Skip Navigation

Health Policy and Planning 2005 20(Suppl. 1):i18-i31; doi:10.1093/heapol/czi050
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Victora, C. G
Right arrow Articles by Habicht, J.-P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Victora, C. G
Right arrow Articles by Habicht, J.-P.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005, Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. All rights reserved.

Supplement Article

Context matters: interpreting impact findings in child survival evaluations

Cesar G Victora1, Joanna Armstrong Schellenberg2,3, Luis Huicho4, João Amaral5, Shams El Arifeen6, George Pariyo7, Fatuma Manzi3, Robert W scherpbier8, Jennifer Bryce9 and Jean-Pierre Habicht10

1 Programa de Pós-Graduação em Epidemiologia, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Brazil, 2 Gates Malaria Partnership, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK, 3 Ifakara Health Research and Development Centre, Ifakara, Tanzania, 4 Instituto de Salud del Niño and San Marcos University, Lima, Peru, 5 Universidade Federal do Ceará, Fortaleza, Brazil, 6 International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 7 School of Public Health, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda, 8 Department of Child and Adolescent Health and Development, Division of Family and Child Health, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 9 WHO Consultant, 2081 Danby Road, Ithaca, NY, USA and 10 Division of Nutritional Sciences Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

Correspondence: Cesar G Victora, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Epidemiologia, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, CP 464, Pelotas RS 96001, Brazil. E-mail: cvictora{at}terra.com.br

Appropriate consideration of contextual factors is essential for ensuring internal and external validity of randomized and non-randomized evaluations. Contextual factors may confound the association between delivery of the intervention and its potential health impact. They may also modify the effect of the intervention or programme, thus affecting the generalizability of results. This is particularly true for large-scale health programmes, for which impact may vary substantially from one context to another. Understanding the nature and role of contextual factors may improve the validity of study results, as well as help predict programme impact across sites.

This paper describes the experience acquired in measuring and accounting for contextual factors in the Multi-Country Evaluation of the IMCI (Integrated Management of Childhood Illness) strategy in five countries: Bangladesh, Brazil, Peru, Uganda and Tanzania. Two main types of contextual factors were identified. Implementation-related factors include the characteristics of the health systems where IMCI was implemented, such as utilization rates, basic skills of health workers, and availability of drugs, supervision and referral. Impact-related factors include baseline levels and patterns of child mortality and nutritional status, which affect the scope for programme impact.

We describe the strategies used in the IMCI evaluation in order to obtain data on relevant contextual factors and to incorporate them in the analyses. Two case studies – from Tanzania and Peru – show how appropriate consideration of contextual factors may help explain apparently conflicting evaluation results.

Key Words: child health services, programme evaluation, socioeconomic factors, public health


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Health Policy PlanHome page
C. K. deWilde, A. Milman, Y. Flores, J. Salmeron, and I. Ray
An integrated method for evaluating community-based safe water programmes and an application in rural Mexico
Health Policy Plan., November 1, 2008; 23(6): 452 - 464.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Nutr.Home page
D. R. Marsh, J. C. Alegre, and K. Z. Waltensperger
A Results Framework Serves Both Program Design and Delivery Science
J. Nutr., March 1, 2008; 138(3): 630 - 633.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Health Policy PlanHome page
J. Webster, J. Hill, J. Lines, and K. Hanson
Delivery systems for insecticide treated and untreated mosquito nets in Africa: categorization and outcomes achieved
Health Policy Plan., September 1, 2007; 22(5): 277 - 293.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Arch. Dis. Child.Home page
M Ellis and S Allen
Towards millennium development goal four.
Arch. Dis. Child., September 1, 2006; 91(9): 728 - 730.
[Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.