Abstract
One of the key indicators monitored by programs implementing the PEPFAR-funded projects is school-based HIV and violence prevention. To prioritize this key performance indicator for the program, a vulnerability assessment is conducted through data collection on variables that build up gender-based violence; physical violence, emotional violence, and sexual violence among the AGYWs enrolled in these programs. Once a target priority is enumerated, GBV screening is conducted by a trained HTS provider. Wouldn’t the fund attain a more targeted and effective use if the vulnerability assessment data at enrollment was consistent with the GBV screening results? It is a postulation of this study that the data to support this claim as maintained by the program will reveal a great disparity and inconsistency because the enrollment data is blatant miss information when screening for GBV and the gap is in the manner of its collection, the point in time it is collected, the consultants temporarily hired to collect, and the information out there in the community about PEPFAR activities. This paper maintains a view that the GBV vulnerabilities reported during enrollment are significantly inconsistent with the results during service provision by trained HTS providers. In fact, in most cases, those that report positive for GBV in at least three months to the point of enrollment will screen negative for any of the three categories of GBV. Even with the robust strategies employed by CDC-funded prevention projects, when it comes to assessing vulnerability and GBV, the observation of this review is that such projects as DREAMs are capturing limited and overly inaccurate data based in part, on the view that such sensitive data is left to be mined by enumerators untrained in HTS or GBV screening. General population data can be gathered by any literate enumerator, however, when it comes to sensitive or biomedical data such as GBV, it requires the expertise of a counselor or a trained health practitioner if programs such as DREAMS were to save resources by targeting the right AGYW right from enrolment, the programs owe this to us, it owes it to the whole community to collect accurate data and ensure the most exposed to the HIV /AIDs are prioritized at the right time for the most suitable interventions.
Click the secure Payment link below to access the full text at only $100
Summary of Findings
My attention to conduct a research on GBV Data accuracy at the point it is collected is drawn by a short commercial on a Kenyan popular Televisiion Station. "Every eleven minutes, a woman is killed by someone...," the ad goes. UN Women reports that globally, one in every 3 girls or women aged fifteen and above has experienced GBV. However, how best can we rely on public health data and other data sources that seems to be both inconsistent and inacurate according to available literature? How can CDC-funded programs provide checks and balances to ensure the data in harmonized databases are reliable at any stage or phase of service provision? The answer lies with the investment in public information. This research identify the most suitable source of public information and whom to deliver the knowldge and the form the information is effectively relayed. This is the reason I have gone to the villages where some of these NGOs interact with beneficiaries and communities to compile this research based on facts, figures, and observations, and discussions backed by extensive literature analysis.
The health sector is one among others that are mostly impacted by disparate data sources. As such, it is important that data harmonization enables the collection and use of information on AGYW populations from various sources and monitors the variety, frequency, and locations of services that an individual AGYW receives.
PEPFAR-funded projects are set up for anomalous data points, unfortunately.However, there is hardly a sound approach to identify such problem areas. This review, presents and observes the truth that experts might overlook, it is an account of workers that are the first line of interaction with targeted populations, and it's written with an innocent view of a community member.
Any implementing partner of a PEPFAR project must ensure an effective delivery of information regarding the objective of such programs for an informed perception among the AGYWs interviewed for enrolment and the community at large. Misconception about PEPFAR-funded programs especially those that target HIV risk prevention is one of the major drawbacks to ensuring consistency and sometimes cause misleading information whenever they arise. Is it time to improve the specificity of tools such as the PEPFAR OVC ESI questionnaire as highlighted in a PEPFAR Measure Evaluation published in 2018 by the University of North Carolina?
Perhaps the most challenging question to answer is whether the respondents during screening offer misleading information about their vulnerability status to gain enrollment into the program. In theory, it has been determined to be true in the literature examined. But that is again; limited to the perception of those recruited or targeted for the program as specifically enumerated by Sugarman et al., in 2019, but still lacks quantitative merit just as well as this study is limited to observation and theory as far as this question is concerned.
Is preventive misconception, PM a hindrance to acquiring the right HIV and violence-related data? Is it time for better standardization as far as the approach to collecting data is concerned? What about a possible contribution of high expectation of personal benefits, EPB towards inaccurate data maintained by donor-funded programs such as those towards epidemic control?
The use of data sets is a key resource in covering the cost estimates of a program and further, defining the at-risk population in any program. However, context and other factors that create vulnerability to SRHR risks for AGYW change over time. These changes need to be taken into consideration regarding data collection strategies even with known disparity issues in collating data for the health sector.
Comments
Post a Comment