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance. The JHU database included studies found through a review of five databases, 12 grey literature sources, and one journal. Interventions included in this initial search focused on prevention of mental conditions or promotion of wellbeing, excluding treatment of mental disorders, in humanitarian settings. This resulted in several entries, encompassing randomized control trials, quasi-experimental, and observational studies.

Global & Country Learning

Global & Country Learning

Analysis Provides First Comprehensive Review of Violence Against Children and Youth Surveys

The Implementation Science Collaborative (ISC), in coordination with Together for Girls, CUNY and USAID, recently published a report, “The Power of Data to Action,” which is a companion summary to the full technical report of the Landscape Analysis on “Using Data to Inform National Efforts to End Violence Against Children: Country Experiences and Lessons following Violence against Children and Youth Surveys.” The Landscape Analysis provides the first comprehensive review of country experiences in transforming their Violence Against Children and Youth Survey results into concrete sex- and age-specific improvements for children and young people. The analysis synthesizes the views of 225 stakeholders from across 20 countries, spanning four regions.

Summary Report: English | Spanish

Full Landscape Analysis Report: English

Data-to-Action for Protecting Children From Violence: Lessons Learned From Indonesia 

Click here to download the report.

Led by Universitas Indonesia, this newly published case study reflects on Indonesia’s experiences, challenges, and perceived potential ways forward in both implementing national surveys to measure violence against children and youth and translating the data into actions. Indonesia’s 2013 survey reflects the strong commitment made by the Government of Indonesia to eliminate or reduce various forms of violence against children via strengthened prevention, protection, and response efforts. Some findings from the survey were even integrated in relevant national policies. In 2018, the Government of Indonesia implemented a second national survey, which suggested that violence rates detected in 2013 persist, and that national efforts have catalyzed action and triggered task-sharing across multi-sectoral groups and stakeholders invested in a comprehensive response. As of 2021, a third VACS was initiated, and the generation of a new report is underway.

Jordan MHPSS

Nurturing Families Program

Nurturing Families is a comprehensive, family-based intervention that helps vulnerable families function better, feel stronger, and ultimately offer a nurturing environment for children. The intervention was piloted by War Child Holland and the Collateral Repair Project in 12 families in the Al Hashmi area of Amman in Jordan in 2022.

Lead Implementation Partner: War Child 
Lead Research Partner: The German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development through the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) 
Population: Syrian, Iraqi, and Jordanian refugees in East Amman (Hashmi al Shamali), Jordan

Problem: In humanitarian contexts, various stressors affect the family – displacement, poverty, increased violence, direct trauma, psychological distress. Caregivers are exposed to diverse stressors, can have high rates of distress, and may struggle to provide responsive and effective parenting. Families are a key protective or risk factor that are often overlooked. Programs working at the individual child or parent level, while important, do not address complex family challenges. Yet, family approaches are seldom conducted or evaluated.

Question: The main research question was “Does the mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) intervention enhance the well-being of persons affected by forced migration due to armed conflict?” Sub-questions were:

  • Active ingredients: What factors make the MHPSS intervention effective?
  • Enhancers of MHPSS effectiveness: Under which conditions can those factors best develop their full potential?
  • Inhibitors of MHPSS effectiveness: What barriers can limit the effectiveness of the MHPSS intervention and how can they be mitigated?

Design & Methods: The intervention was developed through a series of workshops with local study advisors and community advisory boards, the research team, and expert review. The Core Module draws from a 6-session intervention developed by War Child in Lebanon. It was adapted to Jordan, with added child-focused and family sessions to identify remaining needs and optional Advanced Modules. The intervention was piloted with 12 families. Before the intervention, mid-way, immediately after the intervention, as well as 2 and 6 months after the end of sessions, the following outcomes were measured: parent distress, child distress, positive parenting, family relationships, parent ability to manage emotions, the impact of problems on the family, and child well-being.

To further test the intervention with a larger number of participants, a feasibility Randomized Control Trial was conducted with 60 families. Thirty families were randomized to receive the intervention (intervention group), and 30 were randomized to receive standard services at CRP, which included a financial literacy program (control group). Measures were mostly the same as the pilot, but parents were asked to also report on adolescent distress, and asked adolescents to also report on family relationships.

Click to learn more

Parents who participated in the program had lower distress and self-defined problems and demonstrated improved parenting scores, family functioning, and emotional regulation when compared to baseline. Children whose families participated also had lower distress and improved well-being when compared to baseline.  This report summarizes the case study findings from their program pilot as presented during the MHPSS Learning Collaborative Meeting on July 27, 2022.

Click to learn more

Download Research Brief

Psychosocial Support Intervention for Conflict-Affected Populations

Psychosocial Support Intervention for Conflict-Affected Populations

Findings from implementing the Journey of Life program support an emerging evidence base of programs that improve psychosocial programming for refugees in humanitarian settings. However, further work is needed to engage male caregivers and to explore the long-term effects of the program on caregivers and children. 

Lead Implementation Partner: Transcultural Psychosocial Organization (TPO) Uganda
Lead Research Partner: Washington University in St. Louis
Population: Refugees in the Kiryandongo settlement in Uganda 

Problem: The majority of the population of Kiryandongo District in Western Uganda is under age 18 (62%), and 99% of the refugee population have fled conflict in South Sudan, while the rest are from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Kenya, Burundi, and Rwanda. Psychological distress is quite high among refugees in Uganda, affecting both caregivers and their children. However, there are limited health services and, less than 1% of the total population of people with mental health concerns in Kiryandongo are able to receive mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) services (Adaku et al., 2016).

Question: Journey of Life (JoL) addresses the ecologies of children and adolescents by working with caregivers, educators and community members to understand the importance of their support in the protection of children.
JoL has been implemented in various African settings; however, it had never been formally assessed in a humanitarian context. The aim of this work was to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the JoL intervention with a conflict-affected population living in Kiryandongo, Uganda.

