Content uploaded by Adeniyi Fagbamigbe
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Adeniyi Fagbamigbe on Feb 05, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of MCH and AIDS (2013), Volume 2, Issue 1, Pages 129-138
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
of MCH and AIDS
ISSN 2161-864X (Online)
ISSN 2161-8674 (Print)
Available online at www.mchandaids.org
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Does Pre-Survey Training Impact Knowledge of Survey Administrators and Survey
Outcomes in Developing Countries? Evaluation Findings of a Training of Trainers
Workshop for National AIDS and Reproductive Health Survey-Plus in Nigeria
Kolawole Solomon Oyedeji PhD
1
; Adeniyi Francis Fagbamigbe PhD
2
; Johnbull Sonny Ogboi MSc
3 *
;
Adebobola Toluwalashe Bashorun MPH
4
; Kawu Bolakale Issa MPH
4
; Perpetua Amida MSc
4
;
Adeniyi Ogundiran DrPH
5
; Ezire Onoriode MSc
6
.
1 Department of Medical Laboratory Sciences, College of Medicine, University of Lagos, Idi-Araba, Lagos.
2 Department of Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, Faculty of Public Health, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
3 Malaria & Human Development, Department of Life Sciences and Public Health, University of Camerino, 62032 Camerino (MC), Italy.
4 HIV/AIDS Division, Department of Public Health, Federal Ministry of Health, Abuja, Nigeria
5 World Health Organization Country Office, Abuja, Nigeria.
6 Research and Evaluation Division, Society for Family Health, Abuja Nigeria
*
Corresponding author e-mail: ogboijb@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT
Background: Although, Nigeria had conducted various national surveys followed by central and state level trainings
for survey administrators, prior pre-survey trainings have not been systematically evaluated to assess their impact on
knowledge gain and final outcome of the survey. A central training of trainers’ session was organized for master trainers on
the conduct of the 2012 National AIDS and Reproductive Health Survey.
Objectives: To evaluate the impact of training on the quality of conduct of a national research survey in the 36 states and
the Federal Capital Territory in Nigeria.
Method: A total of 185 participants consisting of State AIDS Program Coordinators, Reproductive Health Coordinators,
State Laboratory Scientists, Lead Supervisors and Counselor Testers were invited from the 36 states in Nigeria and the
FCT for the central training of trainers in Abuja. The training lasted 5 days and the trainees were grouped into two on
the basis of behavioral epidemiology and laboratory components. Training tools such as the developed protocol, training
power point slides, practical sessions such as role plays, and usage of HIV rapid test kits were utilized during the training.
The facilitators were drawn from Federal Ministry of Health (FMoH), universities and research Institutions as well as
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). The facilitators prepared and administered 25 structured questions for the
behavioral group and 28 questions for the laboratory group at the beginning of the training to assess the participants’
knowledge of HIV and the survey. The same questions answered by Trainees responded to the same questions prior to the
commencement and at the end of the trainings. Scores were aggregated to 100 for each test. We conducted paired t-test
to determine statistically significant differences between pre-test and post-test results at 0.05 significance level and ANOVA
to determine if there were differences in knowledge level among different groups.
Result: The overall mean pre-test and post-test scores were 64.0% and 77.4% respectively indicating a 13.4% knowledge
gain above what it was at the beginning of the training. The mean pre-test score and post-test score for the Southern states
(SN) were 64.7% and 80.3% while that of the Northern states (NN) were 63.5% and 75.3% representing a knowledge gain
of 15.6% and 11.8% respectively. There was statistical significant difference in the post-test scores between the two regions
(p=0.001) and in knowledge gained after the training (p=0.017).
Conclusions and Public Health Implications: Comparison between the pre test and post test scores at the 5-day
training showed a significant gain in knowledge of participants. The survey training contributed positively to the preparation
and building of knowledge needed for the conduct of 2012 NARHS-plus.
