The number of children enrolling in primary education in the areas directly targeted by the programme increased significantly.
Most studies consider only those activities directly driven by the programme.
In the economic evaluation of public health interventions, other outcomes must be considered including effects on individuals not directly targeted by the programme and non-health related outcomes such as education.
Directly after the programme, participants were asked whether they felt they had benefited from the programme regarding 12 specific topics addressed during the programme (Table 5).
First, by involving staff directly in delivering the programme, it aims to enhance a culture of care among staff on acute wards, recognising that communicating with patients and responding to their individual needs in a holistic manner are integral to promoting recovery and reducing adverse events.
The majority of students completing this questionnaire were of the opinion that they would not be affected directly by the implementation of the new programme, save the 1st years as the last intake in the traditional curriculum.
Ultimately, the view was that children and families could be affected by the programme both directly, via services encountered, and indirectly, via community changes that derived from the programme (e.g., reductions in crime, feelings of cohesion, changed 'local norms' about parenting).
Second, government costs, defined as the financial costs of all inputs paid for directly by the Ministry of Health excluding any donations to the programme such as donated drugs.
It forked out twice as much to opaque funds run directly by the president, and to welfare programmes.
Additionally, the UN was directly responsible for the programme's implementation.