Design & Methods: This JoL adaption focused on engaging caregivers in building awareness around child protection and fostering psychosocial support through reflection, dialogue, and action. The series of workshops were divided into 12 sessions that include psychoeducation, self-care, positive parenting, understanding children’s needs, identifying children who need help, and building on children’s strengths. The manualized protocol for 12 sessions was designed to be implemented by non-specialized humanitarian workers. There was an overall emphasis across the curriculum on creating nurturing and caring communities. The JoL study utilized a quasi-experimental design with a waitlist control group and an intervention group to examine the effectiveness of the JoL intervention among refugees displaced in Uganda. The hybrid effectiveness implementation study design utilized a quantitative approach to examine effectiveness and a qualitative approach to examine the implementation of the intervention.

Click to learn more

  • JoL was successful in supporting caregiver well-being and encouraging positive parenting behavior.  
  • Barriers to participation included individuals meeting basic needs, a lack of transportation, and language barriers. Men were less likely to participate in JoL than women. 
  • Findings support an emerging evidence base of programs that improve psychosocial programming for refugees in humanitarian settings. Further work is needed to engage male caregivers and to explore the long-term effects of the program on caregivers and children

Click to learn more

  • The Ministry of Gender, Labor and Social Development attended dissemination events and expressed interest in integrating study findings into expanding social protection programs, particularly for elderly caregivers of young children.  
  • Within TPO, research findings have been presented at monthly management meetings. Key implementation findings and lessons learned have supported scale up interventions using JoL to support caregiver well-being and parenting practices.  
  • Research findings were also presented to the Regional Psychosocial Support Initiatives and are currently in use for future program proposals. 

Click to learn more

Download Research Brief

Success Story: Defying Suicide 

“I have noticed a lot of change in my life due to the group sessions by TPO Uganda. I wouldn’t have managed by myself without a partner like TPO Uganda. They helped to find me a home and peace of mind so I owe my life to the TPO Uganda interventions.” 


–Kenny Achol, Journey of Life Participant  


Click here to read her full story.

Resources

Study protocol-TPO: Journey of Life Psychosocial Support Intervention for Conflict-Affected Populations in Uganda – BMC Public Health (2021) 

For more information about the Journey of Life, please email isc@iscollab.org 

Ecuador & Panama

Reducing Psychological Distress and Intimate Partner Violence Among Forced Migrants 

Mental health and psychosocial problems affecting migrant women are inextricable from other multisectoral priorities such as safety, security, meeting basic needs, protection from violence, and discrimination and xenophobia. To improve psychological well-being and reduce intimate partner violence (IPV) among forced migrants in Ecuador and Panama, we implemented, and evaluated an integrated psychosocial intervention.    

Lead Implementation Partner: HIAS 
Lead Research Partner: Columbia University, Johns Hopkins University  
Population: Forced female migrants in Ecuador and Panama 

Problem: Panamá hosts refugees and migrants from the Northern Triangle (Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador), Nicaragua, Colombia, and Venezuela, among other countries. Ecuador has long been a host country for displaced persons from Colombia and, more recently, Venezuela. Migrants in these contexts face mental health and psychosocial problems, protection risks, and disrupted social and community support systems. Gaps in the provision of psychosocial services, despite the high prevalence of psychosocial problems and threats to the safety and well-being of refugees and migrants, persist in both countries and have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Question: This work adapted Nguvu, an integrated IPV and mental health intervention, from a focused, non-specialized psychological and protection intervention into a psychosocial intervention integrated into basic, evidence-based protection services for women in forcibly displaced communities. The intervention, Entre Nosotras, was designed to address salient psychosocial needs of migrant women in these communities, namely psychological distress, lack of social support and isolation, xenophobia and discrimination, and safety and protection concerns.

Design & Methods: Entre Nosotras is a five-session intervention implemented by HIAS in 11 communities in Ecuador and Panamá. It combined elements of psychoeducation, problem solving, stress management/coping, safety planning, and mobilizing social support and resources. Entre Nosotras was delivered by pairs of trained community members to groups of 6-10 women. The study evaluated the feasibility of delivering the standard and enhanced version of the intervention in the study communities using a cluster randomized comparative effectiveness feasibility trial. Each of the communities were randomly allocated to receive the standard or the enhanced version of Entre Nosotras. 225 women were enrolled and evaluated for their psychosocial wellbeing, psychological distress, social support, coping strategies, and functioning pre-intervention, post-intervention, and five weeks after the intervention had been completed using existing survey tools.

Click to learn more

  • Psychological distress, depression, xenophobia and discrimination, and gender-based violence are important psychosocial problems facing migrant women in Ecuador and Panamá. 
  • It is feasible to integrate community-based participatory methodologies to design and deliver psychosocial interventions that align with the needs and preferences of populations in humanitarian settings 
  • Non-specialists can deliver a group psychosocial intervention to community members with high fidelity and competency. 
  • Mental health and psychosocial problems affecting migrant women are inextricable from other multisectoral priorities such as safety, security, meeting basic needs, protection from violence, and discrimination and xenophobia. Thus, a multisectoral approach to MHPSS policy is critical for impact and sustainability.

Click to learn more

Download Research Brief

Policy & Practice Achievements

HIAS implemented a cross-divisional Global Learning Group, comprised of program staff, strategy and measurement staff, and public affairs and advocacy staff, to work toward:
Evidence-Based Practice | Thought Leadership | Policy Influence | Research Capacity 

“We share experiences. Each one has a different story, but they are also very similar to each other.”

– Stephanie Botia, Program Participant

Play

Feedback from the participants in the Entre Nosotros program in Ecuador

Play

Feedback from the participants in the Entre Nosotros program in Panama

“Before I was in the group, I felt insecure in all aspects; I felt uneasy; I was very afraid of what could happen to me. I feel good today. It helped me a lot.”

– Anabel, Program Participant

Resources 

Evaluating the feasibility of a group psychosocial intervention for migrant and host community women in Ecuador and Panamá: protocol for a multi-site feasibility cluster trial – Pilot and Feasibility Studies (2022)

For more information about Entre Nosotros, please email isc@iscollab.org 

Colombia MHPSS

Effectiveness of Community-based Psychosocial Support Services

Dissemination event in Quibdo, April 21, 2022. Attendees included local, national and international NGOs working in MHPSS and other services for people affected by violence and displacement; officials from the Mayor’s office of Quibdó and the governorship of Chocó; leaders of the rural community of Tutunendo; Venezuelan migrants living in Quibdó; members of the JAC where the CSG took place. 

