Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33302989›Full record

ArticlePopulation health metrics2020

Linking household surveys and facility assessments: a comparison of geospatial methods using nationally representative data from Malawi.

Michael A Peters, Diwakar Mohan, Patrick Naphini, Emily Carter, Melissa A Marx

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Population health metrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

Michael A PetersJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. mpeters@jhu.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-6423-758X
Diwakar MohanJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Patrick NaphiniMalawi Ministry of Health is the institution, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Emily CarterJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Melissa A MarxJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLinking facility and household surveys through geographic methods is a popular technique to draw conclusions about the relationship between health services and population health outcomes at local levels. These methods are useful tools for measuring effective coverage and tracking progress towards Universal Health Coverage, but are understudied. This paper compares the appropriateness of several geospatial methods used for linking individuals (within displaced survey cluster locations) to their source of family planning (at undisplaced health facilities) at a national level.

methodsIn Malawi, geographic methods linked a population health survey, rural clusters from the Woman's Questionnaire of the 2015 Malawi Demographic and Health Survey (MDHS 2015), to Malawi's national health facility census to understand the service environment where women receive family planning services. Individuals from MDHS 2015 clusters were linked to health facilities through four geographic methods: (i) closest facility, (ii) buffer (5 km), (iii) administrative boundary, and (iv) a newly described theoretical catchment area method. Results were compared across metrics to assess the number of unlinked clusters (data lost), the number of linkages per cluster (precision of linkage), and the number of women linked to their last source of modern contraceptive (appropriateness of linkage).

resultsThe closest facility and administrative boundary methods linked every cluster to at least one facility, while the 5-km buffer method left 288 clusters (35.3%) unlinked. The theoretical catchment area method linked all but one cluster to at least one facility (99.9% linked). Closest facility, 5-km buffer, administrative boundary, and catchment methods linked clusters to 1.0, 1.4, 21.1, and 3.3 facilities on average, respectively. Overall, the closest facility, 5-km buffer, administrative boundary, and catchment methods appropriately linked 64.8%, 51.9%, 97.5%, and 88.9% of women to their last source of modern contraceptive, respectively.

conclusionsOf the methods studied, the theoretical catchment area linking method loses a marginal amount of population data, links clusters to a relatively low number of facilities, and maintains a high level of appropriate linkages. This linking method is demonstrated at scale and can be used to link individuals to qualities of their service environments and better understand the pathways through which interventions impact health.

Indexed as

Health Care SurveysPopulation HealthResearch DesignFamily Planning ServicesFemaleHealth ServicesHumansInformation ManagementMalawiMaleSmall-Area AnalysisDHSFamily planningGISLinkingMalawiMisclassificationSmall area estimationSpatial linkage

Identifiers

PMID33302989
PMCPMC7731755

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.