Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36463102›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2022

How valid are women's reports of the antenatal health services they receive from Community Health Workers in Gombe State north-eastern Nigeria?

Emmanuel Olal, Nasir Umar, Jennifer Anyanti, Zelee Hill, Tanya Marchant

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. 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 at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Emmanuel OlalDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK. eolal78@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3841-5896
Nasir UmarDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5119-0092
Jennifer AnyantiSociety for Family Health, Justice Ifeyinwa Nzeako House, 8 Port Harcourt Crescent, Area 11, Garki, Abuja, Nigeria.
Zelee HillInstitute of Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
Tanya MarchantDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4228-4334
University of London · GBSociety for Family Health Nigeria · NGUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommunity health workers (CHWs) in low- and middle-income countries are key to increasing coverage of maternal and newborn interventions through home visits to counsel families about healthy behaviours. Household surveys enable tracking the progress of CHW programmes but recent evidence questions the accuracy of maternal reports. We measured the validity of women's responses about the content of care they received during CHW home visits and examined whether the accuracy of women's responses was affected by CHW counselling skills.

methodsWe conducted a criterion validity study in 2019, in Gombe State-Nigeria, and collected data from 362 pregnant women. During accompanied CHW home visits the content of CHW care and the presence or absence of 18 positive counselling skills were observed and documented by a researcher. In a follow-up interview three months later, the same women were asked about the care received during the CHW home visit. Women's reports were compared with observation data and the sensitivity, specificity, and area under receiver curve (AUC) calculated. We performed a covariate validity analysis that adjusted for a counselling skill score to assess the variation in accuracy of women's reports with CHW counselling skills.

resultsTen indicators were included in the validity analysis. Women consistently overestimated the content of care CHWs provided and no indicator met the condition for individual-level accuracy set at AUC ≥ 0.6. The CHW counselling skill score ranged from 9-18 points from a possible 18, with a mean of 14.3; checking on client history or concerns were the most frequently missed item. There was evidence that unmarried women and the relatively most poor women received less skilled counselling than other women (mean counselling scores of 13.2 and 13.7 respectively). There was no consistent evidence of an association between higher counselling skill scores and better accuracy of women's reports.

conclusionsThe validity of women's responses about CHW care content was poor and consistently overestimated coverage. We discuss several challenges in applying criterion validity study methods to examine measures of community-based care and make only cautious interpretation of the findings that may be relevant to other researchers interested in developing similar studies.

Indexed as

Community Health WorkersHealth ServicesData CollectionFemaleHouse CallsHumansInfant, NewbornNigeriaPregnancyCommunity Health WorkersCounselling skillsValidity of women's responses

Identifiers

PMID36463102
PMCPMC9719641
OpenAlexW4310773524

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.