This intervention examined the effectiveness of the community-based psychosocial support services program Alianza Con Organizaciones Por lo Emocional (ACOPLE) in the Pacific Coast region of Colombia. In a pilot study, participants in community support groups conducted in remote, in-person, and hybrid modalities showed significant improvement in wellbeing and reduction in distress from pre- to post-intervention, although coping results varied.  

Lead Implementation Partner: Heartland Alliance International
Lead Research Partner: La Universidad de Los Andes
Population: Survivors of armed conflict in the municipality of Quibdó, Colombia

Problem: Latin America has recently experienced increasing levels of forced migration, political conflict, economic crises, and community violence. Quibdó, Colombia houses a large number of victims of armed conflict, particularly Afro-Colombian and Venezuelan migrants. From 2020-2021, the region has also been affected by COVID-19, as well as mass protests and police violence, affecting social cohesion in communities.

Question: Since 2010, HAI’s community-based psychosocial support (PSS) services program Alianza Con Organizaciones Por lo Emocional (ACOPLE) has leveraged community psychosocial agents to provide non-specialized community psychosocial support services to survivors of torture and trauma. HAI recognized the need to adapt the ACOPLE intervention to better fit the evolving needs of participants and include a greater focus on peer support and community problem-solving.

Design & Methods: The intervention consisted of 8 weekly group sessions facilitated by non-professional community members from the region with training/supervision from professional mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) providers. Sessions focused on collective problem-solving skills, drawing from WHO’s Problem Management Plus, combined with expressive activities based on cultural practices. During the pandemic, sessions were available in remote and in-person modalities. The second phase measured the effectiveness of the finalized adapted model using a randomized controlled trial methodology.

Click to learn more

  • In a pilot study, participants in community support groups (CSGs) conducted in remote, in-person, and hybrid modalities showed significant improvement in wellbeing and reduction in distress from pre to post intervention, although coping results varied by modality.  
  • In a RCT, CSGs were effective in reducing symptoms of anxiety and depression among participants who attended 4+ sessions. Analyses revealed significant reduction in anxiety, depression, and PTSD for in-person participants, but not for remote participants.  
  • Qualitative data across both studies highlights unique challenges and opportunities in each modality, including potential explanations contributing to lack of effectiveness for remote groups:  
  • In-person: Inclusion of traditional practices and cultural codes (e.g., “comadreo,” or  traditional and informal community talks, common among Afro-Colombians in the Pacific region); confidentiality and safety ensured; strong social cohesion and exchange of peer support; attendance challenges due to conflicting activities.
  • Remote: Flexible scheduling benefits but challenges to privacy, connectivity, social cohesion, and managing distractions.

Click to learn more

  • HAI provided the CSG intervention to the Ministry of Health, Victims Unit, and victims’ organizations, contributing to achieving the objectives of the country’s Victims Law and the Peace Accords. 
  • HAI and the National Association of Displaced Afro-Colombians (AFRODES) are working to ensure that the ACOPLE program continues as an independent community-based MHPSS service provider. The adaptations made to the CSG intervention have allowed ACOPLE to widen its technical expertise and its staff’s professional development.
  • The CSG intervention tested was used to provide MHPSS services in the city of Buenaventura, with funding by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The objective was to serve victims affected by the upsurge in violence since January 2021, providing HAI a space to test the adaptations made to its community-based group intervention. 

Click to learn more

Download Research Brief

Training with HAI-UNHCR Buenaventura staff. The CSG intervention tested through the HEARD project was used to provide MHPSS services in the city of Buenaventura, with funding by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). 

For more information about the ACOPLE project, please email isc@iscollab.org

Bangladesh

Scientific Evaluation of the Psychosocial Impacts of Baby Friendly Spaces

Recognizing the role of maternal mental health in child development, Baby Friendly Spaces (BFS) is a holistic, evidenced-based psychosocial support program implemented as a part of child malnutrition prevention. Services aim to enhance mothers’ wellbeing, internal resources, and child care skills to mitigate the negative impact of humanitarian crisis on children.

Lead Implementation Partner: Action Contre La Faim/Action Against Hunger
Lead Research Partner: University of Virginia, Johns Hopkins University
Population: Displaced Rohingya mothers and their young children in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh

Problem: Symptoms of depression during pregnancy or following childbirth are very common worldwide. During humanitarian emergencies, threats to child health and development are compounded by environmental stressors, such as poverty and exposure to violence, that place children at high risk for cognitive delays, mental health problems, physical illness, and malnutrition. Caregivers of young children also experience heightened risk of poor mental and physical health that may decrease their ability to buffer the impacts of environmental stressors on their children.

Question: This study evaluated Baby Friendly Spaces’ (BFS) effectiveness for improving conflict-affected mothers’ psychosocial well-being and supporting child development and growth among Rohingya mothers and children living in refugee camps in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh.

Design & Methods: ACF developed the BFS program, which consisted of three individual counselling sessions, as well as five individual or group psychosocial stimulation sessions. The study utilized a mixed methods approach. Effectiveness was evaluated with quantitative outcome measures for distress, functioning, subjective well-being, and positive coping.  Both qualitative and quantitative measures were used to evaluate implementation of the intervention.

Click to learn more

Download Research Brief

From the Field: Spotlight on Implementers

“Through this research project, I hope that Rohingya mothers who have mental and psychosocial problems will get better services and [that] we will gain more professional skills.” 

–Jannatul Naima, Psychosocial Worker, Action Contre la Faim, Cox’s Bazar 

Play

This video shows the Baby Friendly Spaces intervention being implemented in the Rohingya refugee camps and includes perspectives from the psychologists, psychosocial workers, researchers, and administrators on site.

Resources

Measuring the psychosocial wellbeing of Rohingya mothers in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh: Psychometric properties of an MHPSS assessment battery

For more information about Baby Friendly Spaces, please email isc@iscollab.org

Country Support to Governments

Country Support to Governments

Partnerships between implementation assistance entities and local research institutions have generated implementation research case studies. This research delineates how and why specific approaches advance respectful care within and beyond the context of a global pandemic, specifically in Tanzania, which in 2019 adopted the National Guideline for Gender and Respectful Care Mainstreaming and Integration Across RMNCAH Services.  

