Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Evaluation Report
Gurmit Singh IAS Professional Development Coordinator
January 2009
Evaluation Report for Education Programme at AIDS 2008 2
Table of contents
1. Introduction............................................................................................................ 3
2. Background ........................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Programme participants................................................................................. 3
2.2 Programme components................................................................................ 3
3. The Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Purpose.......................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Objectives ...................................................................................................... 5
3.3 Methodology................................................................................................... 5
4. Evaluation Findings ............................................................................................... 6
4.1 The seminar ................................................................................................... 6
4.2 Conference Mentoring ................................................................................... 7
4.3 Follow-up........................................................................................................ 8
5. Conclusion............................................................................................................. 8
5.1 Strengths of the Education Programme......................................................... 8
5.2 Overall impact of the Education Programme................................................. 9
5.3 Emerging issues............................................................................................. 9
6. Recommendations ................................................................................................ 9
Appendix I: Participant List ........................................................................................ 11
Appendix II: Education Programme agenda, 2-7 August 2008................................. 12
Appendix III: Participant survey on the 1-day seminar............................................... 13
Appendix IV: Mentoring participants survey............................................................... 17
Appendix V: Mentoring mentors’ survey..................................................................... 21
Appendix VI: Participants’ follow-up survey results....................................................25
Evaluation Report for Education Programme at AIDS 2008 3
1. Introduction This report documents the evaluation of the AIDS 2008 Prevention Research Mentoring and Education Programme (hereafter Education Programme) conducted in conjunction with the 18th International AIDS Conference, Mexico City, Mexico (AIDS 2008). This programme was developed by IAS in partnership with AVAC, ICASO, GNP+, ICW and RedLA+. 2. Background The need to strengthen biomedical prevention research literacy among community advocates emerged as an important priority in the course of the IAS’ multi-stakeholder consultations on PrEP in July 2005 and August 2006 following the controversies related to clinical trials evaluating tenofovir as PrEP in Thailand, Cameroon, Nigeria and Malawi. Given this context, the goal of the Education Programme as a whole was:
To expand and develop participants’ knowledge and understanding of biomedical prevention research and its challenges, so that they are equipped with the capacity to advocate for meaningful community participation in prevention research.
2.1 Programme participants
The target group for the programme was identified as: Civil society advocates and activists with civil society organizations from countries and communities where biomedical research is already underway or planned.
Each of the Positive Networks and AVAC nominated 5 participants for the programme. Of these 25 nominated participants, all of whom were community advocates involved or interested in biomedical prevention research, 18 attended the programme1. (See Appendix I for the list of participants).
2.2 Programme components The programme comprised a one-day seminar held immediately prior to the conference together with group mentoring and a series of debriefing sessions throughout the conference. Pre-programme needs assessment Prior to arriving in Mexico, all participants were sent a questionnaire to find out their needs and expectations. Analysis of these results ensured that the programme developed was tailor-made and pertinent to their identified needs and expectations on biomedical prevention research. Based on the pre-programme needs assessment, the programme components were designed to realize the following anticipated outcomes:
1. Increased knowledge of methodological issues involved in designing and implementing clinical trials with various biomedical prevention interventions.
2. Greater understanding on the ethical standards required for biomedical prevention research
1 All participants selected for the programme received a full scholarship to attend AIDS 2008.
Evaluation Report for Education Programme at AIDS 2008 4
3. Increased knowledge of current and planned microbicide, PrEP and vaccine trials in both the developed and developing world, and about other potential emerging prevention approaches.
