I'm working on a research project involving SFP and the program criteria call for different classes of returning beneficiaries to be accounted for differently. Children who exited the program due to non-response are treated as new admissions when they return; children who exited as cured or defaults are treated as continuing admissions when they return. I've been unable to determine why these classes of returning beneficiaries would be treated differently. Can anyone explain or even propose any possible reasons for this?
Hie,
With my little knowledge in monitoring and evaluation of CMAM program, malnourished children are supposed to spend maximum of 16 weeks while in program. By this period, it is scientifically assumed that the child should be cured.
For children that are discharged cured, most of them do not reach the said 16 weeks, usually they are discharged before 16 weeks. So, if this child becomes malnourished again, will be admmitted as RELAPSE if she/he is re-admitted within the said 16 weeks from the time of his/her admission. For defaulters, usually they come back before 16 weeks come to an end from date of their admission, that is reason why they cannot be admitted as NEW. For non responders, they finish whole period of 16 weeks in trying to cure them though they are not cured. Since their 16 weeks become over, that is a reason why they are readmitted as NEW. You can refer this inform to CMAM guidelines.
Answered:
8 years agoHi there,
In your question the context is not clear, are you providing fortified foods or just IYCF counseling? In the case of non-responder the first thing is to do dig out the resaons, see the level of IYCF pratices, sessions absent and transfer for medical investigation. However, if child come back within a month of dischare should be considered as readmission/continution otherwise as a new admission.
Answered:
7 years ago