Module 22 ยท What weakens supervision quality?
Which gaps go with poor-quality sessions?
- Design a supervision-quality study with CNA.
- Choose supervisory practices as conditions.
- Interpret which combination of practices matters.
This is the study supervision teams care about most, because it's about them. Research question: which combinations of weak supervisory practices go together with poor-quality immunization sessions? Conditions, as gaps: no checklist used, no action plan developed, no feedback given, no follow-up visit. Outcome: PoorQuality.
library(cna) # NoChecklist, NoActionPlan, NoFeedback, NoFollowUp, PoorQuality (0/1) m_sup <- cna(supervision_data, outcome = "PoorQuality") m_sup
Interpretation: sessions turn out poor either when the supervisor skips both the checklist and the on-the-spot feedback, or whenever there's simply no follow-up visit at all. A visit that ticks a checklist but never comes back is still a visit that loses quality. CNA tells you which combination of missing practices to fix, not just which single box to scold someone about.
Swap in the four practices your own supervision checklist tracks. The columns change, but the cna() call stays exactly the same. That reusability is the whole point, and your future self will thank you.
Look at your own supervision checklist.
- Which four practices would you test as conditions?
- Do you suspect a single practice matters, or a combination?