Key Words: Training • Survey • NARHS-Plus • State AIDS Program Coordinators • Reproductive Health Coordinators
• State Laboratory Scientists • Lead Supervisors and Counselor Testers • Abuja • Nigeria
Copyright © 2013 Oyedeji et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
© 2013 Global Health and Education Projects Inc.
Pre-Survey Training Impact on Knowledge of Survey Administrators and Survey Outcomes
© 2013 Global Health and Education Projects Inc | www.mchandaids.org 130
The training was conducted using the engagement
of participants in plenary discussions, presentations,
group discussions, role plays, and question and
answer sessions. The various sessions exposed the
participants to issues of community engagement
and participation in research, basics of HIV and
AIDS, challenges of ensuring informed consent,
reproductive health indices in Nigeria, good clinical
and laboratory practice and management, data
monitoring and management in research. The group
interactions afforded participants the opportunity
to learn from one another’s experience while the
role plays simulated actual practical experiences in
the field. The trainees were expected to give same
training in their respective states. Based on the
above, this evaluation study set out to assess the
impact of five-day training on the quality of conduct
of research survey, namely, NARHS-plus. The overall
evaluation research questions were: does training of
trainers at the central level have any impact on the
level of knowledge that could predicate a successful
conduct of NARHS-plus survey in Nigeria, and are
there variations in the level of knowledge among
participants from different states or different
regions of the country?
METHODS
Study Design:
This study was an evaluation of training using a cross
sectional design with structured questionnaire pre
and post training.
Target population
The target populations were all State AIDS Program
Coordinator (SAPC), State Reproductive Health
Coordinator (SRH), State Laboratory Scientist
(SLS) from all 36 states and the Federal Capital
Territory (FCT) in Nigeria. In addition there were
one Lead Supervisor (LS) and one Counselor Tester
(CT) from each state and FCT.
Sampling technique
Total sampling of the target population was done
giving 185 trainees invited for the central training.
They were divided into two regions- North and
South for convenience. Seventeen states from
Introduction
Any organization determined to survive and prosper
in the current challenging economy, must understand
the imperative to invest in training and professional
development in order to improve efficiencies in
production as well as to acquire the greatest return
in investment of human capital.[1] Furthermore,
several authors have suggested that training is most
extensive and important in any organization or
establishment[2, 3]. Training is becoming increasingly
complex, and tools to determine the proficiency
of training programs and trainees are needed.
Although emphasis has been placed recently on
expanding assessment and demonstrating outcomes
in proficiencies other than knowledge, evaluation of
the depth and breadth of trainings’ knowledge base
remains critically important, because this constitutes
the foundation on which competence is built, and is
an essential requisite for the development of sound
reasoning skills.[4, 5] Therefore, training as a tool to
acquire best practices in the proficient conduct of
services cannot be over emphasized.
National AIDS and Reproductive Health
Survey (NARHS) had been conducted three
times in Nigeria (2003, 2005, and 2007)[6, 7, 8]. After
2005 NARHS survey, there was a need to include
biomarker-HIV testing (biological) components
into the survey and it captures ages 15-64 years,
hence the nomenclature of NARHS-plus was
therefore adopted in 2007[8]. The 2012 NARHS
was the fourth since its inception. In the past,
NARHS and NARHS-plus data collection started
with central level training of States AIDS Program
Coordinator (SAPC), Reproductive Health
Coordinator (RHC), State Laboratory Scientists
(SLS), HIV Counselor-testers (CTs), and Lead
supervisors but the impact of the trainings on the
participants have not been evaluated to assess
whether there is need for such trainings or not,
during the survey. The training of trainers (TOTs)
workshop was aimed at teaching selected survey
administrators on how to conduct and supervise
the NARHS plus survey based on the complexity
and enormity of the study especially the ‘plus’
component. The goal was to replicate same
training at the state level to other supervisors,
interviewers, and counselor-testers who served
as research assistants in the collection of data on
the field during the survey exercise.
