Examining Conditions that Influence Evaluation use within a Humanitarian Non-Governmental Organization in Burkina Faso (West Africa)
Abstract
Program evaluation can support capacity building and inform practice and policy. Yet long-term efforts to ensure evaluation use (EU) in the humanitarian sector are seldom documented, leaving much uncertainty about EU conditions. This study examined conditions that influenced EU by stakeholders of a humanitarian non-governmental organization (NGO) in Burkina Faso striving to base its health care program on solid evidence. It used 36 qualitative semi-structured interviews and a single case study design to document stakeholders’ (n = 26) perception of EU conditions. Analyses focussed on characteristics of five broad conditions of research use previously documented. Results demonstrate that EU was facilitated by intended users with proactive attitudes, research experience, and willingness to participate in program evaluations. Also helpful was an organizational culture that valued learning, feedback, and accountability, wherein leaders collaborated toward common goals. Evaluation-based knowledge that met information needs and that was actionable, contextualized, and quickly accessible enhanced EU. Knowledge transfer strategies promoting EU were diverse, participatory, adapted to needs, and regularly followed up. Evaluators who were trusted, experienced, credible, and adaptable, promoted EU most effectively. Conversely, EU was compromised when intended users felt distrusting, uninformed, or unable to engage in program evaluations. Knowledge contradicting expectations or deemed inapplicable impeded EU. Adapting knowledge transfer strategies required time and interactions. Initially, evaluations were not sufficiently adapted and put into plain language, which hampered EU. EU conditions are numerous and intricately interrelated, but interpersonal relationships, trust, and effective communication are key conditions for evaluators and stakeholders wishing to promote EU.
Keywords
Program evaluation Evaluation use/utilization Research use/utilization Knowledge translation Utilisation condition West AfricaNotes
Acknowledgements
Over the course of this study, Léna D’Ostie-Racine received funding from the Global Health Research Capacity Strengthening Program (GHR-CAPS) a partnership of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Québec Population Health Research Network. She was later also funded by the Fonds de recherche du Québec - Société et culture. The authors wish to express their utmost gratitude for the kind assistance and proactive participation of HELP managers and staff, the external evaluators, the district health management teams of Dori and Sebba in Burkina Faso, and the ECHO representatives, who together made this study possible. The authors also wish to thank Ludovic Queuille for his support throughout the study and for his insightful comments on previous drafts of the present article. The authors are also thankful to Didier Dupont for his consultations on qualitative analyses and to Karine Racicot for her remarkable help in reviewing and clarifying the application of the codebook. We also wish to thank all those, including Zoé Ouangré and Xavier Barsalou-Verge, who helped transcribe the interviews, which contained a vast array of African, Canadian and European accents. Our gratitude also goes out to all colleagues who provided support and insights throughout the study and/or commented on drafts of this article.
Funding
This work was supported by the European Commission (ECHO), which had no influence on the conduct of this evaluation. The first author received financial support from the Fonds de recherche du Québec – Société et culture (FRQSC), from the Global Health Research Capacity Strengthening Program (GHR-CAPS) a partnership of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Québec Population Health Research Network and support from Équipe RENARD.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Decaration of Conflicting Interest
The first author has benefited from HELP’s logistical assistance. The second and third authors have both worked as consultants for HELP. The funders and the NGO HELP did not take part in decisions on the study design, data collection, or analysis, nor in the preparation or publication of the manuscript.
