ArticlePloS one2023
Can women's reports in client exit interviews be used to measure and track progress of antenatal care services quality? Evidence from a facility assessment census in Malawi.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUnlike household surveys, client exit interviews are conducted immediately after a consultation and therefore provides an opportunity to capture routine performance and level of service quality. This study examines the validity and reliability of women's reports on selected ANC interventions in exit interviews conducted in Malawi.
methodsUsing data from the 2013-2014 Malawi service provision facility census, we compared women's reports in exit interviews regarding the contents of ANC received with reports obtained through direct observation by a trained healthcare professional. The validity of six indicators was tested using two measures: the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and the inflation factor (IF). Reliability of women's reports was measured using the Kappa coefficient (κ) and the prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK). Finally, we examined whether reporting reliability varied significantly by individual and facility characteristics.
resultsOf the six indicators, two concrete and observable measures had high reporting accuracy and met the validity criteria for both AUC ≥ 0.7 and 0.75>IF>1.25, namely whether the provider prescribed or gave malaria prophylaxis (AUC: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.83-0.86; IF: 0.96) or iron/folic tablets (AUC: (0.84 95% CI: 0.81-0.87; IF:1.00). Whereas four measures related to counselling had lower reporting accuracy: whether the provider offered counselling about nutrition in pregnancy (AUC: 0.69, 95%CI: 0.67-0.71; IF = 1.26), delivery preparation (AUC: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.60-065; IF = 0.99), pregnancy related complications (AUC: 0.59, 95%CI: 0.56-0.61; IF = 1.11), and iron/folic acid side effects (AUC:0.58, 95% CI: 0.55-0.60; IF = 1.42). Similarly, the observable measures had high reliability with both κ and PABAK values in the ranges of ≥ 0.61 and ≥ 0.80. Respondent's age, primiparous status, number of antenatal visits, and the type of health provider increased the likelihood of reporting reliability.
conclusionIn order to enhance the measurement of quality of ANC services, our study emphasizes the importance of carefully considering the type of information women are asked to recall and the timing of the interviews. While household survey programmes such as the demographic health survey and multiple indicator cluster survey are commonly used as data sources for measuring intervention coverage and quality, policy makers should complement such data with more reliable sources like routine data from health information systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.