TABLE 4.
Respondents’ experiences with monitoring and evaluation of activities engaging family members in nutrition
| Monitoring and evaluation | Respondents1 (total n = 183), n (%) |
|---|---|
| Collected monitoring data | |
| Yes | 115 (63) |
| No | 63 (34) |
| Type of data collected2,3 | |
| Number of family members reached | 93 (75) |
| Number of activities conducted | 85 (68) |
| Number of people trained by gender | 78 (63) |
| Mothers’ responses to program/intervention | 74 (61) |
| Family members’ responses toprogram/intervention | 67 (56) |
| Level of support by family members | 44 (36) |
| Other | 3 (3) |
| Identified unintended consequences | |
| Yes, through monitoring activities | 50 (27) |
| Yes, through observation/anecdotal evidence | 49 (27) |
| No, did not identify any | 43 (23) |
| We did not monitor for them | 33 (18) |
| Missing | 8 (4) |
| Conducted an evaluation3 | |
| No evaluations conducted | 46 (26) |
| Baseline evaluation | 105 (57) |
| Midline evaluation | 47 (26) |
| Endline evaluation | 78 (43) |
| Process evaluation | 56 (31) |
| Missing | 10 (5) |
1
The survey sample (n = 183) was comprised of participants who reported previous experience engaging family members in program activities and completed >50% of the survey.
2
Percentage of those who reported collecting monitoring data (n = 115).
3
Multiple outcomes allowed.