Session II: The Intersection of Program and Research

1. Session II: The Intersection of Program and Research Results of the User’s Survey Hannah Searing Team Leader, Monitoring, Evaluation and Research, The RESPOND Project Presented at: The LA/PM Research Working Group Meeting, Washington, DC, March 18, 2010

2. Today’s objectives • Go over survey results • The point of the survey was to begin to gather data to begin a discussion on • What are the current and specific LA/PM research projects that we are all currently conducting • What ideas do programmers and implementers have for LA/PM research activities 18

3. Respondent Profile (N=10) • Response rate was 28% (10 people responded out of 36 people who confirmed attendance) • Six of the respondents were from Cooperating Agencies; 2 were Donors; and 2 were from Multilaterals • Respondents categorized themselves as • Researcher, programmer, both or other • Respondents categorized themselves as ‘other’ more often than they said they were ‘programmers’ or ‘researchers’; no one categorized themselves as a ‘programmer’ alone • Other: program manager, project manager, communications expert etc

4. Centralized knowledge base of current LA/PM research projects and findings • Question: Are you or others in your organization currently working on LA/PM research? • If yes, please list current research activities related to LA/PMs in their work plans • include study title, study objective(s) and country or countries where study is being conducted • Nearly all respondents (9 out of 10) responded that their organization was currently working on LA/PM research • 8 provided some detail, although only 3 answers were specific enough to include here

5. Centralized forum for generating ideas for research activities • Question: Are you or others in your organization programming or implementing LA/PM focused activities? • If yes, list up to 5 key issues that you currently face that might lend themselves to research on LA/PMs • The majority (8 out of 10) responded that their organization was currently programming or implementing LA/PM focused activities • When asked to list specific issues, most (5 out of 7) provided specific details

6. Centralized forum for generating ideas for research activities Key issues reported by respondents that might lend themselves to research on LA/PMs Supply • Better counseling and result on uptake of LA methods among young women • Access • Managing rumors • Follow up care • Managing side effects • Effective clinical service delivery modalities • Task shifting • Insertion and removal of implants • Cost and cost-effectiveness of LA/PM methods and modalities • Developing and testing models for integrating FP into other RH services • Sino-implants: stock-outs; access to removal; adequate counseling around insertions/ensuring method choice; quality of care in mobile clinics/outreach; and utility of kits for insertion and removals

7. Centralized forum for generating ideas for research activities Key issues reported by respondents that might lend themselves to research on LA/PMs • Demand • Will the demand outstrip the supply when low cost implants (like Sino-Implant) are registered and made available. • Reasons for non-use of FP among women with an unmet need for delaying, spacing, and limiting • Meta-analysis of parity and age to support messages on limiting • When made available with all other methods, what percent of "limiters" will accept implants and why? • When implants are positioned as a birth spacing methods especially in the context of HTSP, and all short-acting and long-acting methods are made available, what percent of spacers will accept implants and why? • Willingness to pay studies on implants • Providing LA/PMs over the life cycle • Trends in Depo discontinuation among spacers and limiters • LA method and injectable discontinuation

8. Centralized forum for generating ideas for research activities Key issues reported by respondents that might lend themselves to research on LA/PMs • Enabling environment • Creative ways to finance implants • Holistic program planning • Scaling up with little or no Field Support -- how to get the momentum going • Documenting and disseminating best practices -- how to ensure adoption • Community, gender, and/or societal norms that promote or inhibit use of LA/PMs and FP • Influence of social cognitive and interaction factors on LAPM decision-making

9. Breakout groups to discuss the issues • Please break into groups of up to 5 • Discuss and summarize the group responses to the below questions: • What are some of the key priorities among the research topics listed? • Are there any important gaps in the list of potential LA/PM research topics? If so, what are they?

10. www.respond-project.org

11. Session III: Setting the LA/PM RWG Agenda Determining Our Purpose, Outputs and Process Hannah Searing Team Leader, Monitoring, Evaluation and Research, The RESPOND Project Presented at: The LA/PM Research Working Group Meeting, Washington, DC, March 18, 2010

12. What are we proposing to do and why? • Overall purpose • To increase program/implementer input into the development of LA/PM research agendas • To increase use of existing LA/PM research among programmers and policymakers • To serve as a forum for participants to: exchange their preliminary research findings, develop action plans for research use, and or make work planning linkages

13. Brainstorming • Do we want to continue as a group? • If so, what would be our defined purpose and what would be useful to the field? • Some ideas we have so far are • Literature review of existing LA/PM research • A searchable, expert filtered LA/PM research database • List of LA/PM future research topics

14. www.respond-project.org