ACQUIRE Evaluation and Research Studies - Baseline Survey 2005
Kind of Data
Sample survey data [ssd]
Unit of Analysis
Because the survey sample was restricted to the four districts, was purposive, and used quota sampling, the results from this data collection exercise may not be representative of all health facilities in all ACQUIRE-supported districts. In addition, data may be skewed: Dinajpur and Chandpur-the two "high-functioning" districts-together account for 70% of the assessed sites, and it is likely that those FWCs chosen for audit in the high-performing districts are also "higher" performing than average, since a major selection factor was their accessibility by road.
Unit of Analysis
Producers and sponsors
Authoring entity/Primary investigators
The ACQUIRE Project
United States Agency for International Development
Districts were purposively selected. During the first phase of selection, to ensure homogeneity, districts were excluded if the capital city or divisional headquarters were located in the district. Districts were also excluded if they previously received any support from EngenderHealth. During the second phase of selection, districts were purposively selected from the remaining list of districts based on service performance level and intervention schedules.
- Service performance level was judged by service statistics from October 2000 to September
2001 for tubectomy, vasectomy, IUD, and Norplant implant clients
- The intervention schedules were:
- Group 1: scheduled to receive ACQUIRE interventions from April to June 2004
- Group 2: scheduled to receive ACQUIRE interventions from July 2004 to June 2005
Based on these criteria, four districts were purposively chosen. All 29 sub-districts (upazilas) were included within the four districts. Within the 29 upazilas, 121 facilities were purposively chosen and divided into two categories, comprehensive and non-comprehensive. (These categories are named for the tools that ACQUIRE implemented at the sites, not for the range of services provided there.) At the comprehensive sites, a full set of tools, including the facility audit, client-provider observation, client exit interview, and provider interview, was implemented. At the non-comprehensive sites, only the facility audit was used.
The comprehensive sites included all UHCs and MCWCs. Of the total FWCs within each upazila, 40% were chosen purposively based on logistical variables (e.g., road conditions to the site and availability of service providers at the site). Of this 40%, two were identified as comprehensive sites and the remaining were noncomprehensive sites.
Dates of Data Collection (YYYY/MM/DD)
Mode of data collection
Type of Research Instrument
Data Collection Tools
MEASURE Evaluation originally developed the data collection tools and methodology used in this survey for the AMKENI Project, a bilateral USAID project led by EngenderHealth in Kenya. The MEASURE pilot tested these tools for AMKENI in 2002. The tools are based on MEASURE Evaluation’s Services Provision Assessment and Quick Investigation of Quality Tools.
The four tools used in this survey include:
- Facility audit
- Client-provider observation
- Client exit interview
- Provider interview