Oyedeji et al International Journal of MCH and AIDS (2013), Vol. 2, No.1, Pages 129-138
131 www.mchandaids.org | © 2013 Global Health and Education Projects Inc
were 98, 95 & 90 respectively. Combining all the
respondents irrespective of their zones, the overall
pre-test and post-test score were 64.0% and 77.4%
respectively indicating a 13.4% gain in knowledge
over the baseline knowledge level (Table 1) . The
pre-test score and post-test score for the SN and
NN were 64.7% and 80.3% respectively, and 63.5%
and 75.3%. The knowledge gain was 15.6% and
11.8% for SN and NN respectively (Table 1).
Table 1. Attendees’ Performances in the
Pre-test, Post-test and Differences
between the tests
Regions Pre-test Post-test Differences
(100) (100) (100)
Northern States (n) 95 98 90
mean 63.52 75.31 11.78
SEM 1.14 1.15 1.26
Southern States (n) 82 72 68
mean 64.65 80.34 15.68
SEM 1.13 1.17 1.35
Both (n) 177 170 158
mean 64.0 77.42 13.42
SEM 0.80 0.85 0.93
n = number of participants/zone SEM= standard error of error
Comparing the performances in the two sets of
training, Table 2 shows that the baseline knowledge
was not statistically different among trainees from
SN and NN (p=0.44), however there was statistical
significance in the posttest scores between the
two regions (p=0.001) and in knowledge gained
(p=0.017).
Figure 1 shows the mean scores of the
attendees from each state in the two tests as
well as the differences between the scores. The
highest mean scores for the pretest, posttest and
their differences were recorded in Delta (87.9%),
Akwa Ibom (74.0%), and Lagos (72.4%) states
respectively while the lowest mean scores were
from Kwara (54.1%) -pretest, Sokoto (66.4%) -
posttest and Sokoto (3.4%) knowledge gain. In
Table 3, the scores in the pretest and the posttest
were compared, the analysis of variability of the
scores showed that the mean scores for the states
were statistically significantly different (p<0.05) in
both tests but there was no significant difference
in knowledge gain of the attendees across all
the states in the area of knowledge of HIV
southern Nigeria had their training for 5 days
followed by that for the FCT and 19 states from
northern Nigeria for another 5 days.
Training methods
The training was conducted for 5 days. The five days
training of trainers (TOTs) workshop for NARHS
–Plus 2012 survey for SAPCs, RHCs, SLS, CTs and
lead supervisors from the 36 states of Nigeria and
FCT was conducted between 27th September to
7th October, 2012. The training sessions took place
in Maraba, Nassarawa State for the Southern States
and in Abuja for the Northern States.
The training methods were didactic, role plays
and hands-on. Training included the use of training
tools such as the training protocol, training slides,
and engagement in practical sessions on the use
of HIV rapid test kits. At the venue of training,
the trainees were grouped into two on the basis
of behavioral epidemiology (SAPC, SRH and LS)
and laboratory components (SLS and CT). The
facilitators were drawn from the Federal Ministry
of Health (FMOH), academic institutions as well
as supporting organizations. Facilitators prepared
25 and 28 structured questions on knowledge
of HIV and the survey for the behavioral and
laboratory tract respectively, scores were
aggregated to 100. Trainees answered the same
set of questions before (pre-test) and after (post-
test) the trainings.
Data analysis
We conducted descriptive analysis, used summary
statistics, paired t-test at 0.05 significance level to
determine statistically significant difference between
pre-test and post-test performances of the trainees
while ANOVA was used to determine the differences
in knowledge level among different groups.