Download Report

Download Report

Download Report

Advancing Respectful & Compassionate Care in Tanzania

 
This information sharing platform equips and empowers stakeholders, including researchers, policymakers and advocates, with information to guide their decision-making and action toward advancing respectful and compassionate care in Tanzania.

Leveraging Implementation Science Approaches to Advance Respectful Care in Tanzania

Dodoma, Tanzania – Implementation Science Collaborative (ISC) partners shared implementation evidence to push for more action toward promoting respectful and compassionate care during a March 2023 Tanzania Nursing and Midwifery Leaders Forum.

Learn More

Research from Tanzania indicates that women report all types of disrespect and abuse. Ways to mitigate include positive change in policy, health systems and facilities, provider training, and community education.

Play
Click here for the Swahili version. 

Resources 

Community and health system intervention to reduce disrespect and abuse during childbirth in Tanga Region, Tanzania: A comparative before-and-after study 

The prevention and elimination of disrespect and abuse during facility-based childbirth 

Understanding how to promote respectful and attentive care

Promising Approaches

A Landscaping Review of Interventions 

Global Technical Anchor partner, University of California, San Francisco, (UCSF) and URC colleagues authored “A landscaping review of interventions to promote respectful maternal care in Africa: Opportunities to advance innovation and accountability,” which was published in the December 2022 edition of Midwifery. The article encourages implementers to develop interventions targeting multiple approaches beyond provider training and consider delivery across pre-pregnancy, pregnancy, birth, and the postnatal periods.

We build on the landscape analysis above, to argue that a behavior change framework, such as the capability, opportunity, and motivation behavior model, holds value for moving the needle on RMC.  We map existing interventions to this framework to highlight opportunities for learning from existing interventions and to guide future development.  Go here to read  “The Case for Using a Behavior Change Model to Design Interventions to Promote Respectful Maternal Care” published in the December 2022 issue of Global Health Science and Practice.

The Power of Birth Companionship

This case study describes the process and lessons learned from a four-year birth companionship project in Kigoma, Tanzania. The intervention was designed to identify facilitators and barriers for potential scalability and sustainability. Results indicated that over 80% of delivering women had a birth companion during childbirth and the majority (96-99%) were satisfied and would recommend it to a relative (82-97%). Successful scale should invest in engagement of key stakeholders, including communities, as well as maternity ward renovations for privacy for audio and visual privacy.

Click here to read the case study.

Click Here to Catch the Webinar Series on Resilient & Respectful Reproductive Maternal Newborn Child and Adolescent Health Systems

Respectful Care in Tanzania 

Tanzania most recently adopted the National Guideline for Gender and Respectful Care Mainstreaming and Integration Across RMNCAH services in Tanzania.  

Routine Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) for Respectful Maternal Care (RMC) 

Published in Global Health: Science and Practice, “A rapid review of available evidence to inform indicators for routine monitoring and evaluation of respectful maternal care” originated with stakeholders from Tanzania (among others) asking: “Which RMC indicators should we use?” To begin to respond to this question, we undertook a rapid review of the available evidence and look forward to this work informing the consultative process around the development of routine M&E for RMC in Tanzania and beyond. 

Respectful Maternal Care

Respectful Maternal Care: Catalyzing Change

Through evidence-informed advocacy, partners promote more respectful care. This page highlights efforts to identify promising approaches, inform monitoring and evaluation, and country support in Tanzania.


ISC RMC Activity Overview Brief 
General Background: Disrespect & Abuse/RMC 

Country Support in Tanzania

Learn More

Promising Approaches

Learn More

Monitoring & Evaluation 

Learn More

Learning & Sharing  

Learn More

Publications, commentaries, webinars, and more.

Advancing Postpartum Hemorrhage Care

Advancing Postpartum Hemorrhage Care

Overview of portfolio development and research studies: Malawi | Madagascar
Partnership approach: Brief

Postpartum hemorrhage remains the leading cause of maternal death in most low-income countries. In response to this challenge, U. S. Agency for International Development (USAID) invested in a global partnership to implement a portfolio of activities to advance evidence to action needs in Malawi and Madagascar.

The Advancing Postpartum Hemorrhage Care partnership, co-managed by the Health Evaluation and Applied Research Development and the Breakthrough RESEARCH projects, collaborated with a strategic set of partners to generate innovative ideas and lessons learned in support of PPH prevention and treatment. Focus areas include mentorship and health provider training, availability and access to blood, referral systems, and surveillance and response systems for maternal death. 

Implementation Research Studies

Webinar: Strengthening systems to avert maternal death (Malawi)

Bottlenecks and opportunities around the use of maternity waiting homes in Malawi

Perceptions and use of non-pneumatic anti-shock garments for management of postpartum hemorrhage in Malawi

From Survey to Action: Protecting Children from Violence 

From Survey to Action: Protecting Children from Violence 

The Violence Against Children and Youth Surveys (VACS) generate critical data on risk and protective factors, consequences of violence, and access to services. Following the VACS, countries work to act on the results through specific policy and program efforts. The post-VACS phase, depicted in Figure 1, typically involves various activities, including data-to-action workshops, report launches, and evidence-based national action plans. These activities are facilitated and implemented through a multisectoral coordination of government, civil society stakeholders as well as other national, regional and international partners supporting efforts to address and ultimately end violence against children. 

Figure 1. Typical Country Efforts in the Post-VACS Phase 

ISC documents and shares successes in acting on VACS data by:    

1. Global landscaping to document the processes, technical support, and coordination mechanisms that have proven to be most useful in transforming VACS results from “data-to-action

2. Directly supporting countries to address key aspects of a country’s post-VACS process through partnered priority identification and a Request for Applications process. This helps select well-equipped implementers to partner with governments on priority action and learning efforts. 

3. Enhancing evidence communication through knowledge sharing hub and network development  

Kenya: Post-VACS Data-to-Action Activities 

Kenya: Post-VACS Data-to-Action Activities 

In 2022, LVCT Health and World Vision Kenya agreed to work together to amplify specific aspects of the country’s response to Violence Against Children and Youth Survey (VACS) results.

