e are pleased to share with you the first draft of proposed minimum or core indicator set for T/CAM in Southeast Asia. Each indicator is provided with a metadata, which informs on the indicator rationale, definition, data elements, disaggregation, and data source, to promote standardized data collection and reporting.
Three main steps were taken for the indicator selection process and metadata development, as follows:
Step 1: Development of strategic objectives and expected outcomes
A set of strategic objectives and expected outcomes were developed to provide guidance on what we want to achieve for T/CAM in the region and in the countries, and these reflect what we want to measure and monitor. The strategic objectives developed for SEAR TRM align well with those of the global T/CAM strategy, with the addition of a fourth regional objective to promote protection and sustainable use of traditional medicine resources.
Step 2: Development of basket of indicators
The strategic objectives and expected outcomes were our main guide in the indicator rationalization process. Indicators from the T/CAM monitoring framework presented in the 2015 regional workshop and indicators from the WHO HQ survey were mapped against the strategic objectives and expected outcomes. When required, newly developed indicators were added into the roster.
We then went through the process of rationalizing the list of indicators for each strategic objective and expected outcome. We prioritized indicators that were:
a. Relevant – that the indicator measures the attribute of interest (i.e. T/CAM expected outcome), is an expression of what is desirable, and responds to information needs of T/CAM decision-makers and program managers
b. Direct measures – indicator is intuitively understood (high face validity)
and is a direct measurement, rather than a proxy
c. Adequate – either by itself or with a minimal companion set of indicators, the indicator provides reasonable confidence that it accurately measures the attribute
d. Practical– data for the indicator is either already being measured and reported, or data collection is feasible using reasonable resources.
Step 3: Development of indicator metadata
Metadata were developed through review of metadata for similar indicators and the WHO Indicator Measurement Registry and the Global Reference List of 100 Core Indicators were some of the resources for this. We also reviewed relevant documents (global and regional strategies, WHO survey instruments, guidelines, reports and articles) on T/CAM and even on medicines and health system performance.
Now we kindly ask for your comments/feedback on:
A. the proposed strategic objectives and expected outcomes
B. the proposed indicators. What we aim for is to arrive at a parsimonious set, that is, the least number of indicators required to monitor the T/CAM strategic objectives and expected outcomes. Guided by our indicator selection criteria, we kindly ask you to review the indicator set and to please provide comments as to:
b.1 Indicators that you think should be deleted. You may find some indicators overlap, e.g. the indicators “Health budget allocated to T/CAM “ and “Total health expenditure for T/CAM” and you may wish to keep only one of the two based on availability of data.
b.2 Indicators that you feel should be replaced or reworded
b.3 Indicators that you feel should be added
C. the indicator metadata.
Lastly, we would like to ask you to provide data for the different indicators (only to the extent possible) for your country. We do this to test the clarity of the indicator, usefulness of the metadata, and actual data availability. As such, we kindly ask you to accomplish the attached data sheet.
We would be grateful if you can provide your comments/feedback and data for the indicators by 1st of July 2016. Please feel free to email us for any clarifications required.
We thank you for your kind support to the T/CAM program and to this endeavor