RESULTS
One hundred and seventy (91.9 %) trainees
participated in the pre-test while 177 (95.6 %)
attempted the post-test, 158 attempted both pre
and post-test. Also, the number of trainees that
participated in the pre-test, post-test and took
both during the training for the Southern Nigeria
(SN) were 72, 82 & 68 and Northern Nigeria (NN)
Pre-Survey Training Impact on Knowledge of Survey Administrators and Survey Outcomes
© 2013 Global Health and Education Projects Inc | www.mchandaids.org 132
group (60.4%), post test was the Laboratory
Scientists’ group (73.1%), and knowledge gain was
also the Laboratory Scientists’ group (8.0%). The
highest knowledge gain was recorded among the
SAPC (17.6%), followed by the SRHC (16.7%). The
overall mean pre-test and post-test scores were
64.0% and 77.4% respectively indicating a 13.4%
epidemiology, HIV counseling, AIDS- related issues,
survey administration etc.
While the highest mean scores for the pre-test
was in the Counselor Testers’ group (67.2%); post-
test- Supervisors’ group (79.1%); and knowledge
gain was recorded in SAPCs’ group (17.6%). The
lowest mean scores for the pre-test was SRHCs’
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Pretest & Between SN & NN 68.682 1 68.682 .598 .440
Region Within SN & NN 20087.361 175 114.785
Total 20156.044 176
Posttest & Between SN & NN 2182.115 1 2182.115 12.13 .001
Region Within SN & NN 30447.740 170 179.104
Total 32629.855 171
Knowledge gain Between SN & NN 1224.840 1 1224.840 5.803 .017
& Region Within SN & NN 33348.362 158 211.066
Total 34573.202 159
Table 2. Comparison of mean scores in pre-test and post-test across the two regions using ANOVA
Figure 1. Distribution of scores in the pre-test, post-test and knowledge gained across the states
Oyedeji et al International Journal of MCH and AIDS (2013), Vol. 2, No.1, Pages 129-138
133 www.mchandaids.org | © 2013 Global Health and Education Projects Inc
In an attempt to explore the details of the
significant knowledge gain obtained in Table 5,
we carried out the dependent sample t-test on
the post-test and pre-test scores across different
characteristics were as shown in Table 6. The
differences between post-test and pre-test scores
were statistically significant within the Southern
attendees, North Attendees, the two zones
gain in knowledge above baseline knowledge. (See
Figure 2 and Table 4.)
Although there was no statistically significant
difference in the pretest and posttest mean scores
of the five groups of attendees, the mean scores
of knowledge gained across the five groups were
statistically significantly different (p<0.05) (see
Table 5).
Designation Pretest100 Posttest100 Difference100
Counselor/Testers n 35 33 32
mean 67.2442 77.7074 10.7161
SE(Mean) 1.72945 1.33728 1.51283
Lab Scientists n 37 37 34
mean 65.7317 73.0701 7.9847
SE(Mean) 1.69773 1.80256 1.74589
Supervisors n 39 35 31
mean 65.1282 79.0857 15.0968
SE(Mean) 1.54080 1.68900 1.94292
SAPCs n 35 34 33
mean 62.0571 78.5882 17.5758
SE(Mean) 1.87237 2.12200 2.28923
SRHCs n 31 31 28
mean 60.3871 76.0000 16.7143
SE(Mean) 2.07684 2.41857 2.46073
Total n 177 170 158
mean 64.0 77.4 13.4
SE(Mean) .80438 .85406 .93123
Table 4. Distribution of Pre-test and Post-test Scores and Knowledge gain across the categories of
the attendees.
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Pretest Between the States 6357.561 36 176.599 1.792 .009
* State Within the States 13798.482 140 98.561
Total 20156.044 176
Posttest Between the States 6602.086 36 183.391 1.699 .016
* State Within the States 14354.276 133 107.927
Total 20956.363 169
Knowledge gain Between the States 4743.494 36 131.764 .951 .555
* State Within the States 16768.020 121 138.579
Total 21511.514 157
Table 3. Variability in performances of attendees across their states
Pre-Survey Training Impact on Knowledge of Survey Administrators and Survey Outcomes
© 2013 Global Health and Education Projects Inc | www.mchandaids.org 134
Figure 2. Performance of attendees by their designations and regions
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Pre-test * Between Designations 1055.952 4 263.988 2.377 .054
Designation Within Designations 19100.092 172 111.047
Total 20156.044 176
Post-test * Between Designations 852.966 4 213.241 1.750 .141
Designation Within Designations 20103.397 165 121.839
Total 20956.363 169
Knowledge gain * Between Designations 2198.709 4 549.677 4.355 .002
Designation Within Designations 19312.805 153 126.227
Total 21511.514 157
Table 5. Variability in performances of attendees across the various groups
differences between post-test and pre-test scores
were statistically significant (p<0.005) among the
attendees from Abia, Adamawa, Bayelsa, Edo,Ekiti,
Katsina, Lagos, Nassarawa, Niger, Ogun, Ondo, Oyo,
Plateau, Taraba and Yobe states only. As shown in
combined, various designation groups irrespective
of their zones.
