ArticlePloS one2018
Comparing individual-level clinical data from antenatal records with routine health information systems indicators for antenatal care in the West Bank: A cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Digital health in fragile states in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region: A scoping review of the literature.PloS one · 2023Article
- Validation of Maternal Report of Receipt of Iron-Folic Acid Supplementation during Antenatal Care in Rural Southern Nepal.The Journal of nutrition · 2022Article
- Assessing routine health information system performance during the tenth outbreak of Ebola virus disease (2018-2020) in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: A qualitative study in North Kivu.PLOS global public health · 2022Article
- Maternal and neonatal data collection systems in low- and middle-income countries for maternal vaccines active safety surveillance systems: A scoping review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2021Article
- What is meant by validity in maternal and newborn health measurement? A conceptual framework for understanding indicator validation.PloS one · 2020Article
- Health management information system (HMIS) data verification: A case study in four districts in Rwanda.PloS one · 2020Article
- eRegTime, Efficiency of Health Information Management Using an Electronic Registry for Maternal and Child Health: Protocol for a Time-Motion Study in a Cluster Randomized Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2019Article
- Antenatal care data sources and their policy and planning implications: a Palestinian example using the Lives Saved Tool.BMC public health · 2019Article
- Generating statistics from health facility data: the state of routine health information systems in Eastern and Southern Africa.BMJ global health · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn most low- and middle-income settings, national aggregate health data is the most consistently available source for policy-making and international comparisons. In the West Bank, the paper-based health information system with manual aggregations is transitioning to an individual-level data eRegistry for maternal and child health at the point-of-care. The aim of this study was to explore beforehand how routine health information systems indicators for antenatal care can change with the introduction of the eRegistry.
methodsData were collected from clinical antenatal paper records of pregnancy enrollments for 2015 from 17 primary healthcare clinics, selected by probability sampling from five districts in the West Bank. We used the individual-level data from clinical records to generate routinely reported health systems indicators. We weighted the data to produce population-level estimates, and compared these indicators with aggregate routine health information systems reports.
resultsAntenatal anemia screening at 36 weeks was 20% according to the clinical records data, compared to 52% in the routine reports. The clinical records data showed considerably higher incidences of key maternal conditions compared to the routine reports, including fundal height discrepancy (20% vs. 0.01%); Rh-negative blood group (6.8% vs. 1.4%); anemia with hemoglobin<9.5 g/dl (6% vs. 0.6%); and malpresentation at term (1.3% vs. 0.03%). Only about a sixth of cases with these conditions were referred according to guidelines to designated referral clinics.
conclusionsDifferences between indicators from the clinical records data and routine health information systems reports can be attributed to human error, inconsistent denominators, and complexities of data processes. Key health systems indicators were prone to underestimations since their registration was dependent on referral of pregnant women. With a transition to individual-level data, as in the eRegistry under implementation, the public health authorities will be able to generate reliable health systems indicators reflective of the population's health status.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.