Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27606060›Full record

SynthesisJournal of global health2016

Linking household and facility data for better coverage measures in reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health care: systematic review.

Mai Do, Angela Micah, Luciana Brondi, Harry Campbell, Tanya Marchant, Thomas Eisele, Melinda Munos

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of global health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  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

7 authors.

Mai DoDepartment of Global Community Health and Behavioral Sciences, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane, LA, USA.
Angela MicahDepartment of Global Health Management and Policy, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane, LA, USA.
Luciana BrondiCentre for Population Health Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Harry CampbellCentre for Population Health Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Tanya MarchantFaculty of Infectious and Tropical Disease, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Thomas EiseleCenter for Applied Malaria Research and Evaluation, Department of Tropical Medicine, Tulane University School of Tropical Medicine, Tulane, LA, USA.
Melinda MunosDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrently many measures of intervention coverage obtained from household surveys do not measure actual health intervention/service delivery, resulting in a need for linking reports of care-seeking with assessments of the service environment in order to improve measurements. This systematic review aims to identify evidence of different methods used to link household surveys and service provision assessments, with a focus on reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health care, in low- and middle-income countries.

methodsUsing pre-defined search terms, articles published in peer-reviewed journals and the grey literature after 1990 were identified, their reference lists scanned and linking methods synthesized.

findingsA total of 59 articles and conference presentations were carefully reviewed and categorized into two groups based on the linking method used: 1) indirect/ecological linking that included studies in which health care-seeking behavior was linked to all or the nearest facilities or providers of certain types within a geographical area, and 2) direct linking/exact matching where individuals were linked with the exact provider or facility where they sought care. The former approach was employed in 51 of 59 included studies, and was particularly common among studies that were based on independent sources of household and facility data that were nationally representative. Only eight of the 59 reviewed studies employed direct linking methods, which were typically done at the sub-national level (eg, district level) and often in rural areas, where the number of providers was more limited compared to urban areas.

conclusionsDifferent linking methods have been reported in the literature, each category has its own set of advantages and limitations, in terms of both methodology and practicality for scale-up. Future studies that link household and provider/facility data should also take into account factors such as sources of data, the timing of surveys, the temporality of data points, the type of services and interventions, and the scale of the study in order to produce valid and reliable results.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareFamily CharacteristicsHealth FacilitiesHealth PersonnelHealth ServicesPatient Acceptance of Health CareFemaleHealth Services ResearchHumansMaleMaternal-Child Health Services

Identifiers

PMID27606060
PMCPMC5012234

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.