↓ Skip to main content

Applying the results based management framework to the CERCA multi-component project in adolescent sexual and reproductive health: a retrospective analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive Health, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
153 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Applying the results based management framework to the CERCA multi-component project in adolescent sexual and reproductive health: a retrospective analysis
Published in
Reproductive Health, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12978-018-0461-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathya Cordova-Pozo, Andrea J. Hoopes, Freddy Cordova, Bernardo Vega, Zoyla Segura, Arnold Hagens

Abstract

Adolescent sexual and reproductive health (SRH), problems such as unplanned pregnancies are complex and multifactorial, thus requiring multifaceted prevention interventions. Evaluating the impact of such interventions is important to ensure efficiency, effectiveness and accountability for project funders and community members. In this study, we propose Results Based Management (RBM) as a framework for project management, using the Community Embedded Reproductive Health Care for Adolescents (CERCA) as a case study for RBM. The CERCA Project (2010-2014) tested interventions to reduce adolescent pregnancy in three Latin American countries, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua. Activities were designed to increase adolescent SRH behaviors in four domains: communication with parents, partners and peers; access to SRH information; access to SRH services; and use of contraception. When the project ended, the outcome evaluation showed limited impact with concerns about accuracy of monitoring and attrition of participants. We reviewed and analyzed a series of CERCA documents and related data sources. Key findings from these documents were organized within an RBM framework (planning, monitoring, and impact evaluation) to understand how CERCA methodology and performance might have reaped improved results. Strengths and weaknesses were identified in all three elements of the RBM framework. In Planning, the proposed Theory of Change (ToC) differed from that which was carried out in the intervention package. Each country implemented a different intervention package without articulated assumptions on how the activities of intervention would bring about change. In Monitoring, the project oversight was mainly based on administrative and financial requirements rather than monitoring fidelity and quality of intervention activities. In Impact Evaluation, the original CERCA evaluation assessed intervention effects among adolescents, without identifying success and failure factors related to the outcomes, the nature of the outcomes, or cost-effectiveness of interventions. This analysis showed that multi-country projects are complex, entail risks in execution and require robust project management. RBM can be a useful tool to ensure a systematic approach at different phases within a multi-country setting.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 153 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 153 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 14%
Researcher 15 10%
Student > Bachelor 15 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 7%
Student > Postgraduate 8 5%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 62 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 23 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 12%
Social Sciences 10 7%
Psychology 7 5%
Arts and Humanities 5 3%
Other 22 14%
Unknown 67 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 February 2018.
All research outputs
#4,733,438
of 23,020,670 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Health
#534
of 1,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,634
of 439,449 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Health
#39
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,020,670 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,424 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 439,449 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.