Methodology

Evaluation approach (mixed methods, participatory, theory-based)

The evaluation adopted a mixed-methods, participatory, and utilisation-focused approach, combining both qualitative and quantitative methods to assess the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, sustainability, coordination, coverage, and participation dimensions of the project. The methodology was guided primarily by the OECD-DAC evaluation criteria, while also integrating additional humanitarian dimensions, including connectivity, accountability, gender and age sensitivity, human rights-based approaches, and the principle of Do No Harm.

The evaluation was designed to generate evidence-based findings while ensuring that the perspectives of key stakeholders, including rights-holders, implementing partners, health workers, and institutional actors, were adequately represented. The approach emphasized triangulation across multiple data sources and methods in order to strengthen the validity and reliability of findings. The evaluation further adopted a theory-based perspective, examining how project activities and interventions contributed to the achievement of the expected results (R1–R4) and the Specific Objective (SO). In addition to assessing whether results were achieved, the methodology sought to understand how and why changes occurred across the three intervention areas of Kampala, Kyaka II, and Adjumani.

Evaluation Criteria

The evaluation was structured around the OECD-DAC evaluation criteria and additional humanitarian evaluation dimensions outlined in the Terms of Reference. The assessment focused on:

• Relevance and adequacy

• Effectiveness

• Efficiency

• Impact

• Sustainability (viability)

• Connectivity and coherence

• Coordination

• Coverage

• Ownership and participation

Cross-cutting issues, including gender equality, age sensitivity, human rights, conflict sensitivity, accountability to affected populations (AAP), and environmental considerations, were integrated throughout the evaluation process and analysis.

Data Sources and Collection Methods

The evaluation utilized both primary and secondary data sources.

Sampling Strategy

The evaluation covered all three project implementation areas: Kampala, Kyaka II, and Adjumani. A purposive sampling approach was used for Key Informant Interviews and Focus Group Discussions in order to ensure participation of respondents with relevant knowledge, experience, or lived realities related to the intervention. Efforts were made to ensure diversity and representation across gender, age, and vulnerability categories, including women, adolescents, and community-level actors. Selection of facilities and respondents was guided by project coverage, accessibility, and relevance to the evaluation objectives.

Data Analysis

Qualitative data from KIIs and FGDs were analysed using thematic analysis. Responses were organized according to key evaluation themes and criteria, allowing for identification of recurring patterns, perceptions, and emerging issues across the three intervention areas.

Quantitative data from routine records, project monitoring systems, and the endline assessment dataset were analysed descriptively to assess trends and progress related to project indicators and service utilization. Since the endline assessment dataset served as the primary household-level quantitative dataset for the evaluation, comparative analysis was conducted between the baseline and endline datasets in order to assess changes over the project implementation period. This included analysis of indicators related to healthcare access and utilization, mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS), gender-based violence (GBV), awareness levels, participation, and accountability mechanisms across the intervention areas of Kampala, Kyaka II, and Adjumani.

Findings from different sources and methods were triangulated to strengthen consistency, credibility, and overall interpretation. Analysis was further guided by the project’s theory of change and logical framework, linking findings to the expected results (R1–R4) and the Specific Objective.

Ethical Considerations

The evaluation was conducted in accordance with ethical principles applicable to humanitarian and public health evaluations. Participation in interviews and discussions was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from participants prior to engagement. Special attention was given to confidentiality, privacy, and the protection of vulnerable individuals, particularly survivors of gender-based violence. The evaluation adhered to the principles of Do No Harm and applied survivor-centred approaches throughout data collection and reporting processes. No personally identifiable information was included in the report, and information gathered during the evaluation was used strictly for evaluation purposes.

Limitations of the Evaluation

Several limitations were encountered during the evaluation process. These included time constraints associated with conducting fieldwork across geographically dispersed locations, and the sensitivity of certain topics, particularly those related to SGBV and mental health. In some instances, recall bias may have affected participant responses, especially where respondents reflected on activities implemented over an extended period. Additionally, the evaluation relied partly on routine project and health system data, which may have contained inconsistencies or reporting gaps.

Despite these limitations, triangulation of multiple data sources and methods helped strengthen the reliability and credibility of findings.