obtained
Each key informant was asked to give oral informed consent using an English or French informed consent form. They were notified of the purpose of the evaluation, how data was to be collected and stored, that their participation was optional, and that they had the right to skip any question or stop the interview at any time. The key informant interviews were anonymous: no personal identifying information was collected from the
participants.
Recruitment materials included:
1. Recruitment letter/e-mail (English/French) (annexes 1 & 2) 2. Informed consent forms (English/French) (annexes 3 & 4) E. Study Procedures
1. Data collection team
Mr. Trout conducted the document review. The key informant interviews were conducted by two interviewers from Measure Evaluation. USAID (Mr. Trout) provided Measure Evaluation with the questionnaires (annexes 5 & 6, study procedures, and a list of potential individuals and organizations to contact. Measure Evaluation staff/consultants conducted the interviews and transcribed them in French. The names of the interviewees stayed with Measure Evaluation for the purpose of the confidentiality of the subjects but they were not kept in any documents. Mr. Trout analyzed the French notes/transcriptions using N-Vivo with the assistance of Dr. Messersmith.
2. Training for data collection team
Data were collected by a team of Measure Evaluation researchers, led by Dr. Stan Yoder, with previous experience conducting qualitative interviews. Prior to beginning data collection, a 3-day training workshop for interviewers was held by the Measure
researchers. The workshop included detailed discussions of study participant recruitment, the informed consent process, and other ethical issues, including confidentiality and privacy matters. Given the sensitive nature of sex work in Mali, it was critical that
interviewers and all researchers who collaborated in this project fully understood the need to protect the privacy of participants. The team therefore reinforced all ethical issues regarding research involving human subjects and ensured that study staff understood and were in a position to follow appropriate enrollment and data collection procedures for the study. PowerPoint slides on the protection of human subjects that had used previously in many studies in sub-Saharan Africa and that were adapted and used for this study were used for training and the participants practiced procedures such as obtaining informed consent until the trainer was confident that these procedures could all be conducted appropriately. A log was kept onsite with the names of research staff who had been trained and the date on which they were trained.
3. Structure of key informant interviews
Semi-structured questionnaires and interview guides (annexes 5 & 6) were prepared in advance and piloted with one program manager/peer educator. No changes to the
interview guides were deemed necessary during this process, they were to be resubmitted to the IRBs for approval, but this did not turn out to be necessary. The interviews were
semi-structured, allowing for a conversational style in which key questions were probed. The 23 key informants included one policymaker/donor, 12 program managers and 10 peer educators/animators were actually surveyed.
After recruitment (see prior section) and the interviewer and interviewee met for the interview, the interviewer first determined whether the interviewee was better
equipped to participate in English or in French. (In general, only Nigerian animators/peer educators spoke English.) Each of the peer educators/animators was reimbursed 7,500 CFA ($15 USD) for their participation. After a short introduction to the study, the interviewer used the interview guides to establish that the individual was eligible to participate and was willing to do so. The person was then invited to participate in the study. The interviewer also obtained verbal informed consent using the consent form (annexes 3 & 4) for each participant. Consent included permission to tape record the session for transcription and for note-taking. Individuals who were willing to participate in the study but did not want their interview tape recorded were to be allowed to do so, but were asked if they could give an extra 20 minutes to allow for more extensive notes. However, none objected to tape recording. Participants were asked not to mention their names, the names of organizations or individuals in order to protect privacy. The purpose of the interviews was to get general information about the programming rather than information specific to organizations or individuals. A code was used to link the notes with the tape recording and to note the type of interviewee (Peer
Educator/Manager/Program Manager, Policymaker/Funder).
room. Interviews generally took place at the Measure Evaluation office or another neutral location determined by the interviewee and interviewer. Sessions were tape-recorded, and the note-taker also formulated questions that assisted the interviewer to probe deeper for information. After the interview, the note taker and interviewer discussed their
interpretations of the interview. The interviewer and note taker worked together to transcribe these notes and recordings in English or French, according to the language of the interview.
These procedures were followed for the two types of interviewee (Peer
Educator/Animator, Program Manager and Policymaker/Funder). Two different interview guides were used to get relevant information from each of the two types of participant. See annexes 5 & 6 for the specific interview guides.