4. Increased awareness of key findings on prevention research presented at the AIDS 2008 conference.
5. Enhanced networking with other advocates, both during and beyond the conference. These outcomes also contributed to the planning discussions of the advisory group. They informed the development of evaluation and the issues they address are flagged in the evaluation findings, discussion and recommendations. Seminar The programme began with a one day seminar immediately before AIDS 2008 in Mexico City. It was held at the Fiesta Americana Reforma Hotel from 9am to 6pm on Saturday 2nd August 2008 (See Appendix II for the seminar agenda). Key AVAC staff gave three presentations that flagged the current issues, the science of prevention research, the Good Participatory Practice Guidelines for Community Participation, and the skills to advocate for prevention research in communities. In addition, a panel discussion with 2 guest speakers discussed the cross-cutting issues and challenges identified from their experiences in the field. Conference Mentoring After the seminar, the programme included a mentoring component. This consisted of a ‘road-map’ designed to assist seminar participants select the most relevant sessions at AIDS 2008, and guidance provided by more experienced mentors throughout the conference. To this end, seminar participants were broken into five small groups, each one supervised by a mentor, who directed them to the right sessions and helped them find their way, since all were first-time conference delegates. Each group was encouraged to meet once a day to review the new knowledge and skills they had acquired at the conference. Participants were provided session templates to take notes and share with their peers so as to distribute tasks, and multiply learning during a packed conference schedule. Facilitated meetings were also conducted each evening with all groups, to review their learning, to share impressions of the conference, to raise questions and to ‘debrief’ on any areas of need. Post-programme Follow-up All participants were invited to sign on to AVAC’s Advocates Networks. This network provides members with regular email announcements, updates and notices of events or activities related to AIDS vaccine research around the world. In addition, a follow-up survey was sent out to participants in December 2008 to assess how participants were applying what they learnt in their work as community advocates.
Evaluation Report for Education Programme at AIDS 2008 5
3. The Evaluation
3.1 Purpose
The evaluation is being articulated in terms of a concise review of the impact of the Education Programme for participants. It is informed by principles of participatory evaluation with a broad base of inputs and a focus on quality improvement. Evaluation methods used (surveys) took into account the broader context of the programme, so as to facilitate feedback from the stakeholders. The evaluation was directed chiefly to issues of process and impact. In addition to overviewing the development and implementation of the programme, the intention is that this evaluation will provide practical recommendations and guidance to inform future activity in this area.
3.2 Objectives
Three objectives have been identified for the evaluation.
1. To identify the strengths and weaknesses of the Education Programme. 2. To assess the overall impact of the elements of the Education Programme. 3. To identify emergent issues to guide future planning and decision-making in relation to similar
educational activities.
These objectives give rise to five key evaluation questions:
1. Did the Education Programme attract the right people? 2. Did the Mentoring Component facilitate participants’ access to the AIDS 2008 Conference, as
well as networking? 3. Was the syllabus of the seminar seen by the Advisory Group, participants and facilitators to
be relevant and useful? 4. Were the learning approaches stimulating/engaging and participatory? 5. Did participants gain things from the Education Programme that they perceive will influence
or assist their work in the field?
3.3 Methodology Data collection strategies included: • reviewing planning documentation • consulting with relevant IAS staff • surveying key informants and stakeholders. These included participants, members of advisory
group, relevant IAS and AVAC faculty, speakers and mentors. These allowed for consideration of both process and impact issues within the programme. Data collections tools were developed in consultation with the IAS Evaluation Coordinator.
Evaluation Report for Education Programme at AIDS 2008 6
4. Evaluation Findings
4.1 The seminar At the end of the seminar, participants were invited to fill in a survey. 15 completed surveys were returned. (See Appendix III: Seminar Participants’ Survey). Overall the seminar was evaluated very positively.The vast majority of surveyed participants decided to attend the seminar in order to better understand the prevention research field (100% of respondents) and to acquire new knowledge and skills (87%). Opportunities to share experiences and lessons learnt, as well as benefiting from the mentoring, were also important decision criteria (73%). Most of them (93%) reported that the information received before the seminar was very useful towards preparation. The seminar programme seemed to have matched well with the level and needs of attendees, since none of them reported its content as “difficult” or “very difficult”. In fact, the majority rated the quality of the seminar content as “good” or “excellent”. The quality of teaching methods, speakers, facilitation and the overall organization were also highly rated. Most respondents were satisfied by the format/structure (in terms of mix of presentations and group work, duration, number of participants and speakers), including the opportunities to ask questions and to interact with speakers and other participants. Based on the evaluation conducted, there is no doubt that this seminar had a positive impact on participants, since the majority of respondents indicated it was “very useful” or “somewhat useful” to increasing their knowledge related to the seminar topic, networking with other advocates, and better understanding the ethical standards required for biomedical prevention research. The proportion of respondents who gave a “very useful” rating is shown in Chart 1 for each of the four programme objectives.
