Indicator ID | R&E8 |
---|---|
Indicator full statement | % caregivers who report an improvement in their Psychosocial well-being. |
Purpose
Importance | This indicator aims to measure the impact of Tdh’s MHPSS interventions on caregivers and ensuring quality and meaningful service delivery. In addition, it gives an indication on existing MHPSS needs, and provides analysis of Tdh’s action according to regions or types of activities. |
---|---|
Related services | MHPSS activities for caregivers aim to support parents' well-being and can be found across various levels of the IASC MHPSS intervention pyramid.
|
Definition
Parents and caregiver: An individual, with clear responsibility (by custom or by law) for the well-being of the child. It most often refers to a person with whom the child lives and who provides daily care to the child.
Psychosocial well-being: As described in Tdh operational guidance on MHPSS, Tdh adopts a holistic understanding of Mental health and psychosocial well-being, including physical, emotional, social, political, economic, cultural and spiritual dimensions, structured under the 5 well-being pillars and applicable to individual, family and community spheres 1). Safety, security, stability; 2). Bonds and networks; 3). Roles and identities; 4). Justice and rights; 5). Hope and meaning.
How to collect & analyse the data
What do we count? | Parents / caregivers surveyed who report an improvement in particular 2 of the well-being pillars; safety and connectedness |
---|---|
How to calculate the indicator's value | Numerator: Number of caregivers involved in Tdh interventions or in Tdh partner interventions who report an improvement in particular 2 of the well-being pillars; safety and connectedness in a defined time period or representative sample of those. Denominator: Number of caregivers involved in Tdh or Tdh partners' interventions in the same geographic area and reference period; or representative sample of those. |
Data sources | Caretakers participating in survey. |
Data collection methods and tools | For every MHPSS intervention, a pre-post or a post-reflective session that is appropriate and coherent with the nature of the intervention must be included in the curriculum. Based on Tdh framework, you can develop your own survey which will be adapted to your context and intervention’s specific objectives (see examples below). If you use certain types of interventions (ex. PM+), you will refer to the validated assessment methodologies for this intervention. If you built a specific curriculum, you might have to develop yourselves the assessment session or use a tool agreed by the coordination structure (ex. SDQ in some contexts). Depending on the type of intervention and its intensity (i.e difference between attending caretakers group support meetings, or attending an individual counselling program), You can also use existing validated tools such as;
|
Example of survey questions | Examples of survey questions that can be used to assess caregivers' mental health and psychosocial well-being linked with Tdh 5 well-being pillars (these questions can be turned into statement which can be ranked from 0 (never) to 5 (all the time).
|
Disaggregation | Gender and age |
Important considerations | This indicator complements indicator R&E9. You can do you data collection in once |
Limitations and precautions
Risks:
Contextual approach of Well-being pillar definition: Depending on the socio-cultural context, age, gender, life stage, and personal circumstances [1], the five well-being pillars can be valued and interpreted with different orders of priority. The role of community based MHPSS is not to disrupt and change cultural beliefs and practices through external views, but to support the necessary resources for individuals, families, and communities to strengthen their well-being, and to direct their own adjustments in order to build resilience.
In the event that your donor or MHPSS experts in your team request specific measurement tools to capture changes in Mental Health and Psychosocial Support (MHPSS) outcomes, please ensure that the selected tools are relevant for use in diverse settings and recommended in the IASC Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for Mental Health and Psychosocial Support in Emergency Settings.
Precautions:
It is essential to utilize the following means of verification for these tools to ensure robust data collection and analysis:
Valid and Reliable Tools: Choose tools that have been validated across various contexts and populations to ensure accuracy and reliability.
Standardized Protocols: Adhere to standardized protocols for administering the selected measurement tools to maintain consistency and comparability of data.
Cultural Sensitivity: Ensure that the tools are culturally appropriate and relevant for the specific populations being served.
Feedback Mechanisms: Implement feedback mechanisms to evaluate the effectiveness and relevance of the tools used in capturing MHPSS outcomes.
[1] From a child-development perspective, children’s well-being and resilience are linked to their stage of development. The relevance of the five well-being pillars, and factors associated with each of these, will evolve over time as will the capacities required by children will also change. For example, from a child development perspective for the safety pillar, young children depend on their caregivers for survival and safety whereas adolescents find themselves in a complex stage and require emotional coping strategies.
The gender and/or diversity (G&D) of individuals can affect their “lived experience” of the five well-being pillars, both positively and negatively. An individual’s gender or diversity may expose them to specific violations which requires an adapted programming response
What further analysis are we interested in?
The type of changes expected in terms of feeling safe and feeling connected well- being pillars can be captured through three main types of changes:
Knowledge and skills (for example about existing services or communication abilities)
Attitudes, perceptions and feelings (such as trust towards peers, feelings about role in the community) including self-perception (for example communication skills)
Behavior (such as engagement in projects, social activity)
Gender and disability analysis
With this indicator we quantify subjective types of change and must be cautious with the interpretation. Quantitative results might give a distorted view of reality, and triangulation with open questions and qualitative techniques will be key to enrich our understanding of people’s reality.
These are some guiding questions to orient the analysis:
Did certain locations show better improvement in caregivers' well-being compared to others?
Do caregivers from different age groups report varying levels of well-being improvement?
Are there any differences or similarities in well-being outcomes between male and female caregivers?
Is there a wide variation in how caregivers report changes in their well-being? Are there significant disparities?
Are the overall results on caregiver well-being mostly positive or negative?
Are there contradictions between responses, such as caregivers’ answers to open-ended questions differing from closed-ended ones?
What factors (e.g., linked with the context, or specifics of the intervention) might explain certain trends in caregiver well-being improvements?
What insights from these results can inform future interventions aimed at improving caregiver well-being?