ity and completeness of the data used for the evaluation, and took these factors into account during data interpretation. The methods used to ensure the quality of the primary data collected and the secondary data received through data requests are described in more detail in the sections that follow. When externally analyzed data were used, the committee, IOM staff, and consultants reviewed and assessed the quality of the data and the methodologies used.

As described in Chapter 2, the mandate of the committee was to draw conclusions and make recommendations across the whole of the PEPFAR initiative. Wherever possible, data were gathered and data analyses and interpretation were conducted and presented across all 31 of the PEPFAR partner countries that were the focus of the evaluation;1 however, only very limited data were comparable and comprehensive across all countries. In order to not limit the committee’s findings to data consistently available across the whole of the program and all of these countries, which would have been a significant constraint, the evaluation drew on those subsets of countries, programmatic areas, or intervention components implemented within PEPFAR for which sufficient data could be gathered to contribute to the assessment. Therefore, data presentations and analyses representing these subsets were interpreted with care to inform conclusions about the whole of the program. For example, analysis of country visit interview data was limited to the countries selected for visits by the committee. In addition, some analyses drew on existing data sources that were available only for some countries, programs, and partners, such as Track 1.0 partner data. Some evaluation questions were most applicable only for a subset of countries, such as countries with concentrated epidemics driven by injecting drug use. Finally, the time and resources available limited the scope of some analyses, such as those involving review of Country Operational Plans (COPs), for which the sheer volume of the documents over all countries and years limited the feasibility of comprehensive review across all countries. Throughout the report, where data analyses that do not represent the whole of the program are presented, the scope of these data is described. Because the committee was not charged to draw conclusions or make recommen-

__________________

1 To represent the greatest intensity of PEPFAR’s investment, the scope of this evaluation was defined to focus on the 31 partner countries submitting an annual Country Operational Plan (COP) at the time of the initiation of the planning phase for this evaluation in 2009. They include the original 15 focus countries (Botswana, Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Cooperative Republic of Guyana, Republic of Haiti, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Mozambique, Republic of Namibia, Federal Republic of Nigeria, Republic of Rwanda, Republic of South Africa, United Republic of Tanzania, Republic of Uganda, Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and Republic of Zambia), as well as the following additional countries: Republic of Angola, Kingdom of Cambodia, People’s Republic of China, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, Republic of Ghana, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Kingdom of Lesotho, Republic of Malawi, Russian Federation, Republic of the Sudan, Kingdom of Swaziland, Kingdom of Thailand, the Ukraine, and the Republic of Zimbabwe.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement