Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26259836›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2015

An in-depth assessment of India's Mother and Child Tracking System (MCTS) in Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh.

Rajeev Gera, Nithiyananthan Muthusamy, Amruta Bahulekar, Amit Sharma, Prem Singh, Amrita Sekhar, Vivek Singh

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rajeev GeraPublic Health Foundation of India, 14, Community Centre, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi, 110017, India. rajeev.gera@phfi.org.
Nithiyananthan MuthusamyPublic Health Foundation of India, 14, Community Centre, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi, 110017, India. nmuthusa@phfi.org.
Amruta BahulekarPublic Health Foundation of India, 14, Community Centre, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi, 110017, India. amruta.bahulekar@phfi.org.
Amit SharmaPublic Health Foundation of India, 14, Community Centre, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi, 110017, India. amit.sharma@phfi.org.
Prem SinghPublic Health Foundation of India, 14, Community Centre, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi, 110017, India. prem.singh@phfi.org.
Amrita SekharPublic Health Foundation of India, 14, Community Centre, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi, 110017, India.
Vivek SinghPublic Health Foundation of India, 14, Community Centre, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi, 110017, India. vivek.singh@iiphh.org.
Public Health Foundation of India · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIndia's Mother and Child Tracking System (MCTS)(1) is an information system for tracking maternal and child health beneficiaries in India's public health system, and improving service delivery planning and outcomes. This ambitious project was launched in 2009 and currently covers all states in India, but no in-depth assessment of the system has been conducted. This study by the Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI) evaluated the performance of MCTS and identified implementation challenges in areas in Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh (UP) in December 2012.

methodsTwo assessment methods were employed: a Data Quality Assessment (DQA) to evaluate data quality and an assessment survey to identify implementation challenges. The survey comprised semi-structured questionnaires for health staff in the sampled districts, observation checklists and survey investigator notes. Purposive sampling was used for selecting two districts in each state and two blocks in each district. For the DQA, 45 mothers who became pregnant and 84 children born within the stipulated timeframes were randomly sampled.

resultsDQA overall performance numbers were 34% for pregnant women and 33% for children in the Rajasthan study areas, while UP's performance numbers were 18% for pregnant women and 25% for children. Weaknesses in the MCTS' data completeness accounted for much of this performance shortfall. The beneficiary profiles for Rajasthan were largely incomplete, and the MCTS in UP struggled to register beneficiaries. Shared challenges in both states were the absence of clear processes and guidelines governing data processes, and the lack of systematic monitoring and supervision frameworks for MCTS implementation. As a result, Front Line Health Workers (FHWs) were overburdened with data documentation work, and there were long delays in data capturing. FHWs and block level health officials were not adequately trained in using the MCTS. UP staff reported unreliable internet and electricity availability, lack of dedicated data entry personnel, and a shortage of consumables such as MCTS registers.

conclusionsThere is an urgent need to create data processes and supervision guidelines that complement existing workflows and service delivery priorities. Health staff should be trained to implement these guidelines. MCTS outputs, such as service delivery planning tools, should replace existing tools once data quality improves.

Indexed as

MothersPatient Identification SystemsQuality ImprovementAdultChildDelivery, ObstetricFemaleHumansIndiaInterviews as TopicMaternal Health ServicesPregnancyQualitative ResearchSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID26259836
PMCPMC4530478
OpenAlexW1947860985

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.