The CMN is carrying out an exciting set of activities to facilitate implementation of assessments. To increase the availability and ensure the quality of coverage assessments, the CMN project aims to develop tools, guidance and evidence on the methodologies used. These outputs have been defined through a variety of methods including; open reviews, implementing partner feedback and research with practitioners. The specific tools will facilitate the process of quantitative data analysis and interpretation. The guidance notes will focus on lessons learned and case studies from the field. Finally, evidence and analysis will serve to respond to questions around specific technical aspects of the methodology. Here follows a list of activities and outputs covering the elements of coverage assessments upon which additional work will be done.
To Strengthen SQUEAC & SLEAC Tools for Assessment Implementers
PRINCIPLE OBJECTIVE: To Increase uptake and integration of coverage assessments and their results by programme / service implementers
1Create revised report template:
- create more succint template with concise executive summary
- elaborate guidance note to support template
More standardised reporting needed to increase availability and accessibility of data1 x revised report template produced with accompanying guidelines
2Coverage calculator
- Revise Bayes Calculator tool to calculate the single coverage estimate
- Create a SLEAC tool that classifies coverage using survey results (Cin, Cout, Rin)
- Create application to produce Pareto style chart for barrier data
Increase usability of methods for programme/service implementers1 x revised Bayes Calculator
1 x SLEAC calculator tool developed
1 x application for barrier data
3Create a series of short reports on Single Coverage Estimate plus guidance note on calculations with examples.
- Uganda Experience: Andrew Prentice
- West Africa Experience: Safari Balegamire
Increase usability of methods for programme/service implementers1 x guidance note with 2 case studies included
4Enhanced guidance on AACF to respond to the following questions;
1) Is AACF as effective as door to door case finding for SAM in rural settings?
2) What is the best way to structure AACF procedure?
3) If you are not sure that your AACF has truly found all SAM cases, what can you do to test this?
Increase usability of methods for programme/service implementers1 x Guidance Document to produce
5Lessons on measuring coverage: Case Studies
1) Guidance on measuring MAM coverage from S3M
2) Experiences and techniques for prior formulation in SQUEAC (e.g. community weighting of BBQ)
3) Sampling in high security areas
4) Maintaining spatial represetivity when using village lists
5) When can a likelihood estimation be taken as a coverage estimate?
Increase usability of methods for programme/service implementers2 x articles produced

1 x guidance document produced
6Produce guidance on the errors in LQAS in stage 2 of the SQUEAC methodologyImproving understanding and communication with stakeholders, donors and the scientific community1 x tutorial document produced
7Produce articles on the differences between the prior estimations and the likelihood resultsIncrease usability of methods for programme/service implementers1 x article produced