Document is current
Any future updates will be listed below
-
Authors
Kok, Maryse https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0889-8663
Kabelka, Hannah https://orcid.org/0009-0006-9039-8658
Kakal, Tasneem https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8845-0465
Zulu, Joseph M. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1480-4977
Moukam, Laure
Machawira, Patricia
Hamandawana, Ygainnia
Le Mat, Mariëlle https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8050-7834
-
Funding
Funding for this research was provided by:
UNESCO, through governments of Sweden, Ireland, Norway and France
- License Information
-
More Information
Article History
Received: 7 March 2025
Accepted: 5 July 2025
First Online: 30 September 2025
Declarations
:
: The evaluation received ethical approval from the KIT Research Ethics Committee (S-200); the National Committee on research Ethics in the Social Sciences and Humanities (NCST/RTT/2/6) in Malawi; the National Health Research Ethics Committee of Nigeria (NHREC/01/01/2007); the Makerere University College of Health Sciences School of Public Health Research and Ethics Committee (SPH-2022-337) and the Uganda national Council of Science and Technology (SS1515ES); and the ERES Converge Institutional Review Board in Zambia (2022-Oct-002). In all countries where FGDs were conducted, the Ministry of Education approved the study. Each informant provided informed written consent. Minors assented to their participation, while their guardians gave written consent. All informants were provided with background information on the evaluation, and their right to withdraw and the confidentiality of their input were emphasised. Participants in stakeholder learning sessions also provided informed written consent. In these sessions, facilitators fostered trust and participation, acknowledging existing power relationships between stakeholders while creating a safe environment that supported stakeholders’ participation and comfort.
: Not applicable.
: Patricia Machawira and Ygainnia Hamandawana work at UNESCO, the implementer of the evaluated programme. PM and YH drafted the terms of reference for the evaluation and provided input into and approved the evaluation protocol. They also provided oversight of the execution of the evaluation. They were not involved in the execution of the evaluation, including data collection and analysis.