References
- Adhikari SR, Maskay NM, Sharma BP (2009) Paying for hospital-based care of kala-azar in Nepal: assessing catastrophic, impoverishment and economic consequences. Health Policy Plan 24(2):129–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ahmed M (2005) Bridging research and policy. J Int Dev 17:765–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Alexander J, Bonino F (2014) Ensuring quality of evidence generated through participatory evaluation in humanitarian contexts. ALNAP discussion series: Improving the quality of EHA evidence - Method note 3. ALNAP, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Alkhalaf A (2012) In: University of British Columbia (ed) The relationship among process use, findings use, and stakeholder involvement in evaluation. Unpublished master’s thesis, Vancouver, BC, Canada https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0073351
- Alkin MC, Taut SM (2003) Unbundling evaluation use. Stud Educ Eval 29(1):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- ALNAP (2001) Humanitarian action: Learning from evaluation. ALNAP annual review 2001. ALNAP/Overseas Development Institute, LondonGoogle Scholar
- ALNAP (2006) Evaluating humanitarian action using the OECD-DAC criteria: an ALNAP guide for humanitarian agencies. ALNAP/Overseas Development Institute, London http://www.alnap.org/pool/files/eha_2006.pdf Google Scholar
- Amnesty International (2010) Burkina Faso: Giving life, risking death: Time for action to reduce maternal mortality in Burkina Faso. Index no. In: AFR 60/001/2010. Amnesty International, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Antarou L, Ridde V, Kouanda S et al (2013) La charge de travail des agents de santé dans un contexte de gratuité des soins au Burkina Faso et au Niger [health staff workload in a context of user fees exemption policy for health care in Burkina Faso and Niger]. Bulletin de la Société de Pathologie Exotique 106(4):264–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Banatvala N, Zwi AB (2000) Public health and humanitarian interventions: developing the evidence base. BMJ 321:101–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Beck T (2003) Evaluating humanitarian action: An ALNAP guidance booklet. September 2003, draft. ALNAP, London, p 1Google Scholar
- Bellman L, Webster J, Jeanes A (2011) Knowledge transfer and the integration of research, policy and practice for patient benefit. J Res Nurs 16(3):254–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Blake SC, Ottoson JM (2009) Knowledge utilization: implications for evaluation. N Dir Eval 2009(124):21–34. Retrieved from. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.311 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Boutilier Z, Daibes I, Di Ruggiero E (2011) Global health research case studies: lessons from partnerships addressing health inequities. BMC Int Health Hum Rights 11(Suppl 2, S2)Google Scholar
- Brehaut JC, Eva KW (2012) Building theories of knowledge translation interventions: use the entire menu of constructs. Implement Sci 7:114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Buchanan-Smith M, Cosgrave J (2013) Evaluation of humanitarian action: pilot guide. ALNAP/Overseas Development Institute, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Case DO, Andrews JE, Johnson JD et al (2005) Avoiding versus seeking: the relationship of information seeking to avoidance, blunting, coping, dissonance, and related concepts. Journal of the Medical Library Association 93(3):353–362Google Scholar
- Chaskin RJ, Goerge RM, Skyles A et al (2006) Measuring social capital: an exploration in community-research partnership. Journal of Community Psychology 34(4):489–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Clarke P, Ramalingam B (2008) Organisational change in the humanitarian sector. ALNAP/Overseas Development Institute, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Cousins JB (1998) Organizational consequences of participatory evaluation: school district case study. In: Leithwood K, Louis KS (eds) Organizational learning in schools. Taylor & Francis, New York, pp 127–148Google Scholar
- Cousins JB (2003) Utilization effects of participatory evaluation) In: Kellaghan T, Stufflebeam DL, Wingate LA (eds) International handbook of educational evaluation: part two: practice. Kluwer Academic, Boston, pp 245–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cousins, JB and Bourgeois I (2014) Organizational capacity to do and use evaluation. In B. Cousins & I. Bourgeois (Eds.), New Directions for Evaluation. In P. R. Brandon (series Ed.) (Vol. 141, pp. 1-5). San Francisco: CA: Jossey-bass and the American evaluation association.Google Scholar
- Cousins JB, Earl LM (1992) The case for participatory evaluation. Educ Eval Policy Anal 14(4):397–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cousins JB, Shulha LM (2006) In: Shaw I, Greene JC, Mark M (eds) Handbook of evaluation: Policies, programs and practicesA comparative analysis of evaluation utilization and its cognate fields of enquiry. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 233–254Google Scholar