In Kenya, which is one of just two countries globally to have completed two VACS (the other is Zimbabwe), the partners created visibility and public awareness of the findings from the most recent (2019) VACS, facilitated county-level planning on implementing the National Prevention and Response Plan on Violence Against Children (NPRP), and allocated resources to the most appropriate interventions. 

LVCT Health and World Vision Kenya convening cross-sectoral workshops at county and national levels. In addition, LVCT             Health completed a retrospective qualitative analysis to explore what policy and program efforts stakeholders in Kenya consider most likely to have contributed to the reduction in violence measured between the first and second VACS. This analysis was co-funded by Wellspring Philanthropic Fund and USAID’s HEARD Project.

Implementer Spotlight: LVCT Health

Anne Ngunjiri, Senior Technical Advisor at LVCT Health, shares how the Violence Against Children Surveys are informing protection policies, response programs, and provision of survivor care in Kenya.

Namibia: Post-VACS Data-to-Action Activities  

Namibia: Post-VACS Data-to-Action Activities  

In 2022, Project Hope and LifeLine/ChildLine Namibia agreed to work together to amplify specific aspects of the country’s response to Violence Against Children and Youth Survey (VACS) results.

The Namibian Government developed a scope of work referencing key takeaways and recommendations from a landscape analysis and country briefs. Lifeline / Childline (LLCL) and Project Hope Namibia (PHN) are respectively focused on two of the government’s key priorities in relation to ending violence against children: strengthening parenting and caregiver programming and making schools safer.

Achievements

  • Training of social workers and parents through a pilot program to reinforce child protection networks
  • Training of trainer materials ready for programs across the country wanting to adopt the national parenting curriculum
  • Endline data collection among learners and parents in 26 schools and a case study competition among the schools featuring specific violence prevention programs they have tried
  • Memorandum of Understanding signed to enable the piloting of an integrated electronic case management system for youth survivors of violence, care providers and relevant stakeholders.

VACS Colombia

Colombia: Scaling Up Interventions to Prevent Violence Against Children

The Government of Colombia has committed to addressing and ending violence against children through the following major actions:  

Harmonization and synthesis icon

Violence Against Children & Youth Survey in 2018

Partnerships icon.

Creation of Pacto Nacional

happy child icon

Bill approved in 2021 to prohibit violence against children

Implementation Science Collaborative Partnerships

The Implementation Science Collaborative helped the Government of Colombia’s Instituto Colombiano para Bienestar Familial (ICBF) develop a National Action Plan (NAP) to identify and fill key programming gaps. To capture this learning experience, Universidad de los Andes completed a process documentation report (available in English and Spanish) on Colombia’s NAP development. The report includes results from the document review and 25 stakeholder interviews from different sectors of government, academia, and civil society.

Children playing with a policewoman.

Achievements

Major milestones were reached along Colombia’s path toward developing a NAP. These included:

We worked through Maestral International to cost the NAP (The report “Costing of the National Plan of Action Against Violence Against Children and Adolescents in Colombia” is available for download in English and Spanish.)

Click to download
Click to download

ICBF and University of Edinburgh’s End Violence Lab implemented an INSPIRE Coordination Course in 2021. Administered to over 150 participants, the course aimed to strengthen capacity among a multisectoral group of government and civil society representatives to refine and implement Colombia’s NAP, including translation of the plan to sub-national departments. 

Case Study: Challenges and lessons learned in the development of the Departmental Action Plans to end VAC in Colombia
English | Spanish (coming soon!)

Case Study: National Action Plan’s Monitoring Strategy
English | Spanish

The landscape analysis is the first comprehensive review of country experiences in transforming VACS results into action and included 225 stakeholders across 20 VACS countries, including Colombia. It provides evidence that the process of undertaking a VACS and the data-to-action model contributes to meaningful policy change and action to end violence against children and adolescents and gender-based violence. It also showcases the urgent need for increased funding for violence prevention and response.

Summary Report in Spanish | Summary Report in English | Full Technical Report in English

Universidad de los Andes hosted several graduate-level VACS Data-to-Policy Fellows, who each carried out an analysis of VACS data. Analytic reports are linked below, and a digital narrative summary of the analyses is available here: https://imagina.uniandes.edu.co/especiales/vacs/

Case Study 1: National Action Plan’s Monitoring Strategy  (English | Spanish)

Case Study 2: Challenges and lessons learned in the development of the Departmental Action Plans to end VAC in Colombia  (English | Spanish)

Case Study 3: The Role of Non-governmental Organizations in the NAP Development  (English | Spanish)

Case Study 4: Developing Evidence-based VAC Prevention and Response Policies  (English | Spanish)

Newsletter

IS for GH Newsletter

Stay Informed

Implementation Science for Global Health (IS for GH) is an e-newsletter for implementers, policymakers, researchers, advocates and donors interested in evidence-based interventions, practices, programs and policies in global health.

IS for GH Newsletters

Subscribe to our newsletter to receive updates on implementation science for global health.

Data to Action Efforts to Address Child Protection in Africa

Data to Action Efforts to Address Child Protection in Africa

USAID’s HEARD Project is pleased to support four new local organizations to advance government-led action plans to address violence against children. LVCT Health and World Vision Kenya in Kenya and Project Hope Namibia (PHN) and LifeLine/ChildLine (LLCL) in Namibia work with XX stakeholders to develop and implement action plans based on the data from the Violence Against Children and Youth Surveys (VACS) (https://iscollab.org/child-protection/). Kenya, for example, is one of just two countries (the other is Zimbabwe) to have carried out a second VACS.

In Kenya, the objectives are to create visibility and public awareness of the VACS and its findings, generate county discussion on implementing the National Prevention and Response Plan on Violence Against Children (NPRP), and allocate resources to the most appropriate interventions. To this end, LVCT Health is carrying out a retrospective qualitative analysis to explore what policy and program efforts stakeholders in Kenya consider most likely to have contributed to the reduction in violence measured in the second VACS. This analysis is being funded by Wellspring Philanthropic fund and USAID/HEARD. Complementing LVCT Health’s efforts, World Vision Kenya will be directly supporting national and county-level government agencies in developing NPRP work plans and buy-in.