Chart 1. Respondents who rated as “very useful” the four key objectives of the programme
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Understanding better the ethical standards required forbiomedical prevention research
Increasing knowledge of current and plannedmicrobicide, PrEP and vaccine trials in both the
developed and developing world, and about otherpotential emerging prevention approaches.
Offering opportunities to network with other advocates
Increasing knowledge of methodological issuesinvolved in designing and implementing clinical trials
with various biomedical prevention interventions
Percent of respondents
Many surveyed participants wrote very positive messages about the seminar. At the end of the seminar, most of them were looking forward to benefiting from mentoring during the conference.
Evaluation Report for Education Programme at AIDS 2008 7
4.2 Conference Mentoring Out of the 18 seminar participants, only one did not participate in the mentoring component. One other participant, despite not being arriving on time to attend the seminar, took part in the mentoring. At the end of the conference, nine participants completed an evaluation form about the mentoring component. (See Appendix IV: Mentoring Participants’ Survey). The vast majority of them reported how useful it was in selecting relevant AIDS 2008 sessions on prevention research, improving their knowledge and skills on this topic, and for networking. Most respondents also rated as “very useful” the sessions/meetings with their group and/or the other groups. Looking at interaction among participants and between them and mentors, the majority of surveyed mentees were highly satisfied. The selection of mentors seemed to have been very effective as well, given the high rating given by respondents (in terms of guidance, availability to answer questions and quality of responses, advice on professional development and time taken to socialize with their respective group). Overall, the feedback from mentees was very positive, including several thank you messages:
Mentors also had the opportunity to share their opinions through a survey (see Appendix V: Mentoring Mentors Survey). Out of the six respondents2, five reported spending between one and two hours per day with their mentee group, and that the amount of time invested mentoring had matched their expectations. They all found the participation of their mentees during daily sessions “very active” (4 mentors) or “somewhat active” (2), and rated their interaction as “excellent” (4) or “good” (2). Although two mentors indicated their interaction with other mentors was poor, the remaining rated it as “excellent” (2) or “good” (2). Support provided by IAS received a high rating as well. All mentors reported to have socialized with their group and planned to stay in touch with their mentees. Overall, they gave very positive feedback on their experience and thought such a service was very useful, especially to help mentees select the right sessions to attend during AIDS 2008, and to understand the HIV prevention research field. They also confirmed that it was a good strategy to offer mentoring as follow-up of a seminar. All members of the Education Programme Advisory Group were invited to share their feedback on the programme through a dedicated questionnaire but only one member completed it. Although that member did not have an opinion on many questions, his/her feedback was very positive on the whole, indicating that it was a very innovative programme which provides new ways for peer education. He/she also suggested that future similar initiatives focusing on prevention should not focus too much on vaccines but include other prevention strategies as well.
2 Each mentor supervised one of the five groups. An additional mentor provided support to the only participant who spoke French.
Feedback from a mentee about the daily session: “This provided an opportunity to reflect on what had been learnt during the day. It also gave us an opportunity to hear different views on the same message”.
Evaluation Report for Education Programme at AIDS 2008 8
4.3 Follow-up All participants were invited to complete a follow-up survey in December 2008, out of which 10 responded (see Appendix VI for detailed results). The main objective was to assess the longer term impact of the programme. All respondents expressed gratitude for having been selected to participate in the programme and follow-up.Of these, 87.5% had signed up for AVAC’s Advocates Network, and reported using the learning materials from the seminar in their current work, which including sharing with peers, writing articles in bulletins, and implementing PEP and PREP. The Good Participatory Practice Guidelines was a practical application mentioned as a very good learning instrument, as were the opportunities for reinvigorating their spirit. As for networking, the majority of respondents (75%) indicated that they have stayed in touch with other participants. All respondents reported as well that they had changed the way their organizations work since they returned home after the programme. Some of the changes they mentioned include: • Staff joining Community Advisory Boards (CAB) • Collaborating with research institutes • Conducting comprehensive education for CAB members • Strengthening links between researchers and community
Although those findings reflect the opinion of only 10 participants, they show the programme helped reinforce the importance of biomedical prevention research and the need to include community-initiated prevention programmes. 5. Conclusion Here, the findings reported above are analyzed in terms of achievement of the three evaluation objectives.
