Dear Abdoul,

This is quite a big question. We measure all sorts of coverage using the standard Tanahshi model with different methods for different dimension of access to service provision. We have several methods for estimating Tanahashi's "Effectiveness Coverage". These methods include SLEAC, SQUEAC, CSAS and S3M for CMAM program coverage. S3M has also been used for estimating coverage of SFP programs, staple food fortifiction programs, GM/GMP programs, screening programs, &c.

I am not sure what you mean by "actual and theoretical". Can you explain? We do use quite abstract and incompatible constructs such and "point coverage" and "period coverage" which measure special cases of coverage. These are being replaced by the less abstract "natural coverage" or "single coverage" estimators. See this FEX article.

Ask here if you have specific questions.

Dear Abdoul,

I agree with Mark, not sure what you mean by “theoretical” and “actual”.  I can guess that by “theoretical” you refer to the “indirect method” which consists in a coverage estimation based of the number of SAM cases in the programme/number of expected SAM cases; this method is often used for logistics needs but will not measure the effectiveness of the programme.  Contrary, “direct methods”, like SQUEAC, SLEAC, etc. (as mentioned by Mark) provide an estimation of coverage and thus of the effectiveness of the programme.  You can consult the document published by FANTA ( https://www.fantaproject.org/monitoring-and-evaluation/squeac-sleac) which describe step by step the SQUEAC and SLEAC methods.

Dear Mark and Lio,

Thank you for these clearer and understandable explanations.