ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Comparing routine health information quality and associated factors among health facilities in the eastern zone of Tigray, Ethiopia, 2019/20: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2026. 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.
- Concordance of data on key malaria indicators between DHIS2 and source documents, and influencing factors at public primary health facilities in eastern Uganda: a mixed methods study.Malaria journal · 2025Article
- Practice, enablers and barriers of health information system accountability framework in Northwest Ethiopia 2023.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh-quality routine health information (RHI) is essential for evidence-based decision-making and healthcare quality improvement. However, existing studies in Ethiopia have reported low data quality, especially at district health offices and primary healthcare facilities. Moreover, there is limited evidence comparing RHI quality across different facility types and identifying context-specific factors influencing data quality. To address these the study assesses and compares RHI quality and its associated factors in primary healthcare facilities of Eastern Tigray, Ethiopia.
methodsA comparative cross-sectional study was conducted in selected health facilities in Eastern Tigray. Simple random sampling was used to select woredas, and 224 departments were assessed. Data were collected using structured questionnaires, observation checklists, and registry reviews. Descriptive statistics and ordinal logistic regression were employed to analyze routine health information quality and associated factors using STATA version 15. The significance level was set at p-value < 0.05 with a 95% confidence interval.
resultOnly 13.4% of health facility departments met the national standards for routine health information quality. Project support was significantly associated with better data quality (X² = 14.70, p = 0.001). In unsupported facilities, training on health information systems (AOR = 2.17, 95% CI: 1.02–4.64), display of targets (AOR = 2.85, 95% CI: 1.10–7.75), feedback (AOR = 2.84, 95% CI: 1.27–6.35), and perception of RHI importance (AOR = 5.33, 95% CI: 1.40–20.25) were significantly associated with quality. In supported facilities, supervision was a key factor (AOR = 3.81, 95% CI: 1.66–12.43).
conclusionRoutine health information quality was below national standards and WHO threshold, with health centers performing worse than hospitals. Support from projects, training, supervision, and feedback were associated with improved data quality. Strengthening training, monitoring, and written feedback across health system levels is recommended.
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.