5.1 Strengths of the Education Programme • This was a well-targeted, innovative professional development initiative which supported the professional development of HIV/AIDS community advocates in improving their skills and knowledge on biomedical prevention research. • The involvement of expert faculty from AVAC in distilling and presenting key research issues and in making links to the conference programme was strong. • There was demonstrable success in achieving a range of professional benefits among participants. • Participants’ experience of the conference was greatly enhanced through structured activities and support.
Feedback from one surveyed participant: “I used the 10 core guidelines on good participatory principles to carry out research, ’The need for a better functioning National Health System that enhances Access to care and treatment in 13 local communities of Uganda’, conducted and owned by HIV+ women. The research data collected will be used to advocate for policy change.”
Evaluation Report for Education Programme at AIDS 2008 9
• Enhanced networking among participants from developing countries and prevention research experts was facilitated.
5.2 Overall impact of the Education Programme • A heightened awareness of key issues in biomedical prevention research among programme
participants was reported. • There was a range of clearly identified professional gains among participants that will support
their ongoing work. • The educational profile of the IAS was raised considerably beyond its role in conferences. • An increased level of participation and representation of HIV+ community advocates from
developing countries in the Education Programme and the conference was achieved.
5.3 Emerging issues A number of emergent issues to guide future planning and decision making in relation to similar educational activities are flagged in the recommendations that follow. 6. Recommendations In order to improve the success and impact of such programmes, participants and mentors recommended to: • Allocate more time, have a fixed room and set a meeting time not conflicting with the
conference schedule for daily sessions3; • Plan for follow-up training beyond the conference, either as physical workshop(s) or virtual
education programme(s). • The continued use of participatory approaches in the seminar. This plays a very important role
in the satisfaction of the participants and in the level of learning. As regards the seminar, many surveyed participants suggested covering the following topics in-depth: • Overview of on-going and future research; • Advocacy for prevention research; • Prevention research methodology including review of case studies and mechanism
of organizing research process; • Legal aspects about investment in research field; • Ethical practice and religious considerations; • Other: children, GPP (Good Participatory Practice Guidelines), nanotechnologies,
vaccines. They also recommended extending the seminar to other advocates such as: • Representatives of marginalized and affected communities; • Religious leaders; • Activists;
3 It was also suggested to hold daily sessions in the evening nearby or in the hotels where most mentors and/or mentees were staying, the ideal situation being to have them stay at the same hotel.
Evaluation Report for Education Programme at AIDS 2008 10
• Researchers; • Policy makers. In order to increase the impact of similar seminars, regardless of the subject, participants also recommended to: • Increase the seminar duration if the selected topic is as vast as prevention
research advocacy; • Allocate more time to discuss past experiences and share lessons learnt; • Plan for translation and interpretation services if some participants are not fluent
in English.
Evaluation Report for Education Programme at AIDS 2008 11
Appendix I: Participant List First name(s) Last name Organization, Country Email
1 Jaya Nair ICW, India [email protected]
2 Veronica Eragu ICW Uganda [email protected]
3 Veronica Kalambi ICW, Namibia [email protected]
4 Rukia Farah ICW, Kenya [email protected]
5 Florence Buluba ICW, Uganda [email protected]
6 Gustavo Campillo Red LA+, Colombia [email protected]
7 Pablo Garcia Red LA+, Argentina [email protected]
8 Fausto Sandoval Red LA+, Ecuador [email protected]
9 Adolfo Aguilar Mexican Network of PLHIV [email protected]
10 Somayli de la cruz Severino ICASO, Dom. Republic [email protected]
11 Paulos Moges Arepa ICASO, Ethiopia [email protected]
12 Rosemary Mburu ICASO, Kenya [email protected]
13 Eduviges Cuelles Paredes ICASO, Dom. Republic [email protected]
14 Amirezza Moradi GNP+, Iran [email protected]
15 Cecile Sanon GNP+, Burkina Faso [email protected]
