Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25469929›Full record

ArticleStudies in family planning2014

Accuracy of standard measures of family planning service quality: findings from the simulated client method.

Katherine Tumlinson, Ilene S Speizer, Siân L Curtis, Brian W Pence

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Studies in family planning, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Katherine TumlinsonPostdoctoral Research Fellow, Office of Population Research, Princeton University, Wallace Hall, Princeton, NJ 08544.. kt10@princeton.edu.
Ilene S Speizer
Siân L Curtis
Brian W Pence

Funding

Carolina Population CenterR24HD050924 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI MORGAN, SAMUEL PHILIP · 2005 to 2014
$10.0M
Research Services CoreP2CHD050924 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI KAREN B GUZZO · 2015 to 2026
$9.6M
GRADUATE PROGRAM IN DEMOGRAPHYT32HD007163 · NICHD · PRINCETON UNIVERSITY · PI MASSEY, DOUGLAS S · 1985 to 2015
$4.3M
Scientific and Technical Computing CoreP2CHD047879 · NICHD · PRINCETON UNIVERSITY · PI SALGANIK, MATTHEW J. · 2014 to 2018
$2.0M
NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD047879NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD050924NICHD NIH HHS R24 HD050924NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD007163
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the field of international family planning, quality of care as a reproductive right is widely endorsed, yet we lack validated data-collection instruments that can accurately assess quality in terms of its public health importance. This study, conducted within 19 public and private facilities in Kisumu, Kenya, used the simulated client method to test the validity of three standard data-collection instruments used in large-scale facility surveys: provider interviews, client interviews, and observation of client-provider interactions. Results found low specificity and low positive predictive values in each of the three instruments for a number of quality indicators, suggesting that the quality of care provided may be overestimated by traditional methods of measurement. Revised approaches to measuring family planning service quality may be needed to ensure accurate assessment of programs and to better inform quality-improvement interventions.

Indexed as

Family Planning ServicesQuality Indicators, Health CareData CollectionHealth Services Needs and DemandHumansKenyaOutcome Assessment, Health CareQuality ImprovementQuality of Health Care

Identifiers

PMID25469929
PMCPMC4258897

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.