Percent of HIV healthcare workers who completed a family planning training program

Percent of HIV healthcare workers who completed a family planning training program

Percent of HIV healthcare workers who completed a family planning training program

The percentage of HIV heatlhcare workers (HCWs) who completed a family planning (FP) training program. The FP training program can be any type of FP training event that is fully or partially supported with HIV funds, regardless of its duration or location, which involves a trainee getting a thorough understanding of the essential knowledge required to provide FP services (e.g., counseling, distribution of methods, and referrals) and progressing from either lacking skills or having minimal skills to being proficient.

Trainings will differ depending on in-country standards and support. However, the indicator can be used to assess any trainings received via disaggregation by the level, length, and/or type of training.

For the calculation, the numerator can be generated by summing all HCWs from the host country who successfully completed an FP training program within the reporting period with full or partial HIV funding support (e.g., PEPFAR). The people counted under this indicator should be based on an actual training roster that includes trainee names, professional positions, and topic of training. Successful completion of the FP training program is based on standards established by the Ministry of Health for the training program, or if the training is not approved by the Ministry of Health, by standards established by the organization conducting the training.

This indicator is calculated as:

(All HCWs from the host country who successfully completed an FP training program within the reporting period with full or partial HIV funding support) / (Total number of HCWs supported with HIV funds) x 100

Data Requirement(s):

Number of people trained (based on a verifiable list of actual names), their professional positions (e.g., nurses and community health workers), sex, and training topic.

Data should be disaggregated by:

  • HIV service platforms, such as counseling and testing, care and treatment, prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV (PMTCT), key populations, and DREAMS
  • Non-HIV focused service delivery platforms (e.g. FP-integrated school, community or facility health programs) that are supported with HIV funds
  • Type of  service delivery point (SDP) (e.g., mobile service unit, hospital, or health center)
  • Sex/age (male: <15, 15–19, 20–24, 25+; female: <15, 15–19, 20–24, 25+)
    • Type (and length) of training (e.g., pre-service training, refresher training, and training for specific modules such as long-acting and permanent contraceptive methods)
    • Type of project/program (e.g., PEPFAR-supported training organized by a health ministry and/or a nongovernmental organization)

Records that are usually kept by the training division

This indicator serves as a measure of FP/HIV service integration inputs. Gathering data on the number and percentage of HIV-supported HCWs who completed FP training gives a measure of how many healthcare providers are active at HIV SDPs, which is also an indication of the robustness of FP/HIV service integration.

This indicator gives evidence of provider capacity to provide integrated services and can be used to determine whether a program meets its target to monitor trainees and/or to track progress from one year to the next.

For more information on this indicator, see “Monitoring the Integration of Family Planning and HIV Services: A Manual to Support the Use of Indicators to Measure Progress toward PEPFAR’s 90-90-90 Targets and Protect Women’s Reproductive Rights” (MEASURE Evaluation, 2016).

While this indicator provides a count of healthcare worker capacity, it does not capture knowledge or skills. As a crude measure, it neither measures the quality of training nor the outcomes of the training (e.g. competency of individuals trained and their performance in delivering quality FP services).

The “unit of measurement” is not uniform, strictly speaking, in that one healthcare worker at a particular SDP may have attended a course for one day, whereas another may have participated in a course for three months. Further, this indicator does not indicate provider competence or confidence in delivering quality FP service and does not capture the replacement or retention in the health workforce of trained individuals in their host country.

family planning, HIV/AIDS