Similar to the analysis shown in Table 6, we
analyzed the paired (post-test and pre-test)
differences among attendees from each state. The
Oyedeji et al International Journal of MCH and AIDS (2013), Vol. 2, No.1, Pages 129-138
135 www.mchandaids.org | © 2013 Global Health and Education Projects Inc
Categories 95% CI
Paired Differences of the Difference
Mean SE(Mean) Lower Upper t df Sig.
Regions South 15.685 1.349 12.991 18.379 11.621 67 0.000
North 11.82 1.255 9.324 14.315 9.412 89 0.000
Overall 13.483 0.931 11.644 15.322 14.479 157 0.000
North Counselor/ Testers 7.776 1.568 4.45 11.102 4.957 16 0.000
Lab Scientist 5.452 2.258 0.707 10.197 2.414 18 0.027
Supervisor 16 2.856 9.974 22.025 5.602 17 0.000
SAPC 12.631 2.873 6.594 18.669 4.395 18 0.000
SRHC 17.647 3.29 10.67 24.623 5.362 16 0.000
South Counselor/ Testers 14.047 2.475 8.737 19.358 5.674 14 0.000
Lab Scientist 11.192 2.581 5.655 16.728 4.336 14 0.001
Supervisor 13.846 2.506 8.386 19.306 5.525 12 0.000
SAPC 24.285 2.978 17.85 30.72 8.153 13 0.000
SRHC 15.272 3.806 6.79 23.755 4.012 10 0.002
Overall Counselor/ Testers 10.716 1.512 7.63 13.801 7.083 31 0.000
Lab Scientist 7.984 1.745 4.432 11.536 4.573 33 0.000
Supervisor 15.096 1.942 11.128 19.064 7.77 30 0.000
SAPC 17.575 2.289 12.912 22.238 7.678 32 0.000
SRHC 16.714 2.46 11.665 21.763 6.792 27 0.000
Table 6. Analysis of Knowledge Gained (differences between the paired Posttest and Pretest scores)
by the attendees
s/n. Item Very Poor Poor Good Very Good Excellent
1. Publicity for the training 3.0% 7.3% 27.4% 45.7% 16.5%
2. Communication with participants
prior to arrival 3.0% 7.8% 24.0% 41.3% 24.0%
3. Preparation of participants for
the training prior to arrival 3.0% 7.8% 31.9% 40.4% 16.9%
4. Feeding 0.6% 13.9% 33.9% 29.7% 21.8%
5. Accommodation and other
logistics 8.3% 16.7% 23.2% 31.0% 20.8%
6. Hospitality 1.8% 11.7% 31.9% 33.7% 20.9%
7. Responsiveness to logistic
challenges 2.4% 10.7% 34.9% 43.8% 8.3%
8. Networking opportunity 0.0% 6.8% 44.1% 39.1% 9.9%
9. Training Materials 1.2% 13.2% 40.1% 36.5% 9.0%
10. Quality of the training 0.0% 2.4% 18.3% 51.8% 27.4%
11. Facilitation (Conduct,
Performance, Time Keeping) 0.6% 0.6% 26.2% 51.2% 21.4%
12. Sessions and their contents 0.0% 1.2% 23.5% 55.9% 19.4%
13. Arrangement of sessions 0.0% 2.4% 27.6% 52.9% 17.1%
14. Overall, how would you
rate the training? 0.6% 4.1% 24.6% 51.5% 19.3%
Table 7. Evaluation of the training by the participants
Pre-Survey Training Impact on Knowledge of Survey Administrators and Survey Outcomes
© 2013 Global Health and Education Projects Inc | www.mchandaids.org 136
effective step down training throughout the states
of the federation as seen in the result.