- Cousins JB, Goh SC, Clark S et al (2004) Integrating evaluative inquiry into the organizational culture: a review and synthesis of the knowledge base. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation 19(2):99–141Google Scholar
- Creswell JW, Plano Clark V (eds) (2006) Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
- Crewe E, Young J (2002) Bridging research and policy: context, evidence and links, working paper 173. Overseas Development Institute, London http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/working_papers/wp173.pdf Google Scholar
- Crisp J (2004) Thinking outside the box: evaluation and humanitarian action. Forced Migration Review 8:4–7Google Scholar
- D’Ostie-Racine L, Dagenais C, Ridde V (2013) An evaluability assessment of a West Africa based non-governmental Organization's (NGO) progressive evaluation strategy. Evaluation and Program Planning 36(1):71–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- D’Ostie-Racine L, Dagenais C, Ridde V (2016a) In: Université de Montréal (ed) Evaluation use within a humanitarian non-governmental organization's health care user-fee exemption program in West Africa. Doctoral dissertation, Montréal, Canada https://papyrus.bib.umontreal.ca/xmlui/handle/1866/16044
- D’Ostie-Racine L, Dagenais C, Ridde V (2016b) A qualitative case study of evaluation use in the context of a collaborative program evaluation strategy in Burkina Faso. Health Research Policy and Systems 14(1)Google Scholar
- Dagenais C, Malo M, Robert É et al (2013a) Knowledge transfer on complex social interventions in public health: a scoping study. PLoS One 8(12):e80233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dagenais C, Queuille L, Ridde V (2013b) Evaluation of a knowledge transfer strategy from a user fee exemption program for vulnerable populations in Burkina Faso. Glob Health Promot 20(Supp 1):70–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Daigneault P-M, Jacob S (2009) Toward accurate measurement of participation: rethinking the conceptualization and operationalization of participatory evaluation. Am J Eval 30:330–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Darcy J and Knox Clarke P (2013) Evidence & knowledge in humanitarian action. Background paper 28th ALNAP meeting Washington DC 5–7 March 2013. London: ALNAPGoogle Scholar
- Dijkzeul D, Hilhorst D, Walker P (2013) Introduction: evidence-based action in humanitarian crises. Disasters 37:S1): S1–S1):S19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dobbins M, Ciliska D, Cockerill R, Barnsley J, DiCenso A (2002) A framework for the dissemination and utilization of research for health-care policy and practice. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing presents the archives of Online Journal of Knowledge Synthesis for Nursing E9 (1):149–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Estabrooks C (1999) The conceptual structure of research utilization. Research in Nursing & Health 22:203–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Graham ID, Tetroe JM (2009) Getting evidence into policy and practice: perspective of a health research funder. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 18(1):46–50Google Scholar
- Griekspoor A, Collins S (2001) Raising standards in emergency relief: how useful are sphere minimum standards for humanitarian assistance? BMJ 323:740–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hallam A (2011) Harnessing the power of evaluation in humanitarian action: an initiative to improve understanding and use of evaluation. ALNAP working paper. London, ALNAP/Overseas Development InstituteGoogle Scholar
- Hallam A, Bonino F (2013) Using evaluation for a change: insights from humanitarian practitioners. ALNAP/Overseas Development Institute, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Hallam A, Bonino F (2014) Using evaluation for a change: insights from humanitarian practitioners - ALNAP discussion starter. ALNAP/Overseas Development Institute, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Harveu P, Stoddard A, Harmer A et al (2010) The state of the humanitarian system : assessing performance and progress. A pilot study. ALNAP/Overseas Development Institute, LondonGoogle Scholar
- HELP (2008) Annual report 2008. HELP-Hilfe zur Selbshilfe e V, BonnGoogle Scholar
- Hendricks M (1994) Making a splash: reporting evaluation results effectively. In: Wholey JS & Newcomer KE (eds) Handbook of practical program evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp.549–575Google Scholar
- Henry G (2003a) Beyond use: understanding evaluation's influence on attitudes and actions. Am J Eval 24(3):293–314Google Scholar
- Henry G (2003b) Influential evaluations. Am J Eval 24(4):515–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Herbert JL (2014) Researching evaluation influence: a review of the literature. Eval Rev 38(5):388–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hoffman SJ, Røttingen J-A, Bennett S et al (2012) Background paper on conceptual issues related to health systems research to inform a WHO global strategy on health systems research. In: A working paper in progress last revised 29 February 2012 Hamilton ON. McMaster University http://www.who.int/alliance-hpsr/alliancehpsr_backgroundpaperhsrstrat1.pdf
