Skip to main content

Table 2 MSI Call Centre Evaluation Framework

From: Development and pilot of a framework to evaluate reproductive health call centre services: experience of Marie Stopes international

INDICATOR TYPE: [U]= Universal, [R]= Best practice- highly recommended, [O]= Best practice- optional

Indicator

Recommended data source

**Optimal suggested range

Satisfactory suggested range

Bare minimum suggested range

Access

A.1 [U] The number of calls received have increased by x% since y year

Call records

21-30%

11-20%

0-10%

A.2 [R] The percentage (%) of calls converted into appointment bookings have increased by x% since y year

Call records

20-30%

10-20%

0-10%

A.3 [R] The percentage (%) of bookings converted into attended appointments have increased by x% since y year

Call records

31-40%

21-30%

0-20%

A.4 [O] The percentage (%) of clients in MSI clinics referred by call centre has increased by x% since y year

Clinic records

21-30%

11-20%

0-10%

A.5 [O] The number of referrals made to other services has increased by x% since y year

Data analysis

10-15%

5-10%

0-5%

Equity

A.6 [U] The percentage (%) of potential clients who are young people1 has increased by x% since y year.

Call records

10-15%

5-10%

0-5%

E.1 [R] The percentage (%) of potential clients who are from [particular target group of interest] has increased by x% since y year

Call records

10-15%

5-10%

0-5%

E.2 [R] The percentage (%) of potential clients who live below the poverty line has increased by x% since y year

Call records

10-15%

5-10%

0-5%

E.3 [O] The percentage (%) of new potential users of family planning2 has increased by x% since y year

Call records

10-15%

5-10%

0-5%

Quality: Outputs

Q.1 [U] x% of “mystery” client callers are satisfied with MSI call centre service

Mystery caller report

81-95%

66-80%

50-65%

Q.2 [R] x% of callers are satisfied with MSI call centre service

Client survey/ interviews

81-95%

66-80%

50-65%

Q.3 [O] x% of callers report to be enabled and encouraged to participate effectively in their own care or treatment

Client survey/ interviews

81-95%

66-80%

50-65%

Q.4 [R] x% of service providers are satisfied with MSI service delivery due to call centre

Provider survey/ focus groups

81-95%

66-80%

50-65%

Quality: Process

Q.5 [U] % of calls answered within 15 seconds

Call records

81-90%

71-80%

60-70%

Q.6 [U] The average call abandoned per year is less than x% (standard is 3%)

Call records

1-5%

5-10%

10-15%

Q.7 [R] The average level of ‘call quality’ of call centre staff has increased to x% since y year

Call Quality tool

81-95%

66-80%

50-65%

Q.8 [O] The percentage (%) of call centre staff that report that training and resources are adequate has increased to x% since y year

Staff survey/ interviews

81-95%

66-80%

50-65%

F.1 [U] The average cost per call has reduced by x% since year y

Call and HR records

10-15%

5-10%

0-5%

  1. 1The MSI definition for youth of interest is adolescents (aged 15-19 years) but in the case that a country does not have this breakdown available, they can use the most appropriate data
  2. 2“New potential users of family planning” refers to call centre callers who are not currently using a modern method of family planning
  3. **Targets for indicators should never be set at 100%, as it is very difficult to guarantee being able to measure 100% in a survey. This is because there is scope for error in research
  4. Please note that over subsequent evaluations, suggested ranges should be revised to encourage service improvements in your call centre. In doing this you may like to seek advice from your National Research Manager and/or the Regional Research Advisor