Research and implementation interactions in a social accountability study: utilizing guidance for conducting process evaluations of complex interventions.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, researchers and evaluators have made efforts to identify and use appropriate and innovative research designs that account for the complexity in studying social accountability. The relationship between the researchers and those implementing the activities and how this impacts the study have received little attention. In this paper, we reflect on how we managed the relationship between researchers and implementers using the United Kingdom Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance on process evaluation of a complex intervention. MAIN BODY: The MRC guidance focuses on three areas of interaction between researchers and stakeholders involved in developing and delivering the intervention: (i) working with program developers and implementers; (ii) communication of emerging findings between researchers/evaluators and implementers; and (iii) overlapping roles of the intervention and research/evaluation. We summarize how the recommendations for each of the three areas were operationalized in the Community and Provider driven Social Accountability Intervention (CaPSAI) Project and provide reflections based on experience. We co-developed various tools, including standard operating procedures, contact lists, and manuals. Activities such as training sessions, regular calls, and meetings were also conducted to enable a good working relationship between the different partners. CONCLUSIONS: Studying social accountability requires the collaboration of multiple partners that need to be planned to ensure a good working relationship while safeguarding both the research and intervention implementation. The MRC guidance is a useful tool for making interaction issues explicit and establishing procedures. Planning procedures for dealing with research and implementers' interactions could be more comprehensive and better adapted to social accountability interventions if both researchers and implementers are involved. There is a need for social accountability research to include clear statements explaining the nature and types of relationships between researchers and implementers involved in the intervention.

Accounting for complexity - Intervention design in the context of studying social accountability for reproductive health.

Background: Social accountability interventions aim to propel change by raising community voices and holding duty bearers accountable for delivering on rights and entitlements. Evidence on the role of such interventions for improving community health outcomes is steadily emerging, including for sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR). However, these interventions are complex social processes with numerous actors, multiple components, and a highly influential local context. Unsurprisingly, determining the mechanisms of change and what outcomes may be transferable to other similar settings can be a challenge. We report our methodological considerations to account for complexity in a social accountability intervention exploring contraceptive uptake and use in Ghana and Tanzania. Main Body: The Community and Provider driven Social Accountability Intervention (CaPSAI) study explores the relationship between a health facility-focused social accountability intervention and contraceptive service provision in two countries. This 24-month mixed-method quasi-experimental study, using an interrupted time series with a parallel control group, is being undertaken in 16 sites across Ghana and Tanzania in collaboration with local research and implementation partners. The primary outcomes include changes in contraceptive uptake and use. We also measure outcomes related to current social accountability theories of change and undertake a process evaluation. We present three design features: co-design, 'conceptual' fidelity, and how we aim to track the intervention as 'intended vs. implemented' to explore how the intervention could be responsive to the embedded routines, local contextual realities, and the processual nature of the social accountability intervention. Conclusions: Through a discussion of these design features and their rationale, we conclude by suggesting approaches to intervention design that may go some way in responding to recent challenges in accounting for social accountability interventions, bearing relevance for evaluating health system interventions.