ArticleBMC health services research2024
Assessment of expanded programme on immunization routine data quality in the upper east region of Ghana.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundData quality is a major challenge for most health institutions and organizations across the globe. The Ghana Health Service, supported by other non-governmental organizations, has instituted various strategies to address and improve data quality issues in regional and district health facilities in Ghana. This study sought to assess routine data quality of Expanded Programme on Immunization, specifically for Penta 1 and Penta 3 vaccines.
methodsA descriptive cross-sectional study design was used for the study. A simple random sampling method was used to select thirty-four health facilities across seven sub-municipalities. Records from the Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI) Tally Books and Monthly Vaccination Summary Report were reviewed and compared with data entered into the District Health Information Management System 2 (DHIMS2) software for the period of January to December 2020. The World Health Organization Data quality self-assessment (DQS) tool was used to compare data recorded in the EPI tally books with monthly data from summary reports and DHIMS2. Data accuracy ratio was determined by the data quality assessment tools and STATA version 14.2 was used to run additional analysis. A data discrepancy is when two corresponding data sets don't match.
resultsThe results showed discrepancies between recounted tallies in EPI tally books and summary reports submitted as well as DHIMS2. Verification factor of 97.4% and 99.3% and a discrepancy rate of 2.6 and 0.7 for Penta 1 and Penta 3 respectively were recorded for tallied data and summary reports. A verification factor of 100.5% and 99.9% and a discrepancy of -0.5 and 0.1 respectively for the same antigens were obtained for the summary reports and DHIMS2. Data timeliness was 90.7% and completeness was 100% for both antigens.
conclusionThe accuracy of Penta 1 and Penta 3 data on EPI in the Upper East Region of Ghana was high. The data availability, timeliness and completeness were also high.
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.