Study design
Our follow-up evaluation study (MeLoHanD) was a comparison of data from two cross-sectional surveys conducted at two-time points: the end of the EACDRP trial in 2016 and 4 years after the end of the trial, in 2020. We could thus evaluate the durability or sustainability of the service availability and readiness at former intervention HFs, as well as the health service-centred quality of care and patient experience (QoCE) over the 4 years without research-driven support.The MeLoHanD study was conducted in 3 randomly selected higher-level facilities (HCIVs) of the 6 referral units, and all the 19 lower-level facilities (10 HCIIIs and 9 HCIIs) that constituted the original intervention arm of the EACDRP trial described in the section above (Fig. Of the 3 randomly selected HCIVs, 1 HCIV (peri-urban) was selected from Mpigi district while 2 HCIVs (1 peri-urban, 1 rural) were selected from Wakiso district. There were 7 lower-level facilities (4 HCIIIs, 3 HCIIs) from Mpigi and 12 lower-level facilities (6 HCIIIs, 6 HCIIs) from Wakiso district. Of these, only Wakiso district (Entebbe) had urban facilities (1 HCIII, 1 HCII) while the remaining 17 facilities (9 HCIIIs, 8HCIIs) were rural (Table Distribution of health facilities by district and facility levelA study pilot to test study tools and prepare the study team for their field work was done in two health facilities (an urban HCIII and a peri-urban HCII) prior to this evaluation. Findings from these pilot HFs were not included in the analysis for the MeLoHanD study.To evaluate 