ArticlePLOS global public health2025
Can audit and feedback improve health service readiness and delivery outcomes in a low-resource setting? Effectiveness results of the IDEAs strategy from central Mozambique.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost of an Audit and Feedback intervention to increase uptake of maternal and child health services in Mozambique's Primary health care.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- Exploring fidelity and its influence on effectiveness in an audit and feedback strategy implemented in a low-resource setting: an application of regression modeling.Implementation science communications · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Limited evidence exists on audit and feedback(A&F) in low-resource contexts. We tested the Integrated District Evidence-to-Action (IDEAs), a multicomponent A&F strategy in Mozambique's maternal and child health (MCH) services. IDEAs include A&F meetings, readiness assessments, and facility support. We report the effectiveness results. IDEAs were implemented in 2016-2020 across two provinces, 12 districts, and 154 primary health facilities in Mozambique. We assessed 1) ten service delivery outcomes across antenatal, maternity, postpartum, childcare, and reproductive health services and 2) five service readiness outcomes (medicines, infrastructure, equipment, care, and staffing availability). We used propensity score matching to minimize bias and a controlled interrupted time series with a negative binomial mixed effects model for service delivery analysis, presenting incidence rate ratios (IRR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). For service readiness outcomes, we created composite scores for each domain and a difference-in-difference analysis using an ordinal mixed effects model, reporting odds ratios (OR) and 95% CI. Significant associations were found with first at-risk child appointments (IRR = 1.06 [1.04, 1.07]), first polymerase chain reaction tests for HIV-exposed children (IRR = 1.02 [1.01, 1.03]), new contraceptive users (IRR = 0.95 [0.94, 0.96]), women starting long-lasting contraceptives (IRR = 0.94 [0.93, 0.95]), availability of infrastructure (OR = 5.84 [1.32, 25.88]) and essential care (OR = 0.13 [0.03, 0.54]). No significant associations were found between IDEAs and six of 10 service delivery outcomes (women with a fourth dose of preventive malaria treatment; women protected with tetanus vaccine; women with four+ antenatal visits; deliveries with active management of the third stage of labor; first postpartum consultations and fully vaccinated children) and on medicine, equipment, and staffing availability. We observed mixed effectiveness in implementing IDEAs, with null and sub-optimal effects suggesting the need to refine and adapt strategy components to more effectively address clinical and readiness outcomes.
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.