Data De-Duplication in DATIM Concept and Implementation DATIM Data for Accountability, Transparency, and Impact De-Duplication Overview • • • • • Background De-Duplication in PEPFAR De-Duplication in DATIM De-Duplication Logic Standardizing De-Duplication Efforts DATIM Data for Accountability, Transparency, and Impact 2 A Brief History of Duplication • “The numbers don’t add up” – PEPFAR totals vs. National results – Same Things, Same Place, Same Time • “I did this” vs. “We did this” – Partners report individual accomplishments – Programs report aggregate, unique results • Double-counting vs. Service Overlaps – Sometimes it’s simple (2 partners, exact same clients) – Sometimes it’s complex (overlapping community interventions across populations, geographic areas) • Program Accountability DATIM Data for Accountability, Transparency, and Impact 3 De-Duplication in PEPFAR I & II • PEPFAR To Date: De-Duplicate Results at Technical Area Level Only – Map Partners, Services, Indicators – Add up results – Compare to other data sources (MOH national results, Global Fund reporting, etc.) – Exclude, extrapolate, estimate – Report single, OU-level results by indicator with narrative description of any de-duplication efforts DATIM Data for Accountability, Transparency, and Impact 4 De-Duplication in DATIM • DATIM Going Forward: De-Duplicate Results at Site Level – Receive site-level data from IPs – Review, Approve, Submit data to Interagency – Interagency (SI, PCO) use Data De-Duplication App to review duplicates by site/indicator – Select standard de-duplication logic where applicable – Address unique/contextual duplication or overlap issues at site level case by case – Review and address DSD-TA “crosswalk” overlaps – Submit to HQ DATIM Data for Accountability, Transparency, and Impact 5 Defining De-Duplication Terms • Pure/Normal/Simple De-Duplication: All DSDDSD or TA-TA duplicate (or differing) values to be addressed within DATIM • DSD-TA Crosswalk/Complex De-Duplication: When multiple partners report DSD and TA results at the same site, which double-counts patients/beneficiaries across DSD and TA results; revise TA value within DATIM DATIM Data for Accountability, Transparency, and Impact 6 Standard De-Duplication Logic • SUM: Add all IM results together at site level (No Duplication of clients by IMs) • MAX: Across all IMs, report the “highest reported value” of each indicator/disaggregation at the site level (Full or Broad Duplication of clients by IMs) • CUSTOM: Across all IMs, report a “custom value” at the site level based on contextual or known programmatic factors (Partial Duplication of clients by IMs) DATIM Data for Accountability, Transparency, and Impact 7 Site-Level “Simple” Duplication Scenarios: Community Partners DATIM Data for Accountability, Transparency, and Impact 8 OVC_SERV Community De-Duplication Scenario 1: No Duplication (SUM) DISTRICT X Total OVC_SERV Active Beneficiaries 30 + 30 + 30 VILLAGE B 90 (Intervention Point) PARTNER 2: 30 (Case Management) VILLAGE A (Intervention Point) DATIM PARTNER 1: 30 (Case Management) Data for Accountability, Transparency, and Impact VILLAGE C (Intervention Point) PARTNER 3: 30 (Case Management) OVC_SERV Community De-Duplication Scenario 2: Broad Duplication (MAX) DISTRICT X PARTNER 2: 60 (Psychosocial Support) Total OVC_SERV Active Beneficiaries 30 ≤ 60 ≤ 90 VILLAGE B 90 (Intervention Point) VILLAGE A (Intervention Point) DATIM PARTNER 1: 30 (IGA Partner) Data for Accountability, Transparency, and Impact VILLAGE C (Intervention Point) PARTNER 3: 90 (Case Management) OVC_SERV Community De-Duplication Scenario 3: Full Duplication (MAX) DISTRICT X PARTNER 2: 90 (Psychosocial Support) Total OVC_SERV Active Beneficiaries 90 ≤ 90 ≤ 90 VILLAGE B 90 (Intervention Point) VILLAGE A (Intervention Point) DATIM PARTNER 1: 90 (IGA Partner) Data for Accountability, Transparency, and Impact VILLAGE C (Intervention Point) PARTNER 3: 90 (Case Management) OVC_SERV Community De-Duplication Scenario 4: Partial Duplication (CUSTOM) DISTRICT X PARTNER 2: 60 (Psychosocial Support) Total OVC_SERV Active Beneficiaries 50% Overlap VILLAGE B 90 (Intervention Point) VILLAGE A (Intervention Point) DATIM PARTNER 1: 