Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37462190›Full record

ArticleGlobal health action2023

Exploring approaches to weighting estimates of facility readiness to provide health services used for estimating input-adjusted effective coverage: a case study using data from Tanzania.

Ashley Sheffel, Emily Carter, Debora Niyeha, Khadija I Yahya-Malima, Deogratius Malamsha, Shagihilu Shagihilu, Melinda K Munos

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global health action, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Ashley SheffelDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6561-7085
Emily CarterDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1649-5274
Debora NiyehaHellen Keller International, Dar Es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania.
Khadija I Yahya-MalimaSchool of Nursing, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences (MUHAS), Dar Es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania.ORCID 0000-0003-2120-9682
Deogratius MalamshaNational Bureau of Statistics, Dar Es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania.
Shagihilu ShagihiluNational Bureau of Statistics, Dar Es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania.
Melinda K MunosDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1349-8026
Johns Hopkins University · USMuhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences · TZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ideal approach for calculating effective coverage of health services using ecological linking requires accounting for variability in facility readiness to provide health services and patient volume by incorporating adjustments for facility type into estimates of facility readiness and weighting facility readiness estimates by service-specific caseload. The aim of this study is to compare the ideal caseload-weighted facility readiness approach to two alternative approaches: (1) facility-weighted readiness and (2) observation-weighted readiness to assess the suitability of each as a proxy for caseload-weighted facility readiness. We utilised the 2014-2015 Tanzania Service Provision Assessment along with routine health information system data to calculate facility readiness estimates using the three approaches. We then conducted equivalence testing, using the caseload-weighted estimates as the ideal approach and comparing with the facility-weighted estimates and observation-weighted estimates to test for equivalence. Comparing the facility-weighted readiness estimates to the caseload-weighted readiness estimates, we found that 58% of the estimates met the requirements for equivalence. In addition, the facility-weighted readiness estimates consistently underestimated, by a small percentage, facility readiness as compared to the caseload-weighted readiness estimates. Comparing the observation-weighted readiness estimates to the caseload-weighted readiness estimates, we found that 64% of the estimates met the requirements for equivalence. We found that, in this setting, both facility-weighted readiness and observation-weighted readiness may be reasonable proxies for caseload-weighted readiness. However, in a setting with more variability in facility readiness or larger differences in facility readiness between low caseload and high caseload facilities, the observation-weighted approach would be a better option than the facility-weighted approach. While the methods compared showed equivalence, our results suggest that selecting the best method for weighting readiness estimates will require assessing data availability alongside knowledge of the country context.

Indexed as

Health FacilitiesHealth ServicesHealth Care SurveysHealth Services AccessibilityHumansTanzaniaCoveragehealth facility assessmenthousehold surveylinking methodsLMICquality of care

Identifiers

PMID37462190
PMCPMC10355680
OpenAlexW4384626361

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.