The recent evaluation of learning strategies used
by United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) in
resource-limited settings noted that training local
professionals to train their colleagues is generally
less expensive than sending national or international
experts to conduct trainings[9]. In addition, the use of
local trainers to train their peers has the advantages
of building local capacity as well as ensuring the
trainings have cultural relevance and application
which will help to enhance learning. Thus, it is
likely that this central training model will continue
to be applied to assist in ensuring that there is
uniformity in knowledge impartation at the state
levels. However, efforts will be made to mitigate
differences in quality through use of competency-
based curricula, well-designed training programs
and, when needed, implementation of performance
and quality improvement methodologies.
In another study[10] on the effect of co-presenting
training items during supervised classification
learning of novel relational categories, in a test phase
measuring learning and transfer, the comparison
group significantly outperformed a control group
receiving an equivalent training session of single-item
classification learning. In a similar study on Family
Physician (trainers and non-trainers) and their
practices to see whether there were differences in
trainers and non-trainers and in how their practices
were organized and their services were delivered,
Trainers scored higher on all but one of the items,
and significantly higher on 47 items, of which 13
remained significant after correcting for covariates.
Trainers (and training practices) provided more
diagnostic and therapeutic services, made better
use of team skills and scored higher on practice
organization, chronic care services and quality
management than non-training practices[11].
Limitations
The qualities of training at the state levels were not
evaluated, to ascertain the same level of delivery as
the one at the central training. The result was only
based on increase knowledge base of the participants
after the central training. Further evaluations needed
to be done whether the people trained at the various
states acquire same level of improvements as seen
at the central training. The paper has demonstrated
Table 7, most participants (51.5%) believed that the
training sessions were very good.
Discussion
This study was aimed at evaluating the impact
of five-day training on the quality of conduct of
research survey of NARHS plus in order to answer
the research question; does training of trainers at
the central level have any impact on the level of
knowledge and successful conduct of NARHS survey
in Nigeria since there has been no recent systematic
analyses of the quality and comprehensiveness of
training received in any national survey in Nigeria.
The study revealed that the participants have
positive attitudes about training (training attitudes),
since the training afforded them the opportunity
to acquire additional knowledge in basic issues
concerning HIV/AIDS and its counseling and
testing, and build data collection skills to be able
to be comported to conduct interviews as well
as manage a research study of this magnitude. It
also afforded them the opportunity to learn about
national requirements and regulations. It is clear
from the training results that recent trainees feel
very well prepared (well trained and competent) in
many areas, particularly in HIV survey. Pre-test level
of knowledge, supported by the improved post-
test scores (North and South) is reasonable and
indicates a right selection of methods and training
participants.
For participants, the training afforded them the
opportunity to acquire new knowledge and build
skills to be able to conduct interviews as well as
manage a research study of this magnitude. It also
afforded them the opportunity to learn about
national health survey requirements and regulations.
Despite the relatively small number of respondents,
this training provides the only current and detailed
assessment of training of HIV survey in Nigeria
across a wide spectrum of learning and content
areas. Nevertheless, the results have potentially
important implications for HIV surveillance and
education in Nigeria. The train-the-trainer program
was effective in developing sustainable quality
NARHS plus in Nigeria as demonstrated by the
fact that there is increase in knowledge base of the
participants. In addition, the central training helped
build a cadre of trainers who will be able to do an
Oyedeji et al International Journal of MCH and AIDS (2013), Vol. 2, No.1, Pages 129-138
137 www.mchandaids.org | © 2013 Global Health and Education Projects Inc
References:
1. Knoke, D., & Kalleberg, A. L. Job training in U.S.
organizations 1994. American Sociological Review,
59, 537-546.
