↓ Skip to main content

A qualitative case study of evaluation use in the context of a collaborative program evaluation strategy in Burkina Faso

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, May 2016
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 (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
100 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
A qualitative case study of evaluation use in the context of a collaborative program evaluation strategy in Burkina Faso
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12961-016-0109-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Léna D’Ostie-Racine, Christian Dagenais, Valéry Ridde

Abstract

Program evaluation is widely recognized in the international humanitarian sector as a means to make interventions and policies more evidence based, equitable, and accountable. Yet, little is known about the way humanitarian non-governmental organizations (NGOs) actually use evaluations. The current qualitative evaluation employed an instrumental case study design to examine evaluation use (EU) by a humanitarian NGO based in Burkina Faso. This organization developed an evaluation strategy in 2008 to document the implementation and effects of its maternal and child healthcare user fee exemption program. Program evaluations have been undertaken ever since, and the present study examined the discourses of evaluation partners in 2009 (n = 15) and 2011 (n = 17). Semi-structured individual interviews and one group interview were conducted to identify instances of EU over time. Alkin and Taut's (Stud Educ Eval 29:1-12, 2003) conceptualization of EU was used as the basis for thematic qualitative analyses of the different forms of EU identified by stakeholders of the exemption program in the two data collection periods. Results demonstrated that stakeholders began to understand and value the utility of program evaluations once they were exposed to evaluation findings and then progressively used evaluations over time. EU was manifested in a variety of ways, including instrumental and conceptual use of evaluation processes and findings, as well as the persuasive use of findings. Such EU supported planning, decision-making, program practices, evaluation capacity, and advocacy. The study sheds light on the many ways evaluations can be used by different actors in the humanitarian sector. Conceptualizations of EU are also critically discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 1%
Rwanda 1 1%
Unknown 98 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 11%
Researcher 10 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 2%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 26 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 20 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 6%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 25 25%
Unknown 29 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 18 February 2019.
All research outputs
#6,291,877
of 25,306,238 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#747
of 1,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,180
of 345,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#12
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,306,238 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,378 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 345,130 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.