- Højlund S (2014) Evaluation use in the organizational context – changing focus to improve theory. Evaluation 20(1):26–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- INSD (2010) La région du Sahel en chiffres. Ministère de l’Économie et des Finances, OuagadougouGoogle Scholar
- James C, Hanson K, McPake B, Balabanova D, Gwatkin D, Hopwood I et al (2006) To retain or remove user fees?: reflections on the current debate in low-and middle-income countries. Applied Health Economic Health Policy 5(3):137–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Johnson K, Greenseid LO, Toal SA et al (2009) Volkov B. research on evaluation use: a review of the empirical literature from 1986 to 2005. Am J Eval 30(3):377–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Karan L (2009) Evaluation use in non-governmental organizations: unlocking the "do – learn – plan" continuum. Tufts University, Medford, MA, Doctoral dissertation http://gradworks.umi.com/3359808.pdf Google Scholar
- Kaufman-Levy D, Poulin M (2003) Evaluability assessment: examining the readiness of a program for evaluation. U.S. Department of Justice, Juvenile Justice Evaluation Center, Washington, DC http://www.jrsa.org/pubs/juv-justice/evaluability-assessment.pdf Google Scholar
- King JA (2007) Developing evaluation capacity through process use. N Dir Eval 2007(116):45–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kirkhart KE (2000) Reconceptualizing evaluation use: an integrated theory of influence. N Dir Eval 2000(88):5–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kitzinger J (1994) The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health & Illness 16(1):103–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kitzinger J (1995) Qualitative research: introducing focus groups. BMJ 311:299–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Knox Clarke P, Darcy J (2014) Insufficient evidence? The quality and use of evaluation in humanitarian action. ALNAP/Overseas Development Institute, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Lavis JN, Lomas J, Hamid M et al (2006) Assessing country-level efforts to link research to action. Bull World Health Organ 84(8):620–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lavis JN, Guindon GE, Cameron D et al (2010) Bridging the gaps between research, policy and practice in low- and middle-income countries: a survey of researchers. Can Med Assoc J 182(9):E350–E361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lavis JN, Boyko J, Gauvin F-P (2014) Evaluating deliberative dialogues focussed on healthy public policy. BMC Public Health 14:1287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Levin-Rozalis M (2009) Recherche et évaluation de programme. In: Ridde V and Dagenais C (eds) Approches et pratiques en évaluation de programme. Les Presses de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal, pp 31–49Google Scholar
- Leviton LC, Hughes EFX (1981) Research on the utilization of evaluations: a review and synthesis. Eval Rev 5(4):525–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lomas J (1991) Words without action? The production, dissemination, and impact of consensus recommendations. Annu Rev Public Health 12:41–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mark MM (2011) Toward better research on—and thinking about—evaluation influence, especially in multisite evaluations. N Dir Eval 2011(129):107–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mark MM, Henry GT (2004) The mechanisms and outcomes of evaluation influence. Evaluation 10(1):35–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Miles MB, Huberman M (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
- Mitton C, Adair CE, McKenzie E et al (2007) Knowledge transfer and exchange: review and synthesis of the literature. The Milbank Quarterly 85(4):729–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- National Research Council (2002) Scientific research in education. In: Shavelson RJ, Town L (eds) Washington, DC: National Academic Press. : Center for education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. National Academy PressGoogle Scholar
- Olivier de Sardan JP (2003) L’enquête socio-anthropologique de terrain : synthèse méthodologique et recommandations à usage des étudiants. Niamey, Niger: LASDEL: Laboratoire d’études et recherches sur les dynamiques sociales et le développement localGoogle Scholar
- Olivier de Sardan JP (2008) La rigueur du qualitatif: Les contraintes empiriques de l'interprétation socio-anthropologique. Academia-Bruylant, Louvain-La-NeuveGoogle Scholar
- Olivier de Sardan JP (2011) Promouvoir la recherche face à la consultance: Autour de l’experience du LASDEL (Niger-Bénin). Cahiers d'Études africaines 2011(2):511–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Patton MQ (1978) Utilization-focused evaluation. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
- Patton MQ (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
- Patton MQ (1996) A world larger than formative and summative. Am J Eval 17(2):131–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Patton MQ (1997) Utilization-focused evaluation, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
