ArticleInternational journal of preventive medicine2019
Evaluation of Timeliness, Simplicity, Acceptability, and Flexibility in Child Mortality Surveillance System for Children Aged 1-59 Months in Iran.
Article in International journal of preventive medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Evaluation of the system for Health Surveillance of Populations Exposed to Chemical Substances, Brazil, 2011-2021Evaluación del sistema de Vigilancia de la Salud de la Población Expuesta a Sustancias Químicas, Brasil, 2011-2021].Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2025Article
- A qualitative exploration of forensic pathology service staff perceptions of the implementation barriers and facilitators of manual- and electronic injury mortality surveillance system methods in South Africa.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Development and evaluation of a customized checklist to assess the quality control of disease registry systems of Tehran, the capital of Iran in 2021.BMC health services research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChild mortality surveillance system (CMSS) for children aged 1-59 months is a critical issue in the prevention of mortality. This surveillance system like other health programs needs to be evaluated. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate CMSS in Iran.
methodsThis evaluation was performed from March 2015 to March 2016 based on selected criteria for assessing the public health surveillance system proposed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Selected criteria examined in this study included timeliness, simplicity, acceptability, and flexibility. These criteria were evaluated in two ways. First, it included the use of a researcher-made questionnaire. The questionnaires were completed by 100 experts on CMSS. Second, to perform a more exact evaluation of these criteria, 24 of these experts were selected for the focus group.
resultsIn this study, the response rate was 91% (42% hospital-based and 49% primary care-based). In the timeliness section, 49% of the experts believed that approvals of the child mortality committees have not been sent within the designated time frame; hardware, software, and questionnaires were reported as effective factors in this respect. The structural and administrative problems were effective in simplicity domain and the experts of mortality registration and mood of relatives were effective in acceptability domain. The flexibility of the system was high and appropriate.
conclusionsThe findings of the present study reveal that CMSS has some limitations and problems in the timeliness, simplicity, and acceptability criteria, which can be resolved. But this program has an appropriate situation in terms of flexibility.
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.