16 Elina Azaryan GNP+, Armenia [email protected]
17 Ntokozo Patience Madlala
Gender AIDS Forum, South Africa
18 Udom Likhitwonnawut Raks Thai Foundation, Thailand
19 José Carlos Veloso Pereira da Silva GAPA SP, Brazil [email protected]
Evaluation Report for Education Programme at AIDS 2008 12
Appendix II: Education Programme agenda, 2-7 August 2008
2 Aug 1-day seminar 0900 Welcome and Introductions 1000 Prevention Research 1045 Tea Break 1100 Community Involvement: Good Participatory Guidelines 1300 Lunch 1400 Research Advocacy Skills 1500 Coffee Break 1515 Experiences from the field:
Cross-cutting issues and challenges
1630 Continuous Learning: Roadmaps and mentoring 1700 Beyond Mexico 1730 Closure 1800
Cocktail
3-6 Aug Conference Mentoring 17-1800 Meet at White Room, IAS Secretariat, Centro Banamex 7 Aug Mentoring Summation 1530-1630 Meet at White Room, IAS Secretariat, Centro Banamex
Evaluation Report for Education Programme at AIDS 2008 13
Appendix III: Participant survey on the 1-day seminar
Prevention Research Advocacy Mentoring and Education Programme (EDUCATION PROGRAMME) / One-day seminar
Participant Survey
Please take a few minutes to complete this survey. The programme organizers will use the results to assist with future planning and to help assess the impact of the programme. By returning your completed survey you consent to the information collected being used for reporting purposes. Name (optional):___________________________________________ 1. What were the main factors in your decision to attend this one-day seminar: Select all that apply
o Opportunity to learn new knowledge & skills o Opportunity to better understand the prevention research field o Opportunity to share experience and lessons learnt o Opportunity for professional development o Benefiting from the mentoring programme o Recommended by a colleague/friend o Recipient of a scholarship/other funding o Other:……………………………………………………………………
2. How useful was the information received before the seminar to prepare yourself?
o Very useful o Somewhat useful o Not very useful o Don’t know
3. How did you find the seminar content?
o Very difficult o Difficult o Somewhat difficult o Easy o Very easy
PTO
Evaluation Report for Education Programme at AIDS 2008 14
How would you rate the quality of the following aspects?
Tick the right box
Excellent Good Fair Poor
4. Seminar content (relevance to prevention research)
5. Speakers 6. Teaching methods 7. Answers from speakers to
questions asked by participants
8. Facilitators 9. Room equipment, including
audio visual
10. Overall organization How would you rate the following opportunities offered by the seminar?
Tick the right box
Excellent Good Fair Poor No opportunity
11. Asking questions to speakers
12. Interacting with speakers and other participants
Was the format of the seminar appropriate to your level of knowledge in terms of:
Tick the right box
13. Programme (mix of presentations and group work)
o Too many presentations
o Good balance between presentations & group work
o Too much group work
o No opinion
14. Duration o Too long o About right o Too short o No opinion
15. Number of participants
o Too many o About right o Too few o No opinion
16. Number of speakers
o Too many o About right o Too few o No opinion
PTO
Evaluation Report for Education Programme at AIDS 2008 15
How useful was this seminar in:
Tick the right box
Very useful
Somewhat useful
Not very useful
Don’t know
17. Increasing your knowledge of methodological issues involved in designing and implementing clinical trials with various biomedical prevention interventions
18. Understanding better the ethical standards required for biomedical prevention research
19. Increasing your knowledge of current and planned microbicide, PrEP and vaccine trials in both the developed and developing world, and about other potential emerging prevention approaches.
20. Offering opportunities to network with other advocates
21. Overall, did this seminar meet your expectations?
o Not at all o Not very well o Fairly well o Very well
22. Are you looking forward to benefiting from the mentoring component during the conference?
o Yes o No o Not sure at the moment
23. What did you like BEST about the seminar? 24. What did you like LEAST about the seminar?
PTO 25. Which topics would you recommend for future similar programmes?
Evaluation Report for Education Programme at AIDS 2008 16
26. Which aspects of the seminar could be improved?
27. Should the seminar be extended to other community advocates?
� Yes � No If yes, please indicate to whom: 28. Do you have any other comments or suggestions?
Please return this form to the facilitators.
Thank you for your participation!
