Last updated June 18, 2026All sections
1Why a framework
Counting activity is easy and often misleading. A program can review thousands of cases and still change nothing if follow-up never closes. An impact framework forces us to trace a line from what we do to whether patients are actually better off.
2Theory of change
Our logic runs in one direction, and each stage must earn the next.
Inputs
→ Activities
→ Outputs
→ Outcomes
→ Impact
3A worked example
A concrete illustration for a follow-up-focused program. The examples are illustrative, not reported results.
| Stage | Example |
|---|---|
| Inputs | Doctors, NGOs, technology, local health workers |
| Activities | Case reviews, follow-up programs |
| Outputs | Cases reviewed, patients monitored |
| Outcomes | Better adherence, earlier intervention |
| Impact | Improved health outcomes |
4How we measure
Measurement is built on the same privacy commitments as everything else: outcomes roll up from pseudonymous data, never individual identities.
The metrics we care about most—follow-up compliance and time-to-intervention—are exactly the places where fragmented systems fail. If those improve, continuity is working.