60 (IGA Partner) Data for Accountability, Transparency, and Impact VILLAGE C (Intervention Point) PARTNER 3: 60 (Education, Child Protection) Site-Level “Simple” Duplication Scenarios: Clinical Facility Partners DATIM Data for Accountability, Transparency, and Impact 13 TX_CURR Facility De-Duplication Scenario 1: Full Duplication (MAX) SITE X Total TX_CURR_DSD Current on Treatment 90 ≤ 90 90 TOTAL NUMBER OF ART CLIENTS N = 90 PARTNER 1: 90 Clients DATIM Data for Accountability, Transparency, and Impact PARTNER 2: 90 Clients TX_CURR Facility De-Duplication Scenario 2: Broad Duplication (MAX) SITE X Total TX_CURR_DSD Current on Treatment 50 ≤ 90 90 TOTAL NUMBER OF ART CLIENTS N = 90 PARTNER 1: 90 Clients DATIM Data for Accountability, Transparency, and Impact PARTNER 2: 50 Clients TX_CURR Facility De-Duplication Scenario 3: Partial Duplication (CUSTOM) SITE X Total TX_CURR_DSD Current on Treatment 25% Assumed Overlap PARTNER 1: 60 Clients DATIM Data for Accountability, Transparency, and Impact TOTAL NUMBER OF ART CLIENTS N = 90 90 PARTNER 2: 60 Clients TX_CURR Facility De-Duplication Scenario 4: No Duplication (SUM) SITE X Total TX_CURR_DSD Current on Treatment 45 + 45 90 TOTAL NUMBER OF ART CLIENTS N = 90 PARTNER 1: 45 Clients DATIM Data for Accountability, Transparency, and Impact PARTNER 2: 45 Clients DSD-TA “Crosswalk” Duplication Scenarios: Some Illustrations DATIM Data for Accountability, Transparency, and Impact 18 General Principles: 1. De-duplicated MER DSD + TA results = Total unique patients/beneficiaries in country 2. DSD results prioritized over duplicate TA results for partners reporting the same results 3. In these duplication cases, TA value must be determined by user (zero? non-zero?) DATIM Data for Accountability, Transparency, and Impact 19 TX_CURR_DSD vs. TX_CURR_TA Scenario 1: Full Duplication (TA=0) SITE X TX_CURR_DSD & TX_CURR_TA Current on Treatment 90 DSD cancels out 90 TA TOTAL NUMBER OF ART CLIENTS N = 90 90 DSD 0 TA (90 total) PARTNER 1: Service Delivery 90 DSD Clients Quarterly Monitoring + HCW Salary DATIM Data for Accountability, Transparency, and Impact PARTNER 2: QI for Retention 90 TA Clients Quarterly Monitoring Only TX_CURR_DSD vs. TX_CURR_TA Scenario 2: Duplication, DSD > TA (TA=0) SITE X TX_CURR_DSD & TX_CURR_TA Current on Treatment 90 DSD cancels 50 TA TOTAL NUMBER OF ART CLIENTS N = 90 90 DSD 0 TA (90 total) DATIM PARTNER 1: Service Delivery 90 DSD Clients Quarterly Monitoring & ARVs Data for Accountability, Transparency, and Impact PARTNER 2: QI for Retention 50 TA Clients Quarterly Monitoring Only TX_CURR_DSD vs. TX_CURR_TA Scenario 3: Duplication, TA > DSD (CUSTOM) SITE X TX_CURR_DSD & TX_CURR_TA Current on Treatment TOTAL NUMBER OF ART CLIENTS N = 90 PARTNER 1: Service Delivery 50 DSD Clients Quarterly Monitoring & ARVs DATIM Data for Accountability, Transparency, and Impact 50 DSD, (90 TA – 50 DSD) = 40 TA 50 DSD 40 TA (90 total) PARTNER 2: QI Partner 90 TA Clients Quarterly Monitoring Only “Simple” De-Duplication Logic SUM: MAX: CUSTOM: DATIM Data for Accountability, Transparency, and Impact 23 DSD-TA Crosswalk De-Duplication Enter TA value that appropriately de-duplicates the DSD-TA Crosswalk Indicator total DATIM Data for Accountability, Transparency, and Impact 24 Why Standardize De-Duplication? • Allows PEPFAR to simplify and normalize duplication handling globally • Enforces accountability and auditability for de-duplication logic/decision-making • Preserves partner-level data without source modifications • DATIM requires standard rules & logic DATIM Data for Accountability, Transparency, and Impact 25 What happens inside/outside DATIM? • Identify “pure” duplicates in DATIM across IMs and agencies • Review and confer with Activity Managers, TWGs, Partners • Choose de-duplication approach by policy and/or case by case • Remediate “pure” duplicates in DATIM • Review, confer, & remediate “crosswalk” duplicates in De-Duplication App DATIM Data for Accountability, Transparency, and Impact 26 DATIM Data De-Duplication App Live Demonstration DATIM Data for Accountability, Transparency, and Impact 27 Questions? DATIM Data for Accountability, Transparency, and Impact 28
© Copyright 2024 Paperzz
