SynthesisJournal of global health2025
Effective coverage measurements and cascade for maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health in high-income countries: systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of global health, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The concept of 'effective coverage' (EC) aims to combine the concept of coverage with the quality of care delivered and, ultimately, the health benefits received by the population in need. To date, systematic reviews of EC of maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health (MNCAH) have focused on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). No review has examined whether and how the concept has been applied in high-income countries (HICs). To address this gap, this systematic review investigated the application of EC measures in MNCAH care in HICs. Methods: This was a systematic review that followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. The search strategy was developed from previous EC reviews conducted in LMICs and further adapted to the HIC setting. Additional search terms were identified through discussion with experts from the Life Stage Quality of Care Metrics Technical Working Group subgroup on EC. We searched three databases, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, over 10 years. We conducted additional searches in Google Scholar and by consulting members of the Life Stage Quality of Care Metrics Technical Working Group. We did not pose any language or type of article limits. Results: The database search identified 18 976 studies for screening. Of these, 672 abstracts were screened, and none of the full texts considered met our inclusion criteria (e.g. human immunodeficiency virus/hepatitis c virus continuum of care cascade, intervention type, qualitative search-interviews/questionnaire type studies). Thirty-two articles were retrieved through the additional search strategies, and none were included because of LMIC-focused research. Therefore, examples of EC of MNCAH care applied in HICs were not identified. Conclusions: Further investigation should be conducted into the application of the EC concept for assessing MNCAH care in HICs. This research will help us understand how this concept can be used to support health system effectiveness, efficiency, and equity in HICs. Registration: The study protocol was registered at the Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/FMCG8.
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.