Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27606061›Full record

ArticleJournal of global health2016

Can surveys of women accurately track indicators of maternal and newborn care? A validity and reliability study in Kenya.

Katharine J McCarthy, Ann K Blanc, Charlotte E Warren, James Kimani, Brian Mdawida, Charity Ndwidga

Open access · goldAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article 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 62 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed
16.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

62 citing papers in PubMed, 147 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  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. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Katharine J McCarthyPopulation Council, New York, NY, USA.
Ann K BlancPopulation Council, New York, NY, USA.
Charlotte E WarrenPopulation Council, Washington D.C., USA.
James KimaniDepartment for International Development, London, UK.
Brian MdawidaPopulation Council, Nairobi, Kenya.
Charity NdwidgaPopulation Council, Nairobi, Kenya.
Population Council · USBritish Council · KEDepartment for International Development · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTracking progress on maternal and newborn survival requires accurate information on the coverage of essential interventions. Despite widespread use, most indicators measuring maternal and newborn intervention coverage have not been validated. This study assessed the ability of women delivering in two Kenyan hospitals to recall critical elements of care received during the intrapartum and immediate postnatal period at two time points: hospital discharge and 13-15 months following delivery.

methodsWomen's reports of received care were compared against observations by trained third party observers. Indicators selected for validation were either currently in use or have the potential to be included in population-based surveys. We used a mixed-methods approach to validate women's reporting ability. We calculated individual-reporting accuracy using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), population-level accuracy using the inflation factor (IF), and compared the accuracy of women's reporting at baseline and follow-up. We also assessed the consistency of women's reporting over time. We used in-depth interviews with a sub-set of women (n = 20) to assess their understanding of key survey terms.

resultsOf 606 women who participated at baseline and agreed to follow-up, 515 were re-interviewed. Thirty-eight indicators had sufficient sample size for validation analysis; ten met criteria for high or moderate reporting accuracy (0.60<AUC) alone and ten met criteria for low population-level bias alone (0.75<IF<1.25). There was a significant decline in the individual level reporting accuracy between baseline and follow-up for ten indicators. Seven indicators had moderate or higher (0.4≤rphi) consistency between self-reports at baseline and follow-up. Four indicators met all criteria at follow-up: support person was present during the birth, episiotomy, caesarean section, and low birthweight infant (<2500 g).

conclusionThe few indicators that women reported accurately at baseline were consistently recalled with accuracy at 13-15 months follow-up. Although there is deterioration in women's recall in some indicators over time, the extent of deterioration does not appreciably compromise reporting accuracy for indicators with high baseline validity. Indicators related to initial client assessment and the immediate postnatal period have generally low accuracy and poor reporting consistency over time.

Indexed as

Delivery, ObstetricHealth Services AccessibilityMaternal-Child Health ServicesQuality Indicators, Health CareAdolescentAdultCesarean SectionEpisiotomyFemaleHealth Care SurveysHumansInfant, Low Birth WeightInfant, NewbornKenyaPregnancyReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID27606061
PMCPMC5012235
OpenAlexW2511143116

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.