ArticlePloS one2025
Assessment of the Quality of post-abortion care records in 20 Public Health Facilities in Uganda: What are the gaps and how can we improve quality?
Article in PloS one, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEffective strategies for reducing maternal mortality depend on the accuracy of data. In sub-Saharan Africa, however, weak health systems often result in significant gaps in data collection and analysis. These gaps can lead to misreporting, missing data, or double-counting at health facilities, ultimately skewing the aggregated data reported by Ministries of Health. This is a big problem given that the data shapes planning and policy of the country. In this study, we assessed the data quality of Post-abortion Care (PAC) records across 20 health facilities in Uganda.
methodsA two-stage design was employed. In stage 1, DHIS2 data from 80 public health facilities were reviewed for completeness, timeliness, and internal consistency (2018-2021). In stage 2, 20 facilities that met a predefined eligibility criterion (≥ 50% discrepancy or missing data during stage 1) were purposively selected for in-depth validation. Data were collected retrospectively from facility registers for the last 7 months of 2021 and prospectively for the first 6 months of 2022. Data quality was assessed using adapted WHO data quality review (DQR) metrics.
resultsHealth facilities achieved a 100% timeliness rate for report submissions, with all documents provided by the 7th day of each month. Although a statistically significant positive correlation was observed between the number of women who received PAC and those who received post-abortion family planning (PAFP) (r = 0.083, p < 0.001), the association was very weak suggesting limited internal consistency between the two indicators and raising questions about the reliability of data linkages between care and follow-up services in routine reporting systems. Moreover, comparing facility records with DHIS2 data revealed that outpatient records were more accurate than inpatient records, with PAC data being more inaccurate than other maternal health indicators. Further analysis by facility type indicated a higher number of case-load outliers at Health Centre IIIs and IIs (1049) compared to hospitals and Health Centre IVs, highlighting disparities in data quality across different levels of healthcare facilities.
conclusionDespite high submission rates, PAC data accuracy was notably low, highlighting the need for better data management and record-keeping, particularly in lower-level health facilities. Addressing these disparities is crucial for improving maternal health outcomes, emphasizing the necessity for targeted interventions to enhance data accuracy and reliability within Uganda's health system.
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.