I am not sure that you could properly call it a SQUEAC ... but ... you could do stage I activities and analyse data from registers and cards. You might learn something that you can apply to other programs.

What about second part... any guidance or any particular measure to take...

Hello,

How do you calculate the prevalence of MAM and SAM following community screening of acute malnutrition with MUAC (PB).

Thank you in advance to all

Urgent!

Hello every one, This is another question on whether to continue to SQUEAC third stage after doing first and second stages. While doing the first and second stage of SQUEAC we have learnt that the program had major challenges, supply break being one of them. In most of the facilities there was a supply break for about two consecutive months. Is it necessary to continue with the third stage knowing that the admission is patchy because of the supply break issues? Thanks for your responses,

Hello every one, This is another question on whether to continue to SQUEAC third stage after doing first and second stages. While doing the first and second stage of SQUEAC we have learnt that the program had major challenges, supply break being one of them. In most of the facilities there was a supply break for about two consecutive months. Is it necessary to continue with the third stage knowing that the admission is patchy because of the supply break issues? Thanks for your responses, SQUEAC was originally just stage I and stage II. This gave us in-depth analysis of barriers and boosters, strengths, weaknesses, &c. Enough to accurately diagnose problems and proposed needed reforms. SLEAC was there if a "coverage survey" was needed. After the first few years of development and delivery of SQUEAC there was demand for coverage estimation so we developed stage III. Stage III was developed an "if needed and if indicated" add-on. SLEAC when on to become the basis of a wide-area coverage technique (a sensible re-tasking of sunk development costs). WRT your situation ... You have identified a major barrier (maybe more) that needs to be addressed. Best to concentrate on fixing that than on a survey that will only tell you what you already know (i.e. coverage is not great because there is no RUTF). If the supply breaks were patchy then coverage will be patchy. You could try confirming that with a stage II hypothesis test but an OTP program without RUTF is not really an OTP program. If coverage is patchy than a single coverage estimate has very little utility. So ... I agree with Sanjay.

Thanks a million dear Sanjay and Mark

That is good question, indeed SQUEAC is done to investigate whether the program is moving on well or not. It could be community are not willing to utilizing the program (barriers)