Evaluation Report for Education Programme at AIDS 2008 17
Appendix IV: Mentoring participants survey
Prevention Research Advocacy Mentoring and Education Programme (EDUCATION PROGRAMME) / Mentoring component
Mentoring Participant Survey
Please take a few minutes to complete this survey. The programme organizers will use the results to assist with future planning and to help assess the impact of the programme. By returning your completed survey you consent to the information collected being used for reporting purposes. Name (optional):___________________________________________ How useful has been the EDUCATION PROGRAMME Mentoring component in:
Tick the right box
Very useful
Somewhat useful
Not very useful
Don’t know
1. Helping you select relevant AIDS 2008 sessions on prevention research
2. Improving your knowledge and skills on prevention research
3. Providing you with increased networking opportunities
How useful were the following aspects?
Tick the right box
Very useful
Somewhat useful
Not very useful
Don’t know
4 Daily sessions with your group, and/or with the other groups to share new learning and address key questions
5. Roadmap on prevention research to help you select the relevant sessions
6. Do you think the size of the group (5 people) for one mentor was:
o Too small o About right o Too big
Evaluation Report for Education Programme at AIDS 2008 18
7. Did you set daily learning goals with your group?
o Yes o No
8. If Yes, how successful was your group in realising its daily learning goals?
o Very successful o Somewhat successful o Not very successful
To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Daily sessions
Tick the right box
Strongly disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly agree
Not applicable
9. I shared my notes with other participants
10. I learned something from participants of my group
11. I learned something about the other groups’ topic area
12. There were lively discussions within my group
13. There were lively discussions between my group and the other ones
14. The meeting room was conducive to sharing learning
PTO
Evaluation Report for Education Programme at AIDS 2008 19
My mentor
Tick the right box
Strongly disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly agree
Not applicable
15. My mentor provided me with good guidance to increase my learning opportunities on prevention research
16. I am satisfied with the answers of my mentor to my questions
17. My mentor gave me good advice for my professional development
18. My mentor introduced me to new relevant contacts
19. My mentor took time to socialize with my group
Group interaction
Tick the right box
Strongly disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly agree
Not applicable
20. My group worked well together
21. It was easy for us to reach decisions
22. My group worked well with the other groups
23. I enjoyed working with participants from other countries
24. Group learning helped me better understand prevention research
25. I will make all necessary efforts to keep in touch with my group
PTO
Evaluation Report for Education Programme at AIDS 2008 20
26. What did you like most about daily group sessions? 27. What did you like least about daily group sessions?
28. Do you have any other comments/suggestions about the conference mentoring?
Thank you for participating in the evaluation.
Please return this form to the facilitator
Evaluation Report for Education Programme at AIDS 2008 21
Appendix V: Mentoring mentors’ survey
Prevention Research Advocacy Mentoring and Education Programme (EDUCATION PROGRAMME) / Mentoring component
AIDS 2008
Mentor Survey Please take a few minutes to complete this survey. The programme organizers will use the results to assist with future planning and to help assess the impact of the programme. By returning your completed survey you consent to the information collected being used for reporting purposes. Name :_______________________________________________________ How successful was the EDUCATION PROGRAMME’s Mentoring component in:
Tick the right box
Very successful
Somewhat successful
Not very successful
Don’t know
1. Helping delegates select relevant AIDS 2008 sessions on prevention research
2. Improving delegates’ knowledge and skills on prevention research
3. Providing increased networking opportunities
4. Please list up to 10 sessions or meetings you attended with your group:
• ……………………………………………………………………………………… • ……………………………………………………………………………………… • ……………………………………………………………………………………… • ……………………………………………………………………………………… • ……………………………………………………………………………………… • ……………………………………………………………………………………… • ……………………………………………………………………………………… • ……………………………………………………………………………………… • ……………………………………………………………………………………… • ………………………………………………………………………………………
PTO
Evaluation Report for Education Programme at AIDS 2008 22
How useful were the following aspects?
Tick the right box
Very useful
Somewhat useful
Not very useful
Don’t know
5. Daily sessions with your group, and/or with the other groups to share new learning and address key questions
6. The roadmap on prevention research to help delegates select the relevant sessions
7. What kind of guidance and advice were your mentees most looking for?
Select all that apply
o Selecting the right sessions to attend
o Choosing appropriate skills building workshops
o Who to network with
o Professional development opportunities
o Career advice
o Understanding the HIV prevention research field
o Getting around Mexico City
8. Did you socialize with your group?
o Yes o No
9. If no, what were the main reasons?
Please select all that apply
o No time
o No interest
o No request from my mentees
o Other:……………………………………………………………………………..
