Menu ENN Search
Language: English Français

Is it correct to say one beneficiary in BSFP, if absent for 3 or more weeks visit, to say defaulter ? as we labeled in OTP/ TSFP ?

This question was posted the Prevention and treatment of moderate acute malnutrition forum area and has 2 replies. You can also reply via email – be sure to leave the subject unchanged.

» Post a reply

Zelalem Tilahun

IYCF ECD Coordinator /Concern Worldwide

Normal user

20 Oct 2015, 13:21

Mark Myatt

Consultant Epideomiologist

Frequent user

21 Oct 2015, 08:40

I am in favour of standardisation and integration of OTP and TSFP where this is possible.

There may be local rules regarding definitions for different exit types. Default is often defined as absent for two visits. Sometimes vists are weekly. Sometimes vists are fortnightly. In better run program we pick up DNA (did not attend) for the first absence and speak to mothers from the same village and / or speak with the CBV / CHW to see what has happened and to see if we can avoid default.

Note : When you have an absence for two visits you only have a "possible default". The reason for default could be death. In that case you have a death exit. This is one reason why defaulter follow-up is used. The other is to see if there are common reasons for default that can be adressed by the program.

I hope this is of some use.

Rosemary Atieno

Nutritionist- MOH

Normal user

22 Oct 2015, 07:37

I agree with Mark with the nutrition programmes we usually label one to be a defaulter if they are absent for 2 consecutive visits. On the second absence follow up should be made to see if the client died, bed ridden or moved to another area.
Hope this will be useful

Back to top

» Post a reply