Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evaluations of health interventions are increasingly concerned with measuring or accounting for 'context'. How to do this is still subject to debate and testing, and is particularly important in the case of family planning where outcomes will inevitably be influenced by contextual factors as well as any intervention effects. We conducted an evaluation of an intervention where female community health volunteers (FCHVs) in Nepal were trained to provide better interpersonal communication on family planning. We included a context-orientated qualitative component to the evaluation. Here, we discuss the evaluation findings, specifically focusing on what was added by attending to the context. We explore and illustrate important dimensions of context that may also be relevant in future evaluation work. METHODS: The evaluation used a mixed methods approach, with a qualitative component which included in-depth interviews with women of reproductive age, FCHVs, and family planning service providers. We conducted iterative, thematic analysis. RESULTS: The life-history fertility and contraception narratives generated from the in-depth interviews contextualised the intervention, yielding nuanced data on contraceptive choices, needs, and areas for future action. For instance, it highlighted how women generally knew about effective contraceptive methods and were willing to use them: information was not a major barrier. Barriers instead included reports of providers refusing service when women were not in the fifth day of their menstrual cycle when this was unnecessary. Privacy and secrecy were important to some women, and risked being undermined by information sharing between FCHVs and health services. The qualitative component also revealed unanticipated positive effects of our own evaluation strategies: using referral slips seemed to make it easier for women to access contraception. CONCLUSIONS: Life history narratives collected via in-depth interviews helped us understand pathways from intervention to effect from the user point of view without narrowly focusing only on the intervention, highlighting possible areas for action that would otherwise have been missed. By attending to context in a nuanced way in evaluations, we can build a body of evidence that not only informs future interventions within that context, but also builds better knowledge of contextual factors likely to be important elsewhere.