In Namibia, LLCL’s goal is to consolidate a National Parenting Program in collaboration with line ministries and other stakeholders. Specifically, PHN will be focused on responding to and preventing violence in school settings by designing interventions and an implementation plan to improve capacity. While the kick-off meeting for these partners’ projects is still in the planning stages, USAID and HEARD representatives participated in a hybrid (part virtual and part in-person) kick-off event on June 3 with the new Kenyan partners. The East, Central, and Southern Africa Health Community (ECSA-HC), as a sub-regional anchor of the HEARD Partnership, provided guidance on regional knowledge sharing.

Member Portal

Member Portal

Welcome to the Implementation Science Collaborative’s member portal. This is a protected space for partners to share knowledge and experiences as well as collaborate on activity implementation to advance issues that improve health and well-being globally.  

ISC User Login

Note: If you currently use Microsoft to login to your company’s environment and are experiencing issues with logging into the ISC website and/or Teams site, review the following document from Microsoft on how to update your browser settings to resolve the problem.

For other login problems or questions about participating in this collaborative environment, please email isc@iscollab.org.

Courses

Private: Registration Success

Welcome

Private: Registration

Woman-Centered Care

Woman-Centered Care

We advance evidence-informed approaches to improve the provision and experience of maternal and newborn healthcare. Learn about our partners’ efforts to address post-partum hemorrhage, respectful care, maternal mental health, and how to strengthen relational aspects of networks of care.

Postpartum Hemorrhage  

Click here to learn more

Respectful Maternal Care 

Click here to learn more

African Woman holding a baby.

Maternal Mental Health 

Click here to learn more

Partners

Knowledge Hubs & News

History of Woman-Centered Care

Resources

Achievements 

ISC partners participated in consultations on disrespect and abuse, which helped inform the WHO Statement on the Prevention and Elimination of Disrespect and Abuse During Facility-Based Childbirth (2014).  Implementation Research Studies in East Africa informed the WHO’s global mistreatment research effort. ISC partners continue to actively engage in the RMC Global Council, community of practice hosted by the White Ribbon Alliance, and support USAID efforts to advance RMC within the agency and beyond.

East, Central Southern Africa Health Community (ECSA-HC) began hosting a series of consultations in 2016, which paved the way for a ministerial resolution on RMC in 2018. The resolution represents tangible member state recognition of RMC as a priority as well as the need to apply implementation science approaches to addressing disrespect and abuse and the advancement of respectful maternal care. ECSA-HC remains a key policy platform partner in the ISC.

In addition to the influence the initial implementation research had in Kenya (Heshima) and Tanzania (Staha), there have been additional policy and strategy advancements in both countries, and we continue to support efforts in Tanzania.  Tanzania most recently adopted the National Guideline for Gender and Respectful Care Mainstreaming and Integration Across RMNCAH services in Tanzania.

Knowledge Hubs & News

Knowledge Hubs

Advancing Maternal Newborn & Child Health Knowledge Hub ECSA-HC Knowledge Hub Africa Academy for Public Health Information Sharing Platform Respectful Maternal Care Wiki Page

News

History of Woman-Centered Care

Play
In 2022, the ISC welcomed more than 300 people from 50+ countries for a webinar exploring evidence, experiences and perspectives on approaches and routine monitoring and evaluation for respectful maternal care in Africa. It was co-hosted by the East, Central, and Southern Africa Health Community and the University of California San Francisco.

Since the Bowser and Hill Landscape Analysis was commissioned in 2010, much has been done to address disrespect and abuse in birthing facilities and to develop, test, and implement interventions and approaches to promote respectful maternal care (RMC) (see the Timeline of Key Events for major milestones). Our global partners and those in Malawi, Madagascar, Kenya, and Tanzania have reflected the power of local leadership, meaningful stakeholder engagement, implementation evidence, and dissemination to inform and improve woman-centered care in their countries.  We have engaged researchers, implementers, and policy experts from Africa and the U.S. to generate more evidence on promising approaches, analysis and consultation around RMC terms and framing, improved packaging of evidence and knowledge products, and informed indicator development for routine monitoring and evaluation of RMC.  

Resources

Other Communities of Practice

Click here to learn more

Mental Health and Psychosocial Support

Mental Health and Psychosocial Support

Low resource contexts facing complex humanitarian crises produce acutely vulnerable populations, including victims of torture. There is an urgent need for evidence-informed action to improve access to mental health and psychosocial support services (MHPSS). Through learning network development and implementation research, we strengthen the evidence base and partnered action for more effective MHPSS interventions policy and programs.

Two Happy girls holding each other.

Our Approach

Play

Learning Collaborative

The MHPSS Learning Collaborative is a global network of stakeholders working to enhance evidence-informed implementation of MHPSS solutions in low-resource settings. The network fosters learning exchange, collaboration on evidence generation and application, and informs uptake of community-level MHPSS interventions through strategic partnership.

This video provides an overview of the ISC MHPSS Learning Collaborative’s work processes, membership, accomplishments, and projects around the world.

Partners

Knowledge Hubs & News

Community Based Approaches

Psychosocial Support Studies

Resources

Knowledge Hubs & News

Knowledge Hubs

City University of New York School of Public Health, Center for Innovation in Mental Health East, Central, and Southern Africa Health Community Resource Center Universidad de los Andes, IMAGINA Research Center

News

Community-Based Approaches

With support from USAID’s HEARD project, we are informing community-based mental health (CBMH) efforts through two complementary activities: (1) a global landscape analysis of relevant CBMH interventions and policies, and (2) support to rapid implementation studies of ongoing CBMH interventions. Collectively, the geographic focus spans Latin America, Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, and touches on parts of the Middle East region.  ISC anchor partners together with an expanding network of new partners are at the helm and bolstered by the MHPSS Learning Collaborative.

What do we want to learn? From the Landscape Analysis we will explore promising/innovative community-based approaches/interventions being implemented to address mental health across the life course; identify the actors in this space; and how the policy and strategy environment supports mental health investment and action. The handful of studies awarded through the previous RFA solicitation will investigate specific interventions currently being implemented and address questions about how they are improving mental health outcomes (e.g. service access, clinical outcomes); and consider how these interventions rate on key implementation factors (e.g. acceptability, scalability, sustainability, adaptability).

Psychosocial Support Studies

Bangladesh

For more information, click here.

