The number of HIV SDPs that provide at least three types of FP methods as well as documentation of any routine supportive supervision visits.

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 (e.g., PEPFAR)
• Type of SDP (e.g., mobile service unit, hospital, or health center)
• Number of FP methods available on-site (i.e., at least two or at least three)

Service statistics

Evidence of a documented routine supportive supervision visit may be determined by document review of supervision reports both at site level and/or at district level.

Documentation requirements for supervisory visits will vary by country.

This indicator assesses whether or not routine supportive supervision visits are being conducted at HIV-supported sites that provide a critical component of integrated FP services. Routine supportive supervision of clinical HIV programs is an essential component of ensuring that the quality of HIV and FP services is maintained and sustained over time, and of facilitating problem-solving and improvement plans where gaps in service quality are identified. In the absence of effective supervision systems, poor service quality may result in low utilization of services. Monitoring supportive supervision is a critical quality of service indicator at the district, national, and program levels. Site supervision can be implemented at health centers, clinics, and large hospitals.

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).

The documentation of a routine supportive supervision visit does not provide information on the observations or outcomes of the supervisory visits.  It also does not provide sufficient information to determine the supervision system’s quality of effectiveness in improving programs. However, the absence of routine supervision of FP/HIV clinical services by the national health authority indicates a serious weakness in the sustainability of FP/HIV service quality over time. There are many potential reasons for ineffective supervision systems, and poor performance on this indicator would indicate a need for further evaluation.