Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29441117›Full record

ArticleEmerging themes in epidemiology2018

Contextual factors in maternal and newborn health evaluation: a protocol applied in Nigeria, India and Ethiopia.

Kate Sabot, Tanya Marchant, Neil Spicer, Della Berhanu, Meenakshi Gautham, Nasir Umar, Joanna Schellenberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Emerging themes in epidemiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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.

Kate Sabot1The Centre for Maternal, Adolescent, Reproductive and Child Health (MARCH), London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4713-1505
Tanya Marchant1The Centre for Maternal, Adolescent, Reproductive and Child Health (MARCH), London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT UK.
Neil Spicer1The Centre for Maternal, Adolescent, Reproductive and Child Health (MARCH), London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT UK.
Della Berhanu1The Centre for Maternal, Adolescent, Reproductive and Child Health (MARCH), London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT UK.
Meenakshi Gautham1The Centre for Maternal, Adolescent, Reproductive and Child Health (MARCH), London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT UK.
Nasir Umar1The Centre for Maternal, Adolescent, Reproductive and Child Health (MARCH), London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT UK.
Joanna Schellenberg1The Centre for Maternal, Adolescent, Reproductive and Child Health (MARCH), London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderstanding the context of a health programme is important in interpreting evaluation findings and in considering the external validity for other settings. Public health researchers can be imprecise and inconsistent in their usage of the word "context" and its application to their work. This paper presents an approach to defining context, to capturing relevant contextual information and to using such information to help interpret findings from the perspective of a research group evaluating the effect of diverse innovations on coverage of evidence-based, life-saving interventions for maternal and newborn health in Ethiopia, Nigeria, and India.

methodsWe define "context" as the background environment or setting of any program, and "contextual factors" as those elements of context that could affect implementation of a programme. Through a structured, consultative process, contextual factors were identified while trying to strike a balance between comprehensiveness and feasibility. Thematic areas included demographics and socio-economics, epidemiological profile, health systems and service uptake, infrastructure, education, environment, politics, policy and governance. We outline an approach for capturing and using contextual factors while maximizing use of existing data. Methods include desk reviews, secondary data extraction and key informant interviews. Outputs include databases of contextual factors and summaries of existing maternal and newborn health policies and their implementation. Use of contextual data will be qualitative in nature and may assist in interpreting findings in both quantitative and qualitative aspects of programme evaluation. DISCUSSION: Applying this approach was more resource intensive than expected, in part because routinely available information was not consistently available across settings and more primary data collection was required than anticipated. Data was used only minimally, partly due to a lack of evaluation results that needed further explanation, but also because contextual data was not available for the precise units of analysis or time periods of interest. We would advise others to consider integrating contextual factors within other data collection activities, and to conduct regular reviews of maternal and newborn health policies. This approach and the learnings from its application could help inform the development of guidelines for the collection and use of contextual factors in public health evaluation.

Indexed as

ContextContextual factorsContextual indicatorsContextual moderatorsExternal validityImpact evaluationMaternal healthNewborn healthProgramme evaluationPublic health

Identifiers

PMID29441117
PMCPMC5800046

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.