Colombia 

For more information, click here

Ecuador & Panama

For more information, click here

Uganda

For more information, click here.

Jordan

For more information, click here

Cross Study Analysis

Coming Soon

Resources

  • COVID-19 and Contextual Adaptations to Community-based Psychosocial Support Interventions for Trauma-impacted Communities

    Webinar

    November | 2021

  • Kenyatta National Hospital, University of Nairobi: Person Centered – Respectful Maternal Care Webinar Series

    Webinar

    April | 2022

  • KNH UoN Webinar

    Enhancing Respectful Care for Newborns and Young Children: Perspectives from Kenya and Uganda

    Webinar

    June | 2022

  • Use of Digital Technology to Access Continuing Professional Development: Case of Tanzania Health Workforce

    Poster

    November | 2022

Resources

African Woman holding a baby.
Maternal Mental Health

The Implementation Science Collaborative is working to bridge research and policy gaps between respectful maternal care and mental health and psychosocial support. Click here to learn more

Evaluation

Evaluation

Implementation science is at the core of all of the work we do across thematic area networks. Committed to inspiring evidence-based change, the Implementation Science Collaborative (ISC) responds to pressing needs and questions related to global health programs and policies. This begins with Implementation Science Evaluation.

Click here to learn more about our approach, evaluation activities and partners.

How We Use Implementation Science to Affect Change

  1. The first step in achieving more effective policies and programs is to consult with local and regional partners. Teams consider country relevance, required buy-in, and the demand by county, regional, and/or national governments/agencies for evidence-informed decision-making.
  2. After a strategy is in place and partnerships are secured, ISC ensures any available research or data is made more accessible, or “liberated,”  so that influencers and policymakers can see evidence of what is needed and what works.
  3. If a data gap exists or key questions need to be answered, ISC supports research and evaluation to explore acceptability, adaptability, effectiveness, scalability and sustainability of proposed policy and interventions.
  4. All evidence is then curated to create advocacy tools, engage relevant agencies and civic groups, and inform communities.

With a process for liberating, strengthening, and sharing data, we can together ignite real change.

Resources

Protecting Children from Violence

Protecting Children from Violence

Through the power of partnership, we have powered data into action to help protect children from violence. Our global landscape analysis provides the first comprehensive review of country efforts following their Violence Against Children and Youth Surveys (VACS), synthesizing the views of 225 stakeholders from across 20 countries. Findings from this analysis were presented at a forum of Health Ministries in East, Central and Southern Africa, which led to the adoption of a resolution during the ensuing Health Ministers Conference to recognize violence against children as an issue and the importance of data in addressing it. Additional catalytic support to data-to-action movements is underway in Colombia, Kenya, Namibia, and Moldova.

Children hugging in a circle

Our Approach 

Problem

1 billion children aged 2–17 years old have suffered violence (physical, sexual, or emotional) or neglect in the past year, according to a report by the World Health Organization,

Data

Violence Against Children and Youth Surveys (VACS), supported by the CDC, have collected nationally representative data on the rate of physical, sexual, and emotional violence experienced before age 18.

Action

We support countries in developing and implementing National Action Plans that respond to VACS. This is achieved through direct technical support; learning and change platforms; landscape analyses, and regional workshops.

Change

Shared knowledge products unveil best practices and positively influence multi-sectoral engagement among stakeholders. Strategic packaging of our materials advocates for investment into National Action Plans and facilitates cross-country learning.

Partners

News & Knowledge Hubs

Partner Activities

Resources

News & Knowledge Hubs

Knowledge Hubs

End Violence Against Children Knowledge Platform Together for Girls Resource Center East, Central, and Southern Africa Health Community Resource Center Universidad de Los Andes, IMAGINA Research Center

News

ISC Partner Activities

Colombia Country Support 

Click here for more information.

Kenya Country Support

Click here for more information.

Namibia Country Support

Click here for more information.
Children in Moldova wearing white traditional clothes

Moldova Country Support

Click here for more information.
Children at the back of a truck

Honduras Country Support

Click here for more information.

Additional Country Support Activities

Coming Soon

Global & Country Learning

Click here for more information.

Resources

Disability Assistive Technologies

Disability Assistive Technologies

The International Society of Wheelchair Professionals (ISWP), an independent entity and resource center, was established under the facilitative and technical leadership of The University of Pittsburgh, with process support from the Implementation Science Collaborative (ISC). A consultative and coordinating body, the ISWP hosts a comprehensive library of wheelchair service standards, education, best practice, training, and more. In addition, the ISWP is working with the International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics (ISPO), an ISC partner, on the World Health Organization’s development of the Standards for Wheelchair Service Provision.

Partners

Knowledge Hub & News

Activities

Resources

ISWP logo
University of Pittsburgh logo
ISPO logo
World Health Organization

Knowledge Hub & News

Knowledge Hubs

Publications Policy Advocacy Kit (PAK) Product Standards Wiki Wheelchair Educators’ Package
wheelchairnetwork.org

News

Activities

The International Society of Wheelchair Professionals serves as an authoritative consultative and coordinating body for:

1

Service standards

Establishing wheelchair service standards, including potential accreditation or credentialing standards.

2

Product standards

Developing evidence-based wheelchair product standards for adverse conditions

3

Adoption& utilization

Promoting the adoption, utilization, and contextualization of product standards, service standards, and related policies in low- and middle-income countries.

4

Coordination

Promoting coordination within the wheelchair sector.

Resources

Connect With Us

Connect With Us

Sign up to receive information, news, updates, and partnership opportunities related to the Implementation Science Collaborative. We promise not to spam you!

Please complete the form below to be placed on our mailing lists.

Partners

Partners

Partners are at the heart of the Implementation Science Collaborative (ISC) and include regional health bodies, policy advocacy groups, civil society-based evidence advocates, implementation support organizations, research organizations, and academic institutions. University Research Co. LLC (URC) is currently serving in the role of Secretariat.

Anchor Partners & Secretariat

Technical Resource Partners

Donors & Collaborators

About Us

About Us

Leveraging Partnerships

The Implementation Science Collaborative (ISC) engages a diverse set of stakeholders-including implementers, advocates, policy makers, researchers and donors- to champion and facilitate the use of evidence to improve practices, programs, and policies in low and middle-income countries. The ISC is supported by USAID’s Health Evaluation and Applied Research Development (HEARD) project managed by University Research Co., LLC (URC), together with six global and regional anchor partners and some 50 technical institutions around the globe.

