Cargando…

How beneficiaries see complex health interventions: a practice review of the Most Significant Change in ten countries

BACKGROUND: The Most Significant Change is a story-based evaluation approach used in many international development programs. This practice review summarises practical experience with the approach in complex health interventions in ten countries, with the objective of making it more accessible in ev...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tonkin, Kendra, Silver, Hilah, Pimentel, Juan, Chomat, Anne Marie, Sarmiento, Ivan, Belaid, Loubna, Cockcroft, Anne, Andersson, Neil
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7871616/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33557938
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13690-021-00536-0
_version_ 1783649042714066944
author Tonkin, Kendra
Silver, Hilah
Pimentel, Juan
Chomat, Anne Marie
Sarmiento, Ivan
Belaid, Loubna
Cockcroft, Anne
Andersson, Neil
author_facet Tonkin, Kendra
Silver, Hilah
Pimentel, Juan
Chomat, Anne Marie
Sarmiento, Ivan
Belaid, Loubna
Cockcroft, Anne
Andersson, Neil
author_sort Tonkin, Kendra
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The Most Significant Change is a story-based evaluation approach used in many international development programs. This practice review summarises practical experience with the approach in complex health interventions in ten countries, with the objective of making it more accessible in evaluation of other complex health interventions. RESULTS: Participatory research practitioners and trainees discussed five themes following brief presentations by each of the seven attendees who led the exercise: (i) sampling and recruitment; (ii) phrasing the questions to elicit stories; (iii) story collection strategies; (iv) quality assurance; and (v) analysis. Notes taken during the meeting provided the framework for this article. Recruitment strategies in small studies included universal engagement and, in larger studies, a purposive, systematic or random sampling. Meeting attendees recommended careful phrasing and piloting of the question(s) as this affects the quality and focus of the stories generated. They stressed the importance of careful training and monitoring of fieldworkers collecting stories to ensure full stories are elicited and recorded. For recording, in most settings they preferred note taking with back-checking or self-writing of stories by story tellers, rather than audio-recording. Analysis can combine participatory selection of a small number of stories, deductive or inductive thematic analysis and discourse analysis. Meeting attendees noted that involvement in collection of the stories and their analysis and discussion had a positive impact for research team members. CONCLUSIONS: Our review confirms the plasticity, feasibility and acceptability of the Most Significant Change technique across different sociopolitical, cultural and environmental contexts of complex interventions. Although the approach can surface unexpected impacts, it is not a 360-degree evaluation. Its strength lies in characterising the changes, where these happen, in the words of the beneficiaries. We hope this distillation of our practice makes the technique more readily available to health sector researchers.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7871616
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78716162021-02-09 How beneficiaries see complex health interventions: a practice review of the Most Significant Change in ten countries Tonkin, Kendra Silver, Hilah Pimentel, Juan Chomat, Anne Marie Sarmiento, Ivan Belaid, Loubna Cockcroft, Anne Andersson, Neil Arch Public Health Methodology BACKGROUND: The Most Significant Change is a story-based evaluation approach used in many international development programs. This practice review summarises practical experience with the approach in complex health interventions in ten countries, with the objective of making it more accessible in evaluation of other complex health interventions. RESULTS: Participatory research practitioners and trainees discussed five themes following brief presentations by each of the seven attendees who led the exercise: (i) sampling and recruitment; (ii) phrasing the questions to elicit stories; (iii) story collection strategies; (iv) quality assurance; and (v) analysis. Notes taken during the meeting provided the framework for this article. Recruitment strategies in small studies included universal engagement and, in larger studies, a purposive, systematic or random sampling. Meeting attendees recommended careful phrasing and piloting of the question(s) as this affects the quality and focus of the stories generated. They stressed the importance of careful training and monitoring of fieldworkers collecting stories to ensure full stories are elicited and recorded. For recording, in most settings they preferred note taking with back-checking or self-writing of stories by story tellers, rather than audio-recording. Analysis can combine participatory selection of a small number of stories, deductive or inductive thematic analysis and discourse analysis. Meeting attendees noted that involvement in collection of the stories and their analysis and discussion had a positive impact for research team members. CONCLUSIONS: Our review confirms the plasticity, feasibility and acceptability of the Most Significant Change technique across different sociopolitical, cultural and environmental contexts of complex interventions. Although the approach can surface unexpected impacts, it is not a 360-degree evaluation. Its strength lies in characterising the changes, where these happen, in the words of the beneficiaries. We hope this distillation of our practice makes the technique more readily available to health sector researchers. BioMed Central 2021-02-08 /pmc/articles/PMC7871616/ /pubmed/33557938 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13690-021-00536-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Methodology
Tonkin, Kendra
Silver, Hilah
Pimentel, Juan
Chomat, Anne Marie
Sarmiento, Ivan
Belaid, Loubna
Cockcroft, Anne
Andersson, Neil
How beneficiaries see complex health interventions: a practice review of the Most Significant Change in ten countries
title How beneficiaries see complex health interventions: a practice review of the Most Significant Change in ten countries
title_full How beneficiaries see complex health interventions: a practice review of the Most Significant Change in ten countries
title_fullStr How beneficiaries see complex health interventions: a practice review of the Most Significant Change in ten countries
title_full_unstemmed How beneficiaries see complex health interventions: a practice review of the Most Significant Change in ten countries
title_short How beneficiaries see complex health interventions: a practice review of the Most Significant Change in ten countries
title_sort how beneficiaries see complex health interventions: a practice review of the most significant change in ten countries
topic Methodology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7871616/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33557938
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13690-021-00536-0
work_keys_str_mv AT tonkinkendra howbeneficiariesseecomplexhealthinterventionsapracticereviewofthemostsignificantchangeintencountries
AT silverhilah howbeneficiariesseecomplexhealthinterventionsapracticereviewofthemostsignificantchangeintencountries
AT pimenteljuan howbeneficiariesseecomplexhealthinterventionsapracticereviewofthemostsignificantchangeintencountries
AT chomatannemarie howbeneficiariesseecomplexhealthinterventionsapracticereviewofthemostsignificantchangeintencountries
AT sarmientoivan howbeneficiariesseecomplexhealthinterventionsapracticereviewofthemostsignificantchangeintencountries
AT belaidloubna howbeneficiariesseecomplexhealthinterventionsapracticereviewofthemostsignificantchangeintencountries
AT cockcroftanne howbeneficiariesseecomplexhealthinterventionsapracticereviewofthemostsignificantchangeintencountries
AT anderssonneil howbeneficiariesseecomplexhealthinterventionsapracticereviewofthemostsignificantchangeintencountries