Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29297401›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2017

Improving data quality across 3 sub-Saharan African countries using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR): results from the African Health Initiative.

Sarah Gimbel, Moses Mwanza, Marie Paul Nisingizwe, Cathy Michel, Lisa Hirschhorn, AHI PHIT Partnership Collaborative

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  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

6 authors.

Sarah GimbelSchool of Nursing, University of Washington, Magnuson Health Sciences Building, Box 357262, Seattle, WA, 98195-7262, USA. sgimbel@uw.edu.
Moses MwanzaCentre of Infectious Diseases in Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.
Marie Paul NisingizwePartners in Health-Inshuti Mu Buzima, Kigali, Rwanda.
Cathy MichelHealth Alliance International, Beira, Mozambique.
Lisa HirschhornDivision of Global Health Equity, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
AHI PHIT Partnership Collaborative

Funding

HEALTH SYSTEMS STRENGTHENING TO IMPROVE HEALTH OUTCOMES: APPLYING IMPLEMENTATIONK02TW009207 · FIC · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI SHERR, KENNETH · 2011 to 2015
$403k
FIC NIH HHS K02 TW009207
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh-quality data are critical to inform, monitor and manage health programs. Over the seven-year African Health Initiative of the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, three of the five Population Health Implementation and Training (PHIT) partnership projects in Mozambique, Rwanda, and Zambia introduced strategies to improve the quality and evaluation of routinely-collected data at the primary health care level, and stimulate its use in evidence-based decision-making. Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) as a guide, this paper: 1) describes and categorizes data quality assessment and improvement activities of the projects, and 2) identifies core intervention components and implementation strategy adaptations introduced to improve data quality in each setting.

methodsThe CFIR was adapted through a qualitative theme reduction process involving discussions with key informants from each project, who identified two domains and ten constructs most relevant to the study aim of describing and comparing each country's data quality assessment approach and implementation process. Data were collected on each project's data quality improvement strategies, activities implemented, and results via a semi-structured questionnaire with closed and open-ended items administered to health management information systems leads in each country, with complementary data abstraction from project reports.

resultsAcross the three projects, intervention components that aligned with user priorities and government systems were perceived to be relatively advantageous, and more readily adapted and adopted. Activities that both assessed and improved data quality (including data quality assessments, mentorship and supportive supervision, establishment and/or strengthening of electronic medical record systems), received higher ranking scores from respondents.

conclusionOur findings suggest that, at a minimum, successful data quality improvement efforts should include routine audits linked to ongoing, on-the-job mentoring at the point of service. This pairing of interventions engages health workers in data collection, cleaning, and analysis of real-world data, and thus provides important skills building with on-site mentoring. The effect of these core components is strengthened by performance review meetings that unify multiple health system levels (provincial, district, facility, and community) to assess data quality, highlight areas of weakness, and plan improvements.

Indexed as

Data AccuracyPrimary Health CareHealth Services ResearchHumansMentorsMozambiqueQuality ImprovementRwandaZambiaData quality assessmentDecision makingHealth systems researchHealth systems strengtheningMaternal and child healthMozambiqueQuality improvementRwandaZambia

Identifiers

PMID29297401
PMCPMC5763292

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.