In July I made a presentation of IHP+ Results to the monthly meeting of Health Partners, and to the monthly Technical Working Group for Health Secretariat, which serves as the focal point for IHP+ in Cambodia. We have been working hard during August to complete the first round of interviews and these are nearly finished. We have presented the scorecards and data collection questionnaires as a basis for the first interviews with the agencies, and I wanted to share my thoughts on our experiences so far.

Documenting Progress in line with IHP+ Principles

There have been some good examples of partnerships consistent with the principles of IHP+. There are indications that the Global Fund has begun to engage more with health partners at country level, and that harmonization approaches have been strengthened since signing IHP+. There are also indications that the seven Health Partners (AfD, AusAID, BTC, DFID, UNFPA, UNICEF, World Bank), who have signed a Joint Partnership Arrangement, should be able to provide a joint IHP+Results return in 2010. All these partners (except BTC) are signatories to the IHP+, and their work in this area is a good reflection of the IHP+ principles. IHP+Results is hoping to highlight examples of similar initiatives in other countries both this year and in the future.

Feedback on the Data Collection Process

Some Health Partners have raised some questions about the IHP+Results methodology, including whether and how we can attribute actions to the IHP+. IHP+Results is more focused on contribution analysis than attribution, because it is inherently difficult to attribute specific results to a collaborative and harmonised initiative such as the IHP+. IHP+Results will address issues of attribution in more depth in the three country case studies in Mali, Ethiopia and Nepal, which will be carried out by LSHTM, and in the second round of questions.

Another point raised was that the data collection tool focuses largely on alignment, and respondents are keen that harmonisation is also captured. The scorecard includes an assessment of harmonisation, in particular on the use of common monitoring and evaluation frameworks, but we are open to suggestions and ideas about how we can refine and improve the IHP+Results process. Post a comment below to let us know what you think (don’t forget to sign up or sign in first!).

Reactions to the IHP+Results Data Collection Process - What Do You Think?

During the interviews, we encountered mainly positive reactions to the IHP+Results process in general, and the data collection process in particular. Where we have encountered scepticism we have underlined the intention of IHP+Results to contribute constructively to the IHP+ process, to facilitate and strengthen transparency and mutual accountability, and to document and showcase the ongoing processes of harmonization, alignment, country ownership and managing for results that are already in existence in Cambodia.

We would be really interested to hear your views, and whether the account here reflects your experience of the IHP+Results process or of other countries. Let us know your views: sign in or sign up to leave a comment below.  Find out how to receive email notifications on future posts.

David Wilkinson is the lead IHP+Results Country Researcher in Cambodia, working with three other colleagues under the banner of Health Systems Associates.