ArticlePloS one2025
The assessment of routine health information system performance towards improvement of quality of reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health services in Ondo and Ekiti States, Nigeria.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNigeria's reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health indicators have remained unsatisfactory in the face of poor-quality healthcare services. Nigeria initiated the reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent, elderly + nutrition (RMNCAEH+N) quality of care (QoC) agenda to address the challenge. The health management information system (HMIS) is integral to the agenda but there is sparse evidence on its performance so far. This study assessed the performance of routine HMIS for RMNCAEH+N QoC in Ondo and Ekiti States.
methodsThis paper described the review of health facility records and health facility survey components of a multi-component study which employed a mixed-method research design. Using the routine health information system performance diagnostic tool, service data captured for over one year were critically reviewed in randomly selected sample of 169 public health facilities (Ondo:117; Ekiti:52) and information was obtained from facility heads or designates. Performance of routine HMIS for RMNCAEH+N QoC in terms of data collection, data quality, and data use were analysed using univariate and bivariate statistics.
resultsResults show that 67.3% of health facilities in Ekiti and 88.9% of facilities in Ondo had all required HMIS tools for selected RMNCAEH+N services (p<0.001). Data accuracy was 70.1% for Ondo and 40.4% for Ekiti (p <0.001); 82.9% of facilities in Ondo and 44.2% in Ekiti had complete data (p <0.001); almost all facilities (Ondo: 99.1%; Ekiti: 96.2%, p = 0.224) demonstrated data consistency; and, 82.9% of facilities in Ondo and 94.2% of facilities in Ekiti demonstrated timeliness in data submission (p = 0.048). Also, 70.1% (Ondo) and 78% (Ekiti) of facilities had quality improvement (QI) teams (p = 0.338); 53.5% (Ondo) and 77.1% (Ekiti) of QI teams regularly extracted data, calculated, and visualised prioritized indicators (p = 0.007); while 72.1% (Ondo) and 79.2% (Ekiti) regularly reviewed data and used it to make QI decisions (p = 0.367).
conclusionRoutine RMNCAEH+N QoC data management system in Ondo and Ekiti States vary in terms of the status of reporting forms, data quality, and data use for decision-making, and there were specific performance gaps. The routine RMNCAEH+N QoC data management system in Ondo and Ekiti States needs improvement and findings from this study can serve as the basis for evidence-based advocacy for the required efforts and investment toward improved performance.
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.