Our activities have catalyzed action by:

  • Informing ministerial resolutions on child protection, urban health and respectful maternal care in East Central and Southern Africa
  • Advancing evidence-based approaches to community based mental health and psychosocial support
  • Pioneering mentorship models for post-partum hemorrhage care
  • Guiding future US Government investments through country-based evaluation findings in Guinea and Jordan
  • Modifying essential drug list in Madagascar through partner-engaged research
  •  Influencing the uptake of respectful maternal care approaches in East Africa through evidence-based advocacy
  • Supporting the establishment of the International Society of Wheelchair Professionals (ISWP) as an independent entity
Download the HEARD/ISC Brief

Countries Engaged Across 6 Regions

Thematic Networks

Global Partners

Research Studies Conducted

Enhancing Capacity for Global Implementation Science

One of the ISC’s primary goals is to explore implementation science (IS) capacity development opportunities, their utility, and availability across contexts and for different audiences. We seek to identify what works, the major challenges and how to improve IS training aims and modalities to better meet real-world needs.

Learn more by watching highlights from the ISC’s panel discussions during the 2023 Consortium of Universities for Global Health Annual Meeting.

Stakeholders need a neutral space to collaborate.  We accelerate evidence-based decision-making by:

Engaging

in-country community leaders, researchers, and policymakers to understand the community’s core needs

Connecting

capacities and partners across issues and contexts

Providing

knowledge translation support to inform decision-making for policies, programs, and practice

Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy

Who we are

This website belongs to the Implementation Science Collaborative (ISC). Our website address is: https://iscollab.org.

Contact

If you submit a message via the Contact form, the email address, subject, and message you send to us are retained indefinitely. This is so we can recognize, refer to, and follow up with you on your message. This information will not be used for any other purpose.

Join Us

If you sign up for ISC emails via the Join Us form, your email, first name, last name, company name, and job title will be stored in our email marketing database. This is so we can send you emails related to ISC news, updates, and partnership opportunities. Your personal data will not be used for any other purpose. If you would like to unsubscribe from these emails, either follow the unsubscribe directions contained within the emails or submit an unsubscribe request to us via the Contact form on this website.

Embedded content from other websites

Pages on this site may include embedded content (e.g. videos, images, articles, etc.). Embedded content from other websites behaves in the exact same way as if the visitor has visited the other website.

These websites may collect data about you, use cookies, embed additional third-party tracking, and monitor your interaction with that embedded content, including tracking your interaction with the embedded content if you have an account and are logged in to that website.

Search

Quick search

page title
 – 
 results

Search Filters

Keyword Search

Content Type

Expertise

Countries

Regions

Home

The Lancet Elevates Implementation Science

See article in our News section

Growing Implementation Science Partnerships for Global Health & Inclusive Development

Anchor Partners

Infectious Diseases Institute logo

URC logo

URC logo

Click Here For All Partners

WHAT WE DO

Connect Stakeholders. Prioritize Questions. Deliver Evidence. Inform Action.

Partnership and Agenda Development

Inclusive consultation to identify partners and priority questions within an issue area.

Research and Evaluation Study Design and Implementation

“Fit-for-purpose” study designs and methods to address implementation questions.

Data Liberation and Evidence Strengthening

Better use of existing data/evidence to address implementation questions.

Acceleration of Evidence-to-use Processes

Strategic linkages to policy and program pathways to accelerate evidence uptake.

OUR NETWORKS

Disability Assistive Technologies

Protecting Children from Violence

Evaluation

Mental Health and Psychosocial Support

Woman-Centered Care

Social Accountability

Urban Health

Explore more

Contact

Let’s collaborate!

Submit your message, question, or opportunity using the form. We will do our best to get back to you as soon as possible.

Get in touch by using the form below.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to submit the form

Rapid Review vs. Systematic Review: What are the differences?

There is increasing movement towards evidence-informed decision making for health policy and systems. Systematic reviews have been commonly used to inform policy decisions and health systems. A systematic review, however, is usually very resource intensive and takes about 12-24 months to complete. In the real-world setting, policymakers, health system managers and implementers are often faced with situations where they have a short timeframe to identify and review policy or program options to make decisions. Lack of timeliness poses a strong barrier to the use of evidence synthesis in health policy-making. Rapid reviews have emerged as an alternative to address this issue.

Rapid reviews can be viewed as a simplified approach to systematic reviews. A rapid review follows most of the principle steps of a systematic review, using systematic and transparent methods to identify, select, critically appraise and analyze data from relevant research. However, to provide timely evidence, some of the components of a systematic review process are either simplified or omitted. There are various approaches for simplifying the review components, such as by reducing the number of databases, assigning a single reviewer in each step while another reviewer verifies the results, excluding or limiting the use of grey literature, or by narrowing the scope of the review. In general, a rapid review takes about four months or less.

Timeliness and a reduced requirement of resources are the main benefits of a rapid review, which makes it more compelling for health program managers and policymakers. Nevertheless, rapid reviews also come with challenges. It is not easy to meet the time-sensitive needs of policymakers while maintaining methodological rigor and ensuring the validity of the review. Rapid reviews are considered more susceptible to bias compared to systematic reviews, although the extent of bias is unknown. Despite gaining interest from decision makers and program managers, rapid reviews receive criticism, especially from stakeholders in academia. This type of review is often viewed as a “quick and dirty” method, and therefore poses concerns about the reliability and validity of the results.

The distinction between rapid reviews and systematic reviews leads to a question of when to use or not to use a rapid review for evidence synthesis. Rapid reviews have been found to be useful in both emergency (e.g., epidemic, disaster relief) and non-emergency situations. However, there are situations where a rapid review may not be appropriate. For example, in a situation where the evidence will be used to inform the decisions or the development of guidelines that will be implemented at a very large scale (e.g., international, regional), a full systematic review is preferable to a rapid review. Thus, rapid reviews should not be viewed as a method to replace other evidence syntheses, but rather as a means to complement them.

Skip to content