How much time should be allowed for training?

Training of the study team is a continuous process that begins when the team is first formed until the end of the proposed study. This can take anywhere from a few weeks (six to eight weeks) to a few months (three months). For the purposes of the application of this handbook, we have divided the training into two parts: initial training which begins at the preplanning stage, and on-the-job training which continues throughout the conduct of the study. Each project may allow varying lengths of time for each part of the training depending on the availability of time and other resources.

See Table 1 for an example from rural Tanzania where a hygiene evaluation study was conducted. The study team consisted of selected personnel from the three government ministries: Water (Maji), Health (Afya) and Social Development (Maendeleo) assisted by a (WaterAid) resident engineer and a medical anthropologist from outside who conducted the training and study coordination. The intersectoral and interdisciplinary study team was not specially formed for the study. Instead, it was a pre-existing team that had had considerable experience of fieldwork as part of the health education activities supported by WaterAid in Dodoma Region. There were four such teams in the region, one for each district, and two teams were involved in the study which covered two districts.

Training of the WaterAid, Maji, Maendeleo and Afya (WAMMA) teams who participated in the study was done in two phases. The first phase, initial involved discussions of the rationale for assessing hygiene practices. Documented references were used to inform the study teams about current research findings and reviews of relevant works in the areas of hygiene behaviour and control of diarrhoeal diseases. The F diagram (see Figure 1, Chapter 1) was used in the discussion of sanitation-related disease transmission.

TABLE 1. An Example of a Study Timetable Including an Activity Flow Chart

This was followed by a review of the investigative and analytical methods/tools available. The methods and tools with which the WAMMA were already familiar were reviewed before any new ones were introduced. Each WAMMA team reviewed the five clusters of hygiene practices with a view to identifying those that are most relevant for their respective study communities (see Table 2, Chapter 4). The most appropriate methods and tools for assessing the relevant hygiene practices were then selected, discussed, and tried out before the team set out for the study villages.

The initial training also included a detailed discussion of a four-stage learning process: problem identification/defining the question(s), gathering information, reviewing the information, and reflecting on the results. The hygiene evaluation cycle (see Figure 2, Chapter 4) was discussed and frequently referred to throughout the study. The initial training also included trial runs of the selected methods and tools, facilitated by introducing games and role plays including those described in "Transferring Technical Know-How" in this chapter.

The total duration or initial training In this case was two weeks, a week for each team which was located in a different district considerably distant from the other. This is an example of how logistical problems can limit the amount of time allowed for initial training. However, this was not a serious problem in this case because the WAMMA teams both consisted of highly skilled individuals (including district medical officers, community development specialists and public health engineers/technicians) who had already attended related training courses together and were used to working as a team. A week's focused training for each team was thus considered sufficient.