Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30202519›Full record

ArticleJournal of global health2018

Validation studies for population-based intervention coverage indicators: design, analysis, and interpretation.

Melinda K Munos, Ann K Blanc, Emily D Carter, Thomas P Eisele, Steve Gesuale, Joanne Katz, Tanya Marchant, Cynthia K Stanton, Harry Campbell, Improving Coverage Measurement Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of global health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

34 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

10 authors.

Melinda K MunosInstitute for International Programs, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Ann K BlancPopulation Council, New York, New York, USA.
Emily D CarterInstitute for International Programs, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Thomas P EiseleCenter for Applied Malaria Research and Evaluation, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, Lousiana, USA.
Steve GesualeIndependent consultant, Bend, Oregon, USA.
Joanne KatzDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Tanya MarchantDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Cynthia K StantonStanton-Hill Research, LLC, Moultonborough, North Hampshire, USA.
Harry CampbellCentre for Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Improving Coverage Measurement Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPopulation-based intervention coverage indicators are widely used to track country and program progress in improving health and to evaluate health programs. Indicator validation studies that compare survey responses to a "gold standard" measure are useful to understand whether the indicator provides accurate information. The Improving Coverage Measurement (ICM) Core Group has developed and implemented a standard approach to validating coverage indicators measured in household surveys, described in this paper.

methodsThe general design of these studies includes measurement of true health status and intervention receipt (gold standard), followed by interviews with the individuals observed, and a comparison of the observations (gold standard) to the responses to survey questions. The gold standard should use a data source external to the respondent to document need for and receipt of an intervention. Most frequently, this is accomplished through direct observation of clinical care, and/or use of a study-trained clinician to obtain a gold standard diagnosis. Follow-up interviews with respondents should employ standard survey questions, where they exist, as well as alternative or additional questions that can be compared against the standard household survey questions.

resultsIndicator validation studies should report on participation at every stage, and provide data on reasons for non-participation. Metrics of individual validity (sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) and population-level validity (inflation factor) should be reported, as well as the percent of survey responses that are "don't know" or missing. Associations between interviewer and participant characteristics and measures of validity should be assessed and reported.

conclusionsThese methods allow respondent-reported coverage measures to be validated against more objective measures of need for and receipt of an intervention, and should be considered together with cognitive interviewing, discriminative validity, or reliability testing to inform decisions about which indicators to include in household surveys. Public health researchers should assess the evidence for validity of existing and proposed household survey coverage indicators and consider validation studies to fill evidence gaps.

Indexed as

Surveys and QuestionnairesValidation Studies as TopicData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansReproducibility of ResultsResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID30202519
PMCPMC6126515

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.