Observational studyJournal of global health2025
Availability and the quality of key newborn data within routine health facility data: findings of the IMPULSE observational study in the Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Tanzania, and Uganda.
Observational study in Journal of global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stillbirth and newborn data quality and use and related input and process factors: findings of the IMPULSE study in Ethiopia.Journal of global health · 2026Article
- Stillbirth and newborn data quality and use and related input and process factors: findings of the IMPULSE study in Uganda.Journal of global health · 2026Article
- Article
- Facility newborn and stillbirth data use and enabling factors at different levels of the health system: findings of the IMPULSE study across 142 sites in the Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Tanzania, and Uganda.Journal of global health · 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: With declining funding for population-based household surveys, routine health facility data offer a promising alternative for tracking newborn health and service quality. However, their utility depends on data quality. We assessed the quality of ten data elements within routine health information systems in the Central African Republic (CAR), Ethiopia, Tanzania, and Uganda, seven of which align with the Every Newborn Action Plan core newborn indicators. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study in 97 emergency obstetric and newborn care facilities across 4 countries between November 2022 and July 2024. We extracted three months of routine register and summary report data on ten maternal and newborn elements (two denominators, three outcome numerators, five newborn care interventions) and one tracer maternal indicator. We evaluated data quality on four dimensions (availability, completeness, accuracy, and internal consistency) and measured internal consistency using the ratio of (total births - live births)/stillbirths, with a value of 1 suggesting ideal internal consistency. Results: Denominator completeness exceeded 90% in Uganda and Tanzania, but was lower in the CAR (87%) and Ethiopia (82%). Impact numerator completeness averaged 79% for neonatal mortality and 81% for low birth weight, with Ethiopia performing worst, with scores of 45% and 32%, respectively). Completeness for newborn interventions (early breastfeeding, kangaroo mother care, bag-mask ventilation, sepsis management) remained below 90%, with the CAR lacking neonatal sepsis data and Ethiopia lacking early breastfeeding data. Accuracy was poor: concordance between register recounts and summary reports ranged from 9% to 40%. Internal consistency checks revealed mismatches in 80% of facilities, including negative ratios in Uganda and ratios >1 in the CAR. Conclusions: Significant gaps in completeness, accuracy, and internal consistency undermine the reliability of newborn and stillbirth data in routine health information systems, highlighting a need for their strengthening, the integration of standardised newborn indicators, and institutionalized quality verification processes to ensure timely, reliable, and actionable data for improving newborn care.
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.