10. How many hours did you spend with your group each day?
o 0
o 1 to 2
o 3 to 4
o 5 to 6
o More than 6
PTO
Evaluation Report for Education Programme at AIDS 2008 23
11. Did the amount of work you spent on mentoring match your expectations?
o no, I worked more than expected o yes, I worked as expected o no, I worked less than expected
12. Do you think the size of the group (5 people) for one mentor was:
o Too small o About right o Too big
13. Did you set daily learning goals with your group?
o Yes o No
14. If Yes, how successful was your group in realising its daily learning goals?
o Very successful o Somewhat successful o Not very successful
How would you rate the quality of the following aspects:
Tick the right box
Excellent Good Fair Poor
15. Support provided by IAS 16. The meeting room (including
equipment)
17. Interaction among your mentees
18. Interaction among mentors 19. Thinking about the participation of your mentees during daily sessions, how would you rate it?
o Very active o Somewhat active o Not very active o Totally passive
20. Do you plan to stay in touch with your group?
o Yes o No o Not sure at the moment
21. Overall, do you think mentoring is a useful service?
o Yes o No
22. If yes, do you recommend it as a follow-up of a seminar?
o Yes o No
PTO
Evaluation Report for Education Programme at AIDS 2008 24
23. Do you have any comments or suggestions for improving conference mentoring for first-time delegates?
24. Are you willing to offer your services for future mentoring programmes?
o Yes o No o Not sure at the moment
Thank you for participating in the evaluation.
Please return this form to the facilitator
Appendix VI: Follow-up Survey (Selected open-ended responses are included)
1. What was the thing that you remember the most about the seminar and the AIDS conference? / ¿Cuál fue la cosa que Usted
se recuerda más del seminario y de la conferencia de SIDA?
Response
Count
8
answered question 8
skipped question 2
2. Have you used the learning materials since the seminar? / ¿Ya que el seminario esta terminado, utilizó el material didáctico?
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Yes / Si 87.5% 7
No / No 12.5% 1
answered question 8
skipped question 2
3. If you replied Yes, please describe how: / Si Usted respondió si, favor de explicar como lo hizo:
Response
Count
7
answered question 7
skipped question 3
4. What are the other benefits gained at the PRAMEP seminar and/or during the conference you effectively used? / ¿Cuáles son
los otros beneficios ganados durante el seminario PRAMEP / la conferencia que Usted utilizo?
Response
Count
8
answered question 8
skipped question 2
Page 25
5. Did your organization do something new or different as regards Prevention Research since you participated in the PRAMEP
programme? / ¿Ya que participó en el seminario, hizo su organización algo nueva o diferente al respecto a la investigación en
prevención?
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Yes / Si 100.0% 8
No / No 0.0% 0
answered question 8
skipped question 2
6. If you replied Yes, please describe it in a few lines: / Si respondió si, favor de explicar su repuesta en algunas líneas:
Response
Count
8
answered question 8
skipped question 2
7. What, if any, additional help is needed to support a local process? / En caso es necesario, ¿cuál sería el tipo de ayuda para
apoyar un proceso local?
Response
Count
7
answered question 7
skipped question 3
Page 26
8. Did you participate in the advocates’ network (AVAC's mailing list/forum)? / ¿Participó en la red de abogados (lista de
correos electrónicos/fórums)?
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Yes / Si 87.5% 7
No / No 12.5% 1
answered question 8
skipped question 2
9. Did you stay in touch with other participants? / ¿Se mantuvo en contacto con otros participantes?
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Yes / Si 75.0% 6
No / No 25.0% 2
answered question 8
skipped question 2
10. What is your organization/affiliation? / ¿Cuál es su organización?
Response
Count
8
answered question 8
skipped question 2
11. What is your current position within your organization/affiliation? / ¿Cuál es su position actual en la organización?
Response
Count
8
answered question 8
skipped question 2
Page 27
