With previous edits included
Hi all,
Please use this protocol version. I realized during class that I was getting my process indicators and short term outcome indicators confused and updated the protocol accordingly.
Dear Priya
Great job. Very cool that you updated your protocol after small group to maximize your useful feedback. Love it.
Q1: Consider making into a table, with indicators and where you are getting the data in separate columns (this kind of table is very handy for grants). For your outcome indicators, I’d be sure also to include denominators—especially in your work, because so many actions depend on the prior result. So, for example, you’d say “among those with sputum samples collected, the number of smears performed.” Will you actually be able to get the time to results for all of the testing? What would be your start point—the initial referral visit? All of these details should be fleshed out.
Re: process indicators—What is KAP? As per the outcome indicators, include denominators. Also, what do you mean by “number of clinics evaluated” or “percentage of lab registers extracted”? I’m not sure these are process measures, but more descriptions of your research methods. The process measures depend upon your intervention and the “activities” you do. So, you might want to have something like # of providers who received incentives or # of providers who attended education sessions.
Q2: You intermediate outcome measure is actually too far downstream. What you want to do is see if something you are doing (e.g., education) actually makes a change that indicates its effectiveness at impacting your outcome (e.g., increased screening). So, a good intermediate indicator here would be a change in provider attitudes/knowledge about TB testing.
Q3: Re: your qualitative data—I’d be really specific about WHO you will be testing and HOW MANY of those people there are (e.g., 10 private practice providers). Unless you want to use different techniques, I’d probably choose one (e.g., focus groups or individual interviews) rather than all three methods (surveys, focus groups and interviews).
Re: your quantitative data—again, be very specific about denominators here. You might want to stick to a primary outcome measure of the number of sputum smear microscopy tests ordered, with a variety of secondary outcome measures examining all of the necessary downstream testing that should be done.
Hi Priya, I think this is a good start.
I liked Christina's suggestion to make a table like this:
MEASURES DATA SOURCE
INTERVENTION PROCESS
AIMS OUTCOME
GOALS IMPACT
That may help you define how each measure fits into your scope, and also may help you combine Q1 and Q2.
I was wondering whether you also wanted to include as an early process measure not just the number of private sector providers identified and interviewed, but also include the TYPE of provider interviewed so that you are able to capture the breadth of those you are reaching. Since you are characterizing a system that is not well defined, I wonder if just defining how all these players interact could be measured and mapped (and used as an indicator of progress) in some way. . . Great job so far.
Hi Priya, A few additional comments to the above suggestions. In addition to placing the Q1 in a table, it may be helpful for you to go through and identify formative indicators as this will be a big part of your intervention. For your mixed method approach, I am struggling on understanding how the quantitative and qualitative pieces will be used in conjunction with one another (e.g. will the quantitative data from Aim 1 be used to inform what should be asked in the qualitative part, or vice versa) and also how these parts will be used to inform your intervention.
Hi Priya, A few additional comments to the above suggestions. In addition to placing the Q1 in a table, it may be helpful for you to go through and identify formative indicators as this will be a big part of your intervention. For your mixed method approach, I am struggling on understanding how the quantitative and qualitative pieces will be used in conjunction with one another (e.g. will the quantitative data from Aim 1 be used to inform what should be asked in the qualitative part, or vice versa) and also how these parts will be used to inform your intervention.