|Challenges encountered||Mitigation measures|
|1. Technical issues: GIS usage and computer assisted personal interviews (CAPI)|
|i. GIS Mapping: Difficulty in cluster boundary interpretation and household identification at each survey point, especially where dense structures are present.||• Physically validating the boundaries through field visits.|
|ii. Low internet signals in ground floors of tower buildings sometimes made it difficult to sync data.||
• Having dedicated staff available during field activities to deal with unexpected tablet issues in real time.|
• Being able to download data later upon returning to the office.
|iii. Reporting a technical query and waiting for a solution from staff with access to central server was time consuming.|
|2. Household Listing issues|
|i. Long duration between household listing and survey: Enumerators forgot site details and landmarks, respondent migration was higher, door markings were more difficult to identify.||• Started data collection soon after household listing.|
|3. Respondent issues|
|i. Sensitive information: Respondents’ perceptions and beliefs make it difficult to discuss some topics. Asking sensitive questions about sexuality can be controversial.||• Refresher training sessions conducted on how to discuss sensitive topics with respondents.|
|ii. Security issues: Respondents’ fear about child kidnapping and theft and linked it with previous such incidents.||• Took into confidence influential gate keepers in the community and district administration.|
|iii. Unwillingness to participation: Certain community sub-groups i.e. Urdu speaking and Pashto were reluctant to participate in the study.||• Coordinated with community leaders (especially men) personally; used gatekeeper script.|
|iv. Language barriers: Some respondents expressed difficulties understanding Urdu language.||• Assigned new enumerators who could communicate in their native language.|
|v. Length of questionnaire and participants’ schedules: Engaging the respondent for an hour or more in a busy personal schedule created barriers to successful data collection.||• Rescheduled such cases as per the availability of the respondents, including weekends and after working hours.|
|vi. Participant expectations: Many participants expected extra healthcare services, or another way requested material benefits from enumerators.||• Enumerators were trained to explain indirect benefits e.g. sharing research findings with key stakeholders and informing policies that may benefit the respondents in long run.|
|4. Field issues|
i. Environmental issues: Interviews conducted in dark rooms with no electricity, bad odors, dirty streets, in extreme temperatures; enumerators reported feelings of isolation.|
ii. Presence or nearness of family members
iii. Loud background noises outside
• Worked in groups in neighborhoods where enumerators felt uncomfortable.|
• Supervisors waited nearby and were available to support if needed.
• Scheduled a revisit after confirming another time when most of the family members were away from the home.
|iv. Ensuring privacy: Some interviews couldn’t be done inside the house (especially in joint family systems).||• Revisit/reschedule cases as per respondent’s availability.|