Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34380496›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2021

Using health data for decision-making at each level of the health system to achieve universal health coverage in Ethiopia: the case of an immunization programme in a low-resource setting.

Binyam Tilahun, Alemayehu Teklu, Arielle Mancuso, Berhanu F Endehabtu, Kassahun D Gashu, Zeleke A Mekonnen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Fivefold Cross-Validation Approach in Evaluating the Robustness of Machine Learning Models for Prediction of Esophageal Cancer.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Use of family planning information by primary healthcare clinic managers in South Africa.Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia · 2025
    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

6 authors.

Binyam TilahunDepartment of Health Informatics, Institute of Public Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia. binigcms@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0565-708X
Alemayehu TekluDepartment of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia.
Arielle MancusoAlliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Berhanu F EndehabtuDepartment of Health Informatics, Institute of Public Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia.
Kassahun D GashuDepartment of Health Informatics, Institute of Public Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia.
Zeleke A MekonnenDepartment of Health Informatics, Institute of Public Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFor evidence-based decision-making, there is a need for quality, timely, relevant and accessible information at each level of the health system. Limited use of local data at each level of the health system is reported to be a main challenge for evidence-based decision-making in low- and middle-income countries. Although evidence is available on the timeliness and quality of local data, we know little about how it is used for decision-making at different levels of the health system. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the level of data use and its effect on data quality and shared accountability at different levels of the health system.

methodsAn implementation science study was conducted using key informants and document reviews between January and September 2017. A total of 21 key informants were selected from community representatives, data producers, data users and decision-makers from the community to the regional level. Reviewed documents include facility reports, district reports, zonal reports and feedback in supervision from the district. Thematic content analysis was performed for the qualitative data.

resultsRespondents reported that routine data use for routine decision-making was low. All health facilities and health offices have a performance monitoring team, but these were not always functional. Awareness gaps, lack of motivating incentives, irregularity of supportive supervision, lack of community engagement in health report verification as well as poor technical capacity of health professionals were found to be the major barriers to data use. The study also revealed that there are no institutional or national-level regulations or policies on the accountability mechanisms related to health data. The community-level Health Development Army programme was found to be a strong community engagement approach that can be leveraged for data verification at the source of community data.

conclusionThe culture of using routine data for decision-making at the local level was found to be low. Strengthening the capacity of health workers and performance monitoring teams, introducing incentive mechanisms for data use, engaging the community in data verification and introducing accountability mechanisms for health data are essential to improve data use and quality.

Indexed as

Immunization ProgramsUniversal Health InsuranceEthiopiaGovernment ProgramsHumansImmunizationAccountabilityData qualityData useEthiopiaImplementation research

Identifiers

PMID34380496
PMCPMC8356368

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.