|Document review||To understand program theories of change, intended outcomes and activity timelines, as well as reported implementation of activities and outcomes. Project staff prepared the reports representing narratives of the project from their perspective.||Not applicable (NA)||NA||NA||Over 1000 pages of documents were reviewed, including project activity reports, project planning documents, such as log frames/ results frameworks, baseline reports, annual reports to funders, and any evaluations undertaken.|
|Context mapping||To understand the prior experience of the community during the previous 3 years, as well as ongoing interventions related to social accountability and family planning. The context mapping was conducted during the first 2 months of the project.||21||10||11||Participants were purposively sampled. They were approached through a telephone call and interviewed in person at their workplace. They included district health officials and local non-governmental organization (NGO) staff.|
|In-depth interviews||To explore experiences and perceptions of activities in the social accountability process with community members, project staff and intervention participants, particularly in regard to family planning, over the year of observation.||73||36||37||Participants were conveniently sampled at one of 12 activities and included: district officials, sub-county and local leadership, health providers and officials, project champions; Community Based Organization (CBO) members, farmers, teachers, business people, male role models, church leaders, project staff. Participants were approached face-to-face to be interviewed after the activities in private location nearby.|
|Non-implementation interviews||As social accountability is a process over time, it was important to consider stoppages and delays. The interviews probed reasons and perceived impacts of such interruptions to further understand the realities of implementing social accountability.||9||3||6||Participants were purposively sampled based on project staff recommendations. They included project staff, district and local executive staff, health workers and project champions. There were approached through a telephone call and interviewed privately in their workplace.|
|Remedy and redress interviews||In-depth interviews and observations indicate instances where a change was reported and attributed to the projects. To examine these changes and unpack the mechanisms of change, interviews were conducted to understand how people thought a particular change came about.||25||16||9||
Participants were purposively sampled through snowball technique based on their role in the reported change as suggested by the project staff. They included project champion, community mobilizer, male role model, project staff, health committee members, local executive official, health official, and CBO member.|
They were approached through a telephone call and interviewed in their workplace or private location. They were asked to describe their perceptions of why the change took place and what they believed to be the impacts.