- Patton MQ (2007) Process use as a usefulism. N Dir Eval 2007(116):99–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Patton MQ (2008a) Future trends in evaluation) From policies to results: developing capacities for country monitoring and evaluation systems. In: Segone M. UNICEF and IPEN, New York, pp 44–56Google Scholar
- Patton MQ (2008b) Utilization-focused evaluation, 4th edn. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
- Patton MQ, LaBossière F (2009) L'évaluation axée sur l'utilisation. In: Ridde V, Dagenais C (eds) Approches et pratiques en évaluation de programme. Les Presses de l'Université de Montréal, MontréalGoogle Scholar
- Pires AP (1997) Échantillonnage et recherche qualitative: essai théorique et méthodologique. In: Poupart J, Deslauriers JP, Groulx LH, Laperrière A, Mayer R, Pires AP (eds) La recherche qualitative: Enjeux épistémologiques et méthodologiques. Montréal: Gaëtan Morin, pp 113–167Google Scholar
- Podems D (2007) Process use: a case narrative from southern Africa. N Dir Eval 2007(116):87–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Proudlock K, Ramalingam B, Sandison P (2006) Improving humanitarian impact assessment: bridging theory and practice. ALNAP’s 8th review of humanitarian action. ALNAP, London http://www.alnap.org/pool/files/8rhach2.pdf Google Scholar
- Queuille L and Ridde V (2014) Healthcare financing and access in West Africa: empirical and satirical! Ouagadougou: CRCHUM, HELP e.V., ECHO, http://www.equitesante.org/healthcare-financing-access-west-africa-empirical-satirical/
- Rich R (1997) Measuring knowledge utilization: processes and outcomes. Knowledge, Technology & Policy 10(3):11–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Richard F, Ouédraogo C, Zongo V et al (2009) The difficulty of questioning clinical practice: experience of facility-based case reviews in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 116(1):38–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ridde V (2010) Per diems undermine health interventions, systems and research in Africa: burying our heads in the sand. Tropical Med Int HealthGoogle Scholar
- Ridde V, Diarra A (2009) A process evaluation of user fees abolition for pregnant women and children under five years in two districts in Niger (West Africa). BMC Health Serv Res 9(89)Google Scholar
- Ridde V, Haddad S (2013) Pragmatisme et réalisme pour l’évaluation des interventions de santé publique. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique 61(Supp 2):S95–S106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ridde V, Queuille L (2010) User fees exemption: one step on the path toward universal access to healthcare. Pilot experiences in, Burkina Faso. http://www.usi.umontreal.ca/pdffile/2010/exemption/exemption_va.pdf
- Ridde V, Diarra A, Moha M (2011a) User fees abolition policy in Niger: comparing the under five years exemption implementation in two districts. Health Policy 99(3):219–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ridde V, Heinmüller R, Queuille L et al (2011b) Améliorer l’accessibilité financière des soins de santé au Burkina Faso. Glob Health Promot 18(1):110–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ridde V, Goossens S, Shakir S (2012a) Short-term consultancy and collaborative evaluation in a post-conflict and humanitarian setting: lessons from Afghanistan. Evaluation and Program Planning 35(1):180–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ridde V, Queuille L, Atchessi N et al (2012b) The evaluation of an experiment in healthcare user fees exemption for vulnerable groups in Burkina Faso. Field ACTions Science Reports Special issue 8:1–8Google Scholar
- Ridde V, Kouanda S, Yameogo M et al (2013) Why do women pay more than they should? A mixed methods study of the implementation gap in a policy to subsidize the costs of deliveries in Burkina Faso. Evaluation and Program Planning 36(1):145–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Samb O, Belaid L, Ridde V (2013) Burkina Faso: la gratuité des soins aux dépens de la relation entre les femmes et les soignants? Humanitaire: Enjeux, pratiques, débats 35:34–43Google Scholar
- Sandison P (2006) The utilisation of evaluations. ALNAP Review of Humanitarian Action in 2005: Evaluation utilisation, pp 89–144 http://www.livestock-emergency.net/userfiles/file/common-standards/ALNAP-2006.pdf Google Scholar
- Sanou A, Kouyaté B, Bibeau G et al (2011) Evaluability assessment of an immunization improvement strategy in rural Burkina Faso: intervention theory versus reality, information need and evaluations. Evaluation and Program Planning 34(3):303–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Scriven M (1991) Beyond formative and summative evaluation. In: McLaughlin M, Phillips C (eds) Evaluation and education: at quarter century. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 18–64Google Scholar
- Scriven M (2003-2004) Michael Scriven on the differences between evaluation and social science research. The evaluation exchange:9–4Google Scholar
