Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36977532›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2023

Monitoring and evaluating the implementation of essential packages of health services.

Kristen Danforth, Ahsan Maqbool Ahmad, Karl Blanchet, Muhammad Khalid, Arianna Rubin Means, Solomon Tessema Memirie, Ala Alwan, David Watkins

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
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

8 authors.

Kristen DanforthDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA danfortk@uw.edu.
Ahsan Maqbool AhmadCenter for Global Public Health, Islamabad, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0003-3692-2296
Karl BlanchetFaculty of Medicine, Geneva Centre of Humanitarian Studies, University of Geneva, Geneve, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-0498-8020
Muhammad KhalidHealth Planning Systems Strengthening and Information Analysis Unit (HPSIU), Ministry of National Health Services Regulations and Coordination, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Arianna Rubin MeansDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Solomon Tessema MemirieCollege of Health Sciences, Addis Center for Ethics and Priority Setting, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.ORCID 0000-0003-3806-2453
Ala AlwanDCP3 Country Translation Project, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
David WatkinsDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6341-9595

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Essential packages of health services (EPHS) are a critical tool for achieving universal health coverage, especially in low-income and lower middle-income countries. However, there is a lack of guidance and standards for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of EPHS implementation. This paper is the final in a series of papers reviewing experiences using evidence from the Disease Control Priorities, third edition publications in EPHS reforms in seven countries. We assess current approaches to EPHS M&E, including case studies of M&E approaches in Ethiopia and Pakistan. We propose a step-by-step process for developing a national EPHS M&E framework. Such a framework would start with a theory of change that links to the specific health system reforms the EPHS is trying to accomplish, including explicit statements about the 'what' and 'for whom' of M&E efforts. Monitoring frameworks need to consider the additional demands that could be placed on weak and already overstretched data systems, and they must ensure that processes are put in place to act quickly on emergent implementation challenges. Evaluation frameworks could learn from the field of implementation science; for example, by adapting the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework to policy implementation. While each country will need to develop its own locally relevant M&E indicators, we encourage all countries to include a set of core indicators that are aligned with the Sustainable Development Goal 3 targets and indicators. Our paper concludes with a call to reprioritise M&E more generally and to use the EPHS process as an opportunity for strengthening national health information systems. We call for an international learning network on EPHS M&E to generate new evidence and exchange best practices.

Indexed as

Health ServicesNational Health ProgramsEthiopiaHealth Care ReformHealth PolicyHealth Services ResearchHumansPakistanhealth policyhealth systems evaluation

Identifiers

PMID36977532
PMCPMC10069525

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.