2. Rowden, R. W., & Conine, C. T.. The impact of workplace
learning on job satisfaction in small US commercial
banks. Journal of Workplace Learning, 2005 (17),
216-230. doi:10.1108/13665620510597176.
Accessed 15th January,2013
3. Sahinidis, A. G., & Bouris, J. Employee perceived
training effectiveness relationship to employee
attitudes 2008. Journal of European Industrial
Training 32 , 63-76
4. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical
Education: Outcome Project. http://www.acgme
.org/outcome/comp/refList.asp. Accessed 15th
January,2013
5. Hawkins RE, Swanson DB: Using written
examinations to assess medical knowledge and
its application, in Holmboe ES, Hawkins RE (eds):
Practical Guide to the Evaluation of Clinical
Competence 2008. Philadelphia, PA, Elsevier Health
Sciences, , pp 42-59
6. Federal Ministry of Health (FMoH).: National HIV/
AIDS and Reproductive Health survey Technical
Reports 2003, FMoH, Nigeria.
7. Federal Ministry of Health (FMoH): National HIV/
AIDS and Reproductive Health survey Technical
Reports 2005, FMoH, Nigeria..
8. Federal Ministry of Health (FMoH): National HIV/
AIDS and Reproductive Health survey Technical
Reports 2007, FMoH, Nigeria.
9. United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund
(UNICEF): Evaluation of UNICEF learning strategy
to strengthen staff competencies for humanitarian
response, 2000–2004. UNICEF; 2005.
10. Kurtz KJ, Boukrina O, Gentner D. Comparison
Promotes Learning and Transfer of Relational
Categories. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn.
2013 Feb 18. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID:
23421515. 3: Accessed March 16th 2013
11. Van den Hombergh P, Schalk-Soekar S, Kramer A,
Bottema B, Campbell S, Braspenning J.: Are family
practice trainers and their host practices any
better? Comparing practice trainers and non-
trainers and their practices. BioMed Central ltd
Family Practice. 2013 Feb. 21;14(1):23. [Epub ahead
of print]. Accessed March 16th 2013
that the trainees need training as indicated by the
knowledge gained noted to be significant. However,
the paper did not demonstrate how the knowledge
gained has improved the conduct of the survey or the
quality of data collected during the survey because
the survey itself is yet to be concluded. For same
reason, it could not relate the knowledge acquired
during the trainings to the quality of data generated
on the field from the southern and northern zones.
This will be assessed after the conclusion and
dissemination of survey findings nationwide.
Conclusions and Public Health
Implications
This is the first report on the effect of a central
training of trainers on the effective conduct of
NARHS plus survey in Nigeria. However, it is
important to follow-up on the training at the state
level to see the impact of the knowledge gained at
the central training and using the skills they have
acquired. This information allows the organizers to
determine future training needs, either by zones or
otherwise. Results on the increase in knowledge
base of this central training program in developing
trainers are also significant, providing a basis of
comparison for future programs. This finding is
comparable to similar evaluations of TOT models,
such as that conducted by UNICEF which found
the TOT trainees going on to provide step down
training to their colleagues.[9]. Although this was a
central program, the lessons learned – in terms of
factors contributing to program success and the
ways in which challenges were addressed – may
be applicable in the implementation of any such
training program in the future.
In conclusion, our evaluation of this central
training program demonstrates that a TOT-based
central training program can be successfully
endorsed for an effective conduct of surveys in
Nigeria, with the ability to rapidly scale-up human
capacity for both service delivery and training in a
sustainable fashion.
Pre-Survey Training Impact on Knowledge of Survey Administrators and Survey Outcomes
© 2013 Global Health and Education Projects Inc | www.mchandaids.org 138