- Shulha LM, Cousins JB (1997) Evaluation use: theory, research, and practice since 1986. Eval Pract 18(3):195–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Smith MF (1989) Evaluability assessment: a practical approach. Kluwer Academic, ClemsonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Smith MF (2005) Evaluability assessment. In: Mathison S (ed) Encyclopedia of evaluation. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 137–140Google Scholar
- Stake RE (2003) Case studies. In: Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (eds) Strategies of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks. CA: SageGoogle Scholar
- Stake RE (2010) Qualitative research: studying how things work. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- The Sphere Project (2011) The sphere project: humanitarian charter and minimum standards in humanitarian response. http://www.sphereproject.org/resources/download-publications/?search=1&keywords=&language=English&category=22
- Thurston WE, Graham J, Hatfield J (2003) Evaluability assessment: a catalyst for program change and improvement. Evaluation & the Health Professions 26(2):206–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Trevisan MS (2007) Evaluability assessment from 1986 to 2006. Am J Eval 28(3):290–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Trevisan MS and Huang YM (2003) Evaluability assessment: a primer, Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 8(20) http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=20
- Tucker JG (2005) Encyclopedia of evaluation. In: Feasibility. In: Mathison S. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, p 155Google Scholar
- Tugwell P, Robinson V, Grimshaw J et al (2006) Systematic reviews and knowledge translation. Bull World Health Organ 84(8):643–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- UNDP (2011) Human development report 2011, sustainability and equity: a better future for all. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- UNICEF (2012) The state of the world's children 2012: Children in an urban world. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)Google Scholar
- United Nations (2009) Millenium development goals report 2009. United Nations, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Utterback JM (1994) Innovation in industry and the diffusion of technology. Science 183(4125):620–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Van der Maren JM (1996) In: Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal and De Boeck (ed) Méthodes de recherche pour l'éducation, 2nd edn, Montreal/BrusselsGoogle Scholar
- Walter I, Nutley SM, Percy-Smith J et al (2004) SCIE Improving the use of research in social care practice, Knowledge review 07. Social Care Institute for Excellence, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Weiss CH (1977) Introduction. In: Weiss CH (ed) Using social research in pubic policy making. Lexington Books, LexingtonGoogle Scholar
- Weiss CH (1998) Have we learned anything new about the use of evaluation? Am J Eval 19(1):21–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- WHO (2004) World report on knowledge for better health: strengthening health systems. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- WHO (2007) World health statistics 2007. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- WHO (2011) World health statistics 2011. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- WHO (2013) The world health report: research for universal health coverage. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- WHO (2014) World health statistics 2014. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- Wholey JS (ed) (1994) Assessing the feasibility and likely usefulness of evaluation. In: Wholey JS, Hatry HP and Newcomer KE (eds) Handbook of practical program evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp.15–39Google Scholar
- Wholey JS (2004) Evaluability assessment. In: Wholey JS, Hatry HP, Newcomer KE (eds) Handbook of practical pogram evaluation (2nd ed). Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 33–62Google Scholar
- Wood A, Apthorpe R, Borton J (eds) (2001) Evaluating international humanitarian action: reflections from practitioners. Zed Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
- World Conference on Science (1999) Excerpts from the declaration on science and the use of scientific knowledge. Sci Commun 21(2):183–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wuehler SE, Hess SY, Brown KH (2011a) Accelerating improvements in nutritional and health status of young children in the Sahel region of sub-Saharan Africa: review of international guidelines on infant and young child feeding and nutrition. Maternal & Child Nutrition 7(Supp 1):6–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wuehler SE, Hess SY, Brown KH (2011b) Situational analysis of infant and young child nutrition activities in the Sahel – executive summary. Maternal & Child Nutrition 7(Supp1):1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Yin RK (1999) Enhancing the quality of case studies in health services research. Health Serv Res 34(5):1209–1224Google Scholar
- Yin RK (2014) Case study research: design and methods. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
- Young J (2005) Research, policy and practice: why developing countries are different. J Int Dev 17(6):727–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar