ArticleGlobal health action2026
Associations of workforce characteristics, calendar time, and assessment modality with quality performance in family planning and post-abortion care services in Sierra Leone, 2019-2022.
Article in Global health action, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundQuality assessment in family planning (FP) and post-abortion care (PAC) programmes is shaped by workforce capability, programme context, and assessment modality. Longitudinal evaluations may misattribute quality-score differences if repeated measurements and temporal patterning are ignored.
objectiveTo examine associations of workforce characteristics, calendar period, service-delivery channel, and assessment modality with Quality Technical Assessment (QTA) performance in Sierra Leone, 2019-2022.
methodsWe analysed 108 QTA records from 23 service delivery points using Gaussian generalised estimating equations with facility-level clustering and robust standard errors. Models included year, modality, channel, active staff count, and core-service competency coverage; full-time staffing and assessor identity were examined in sensitivity analyses. In 2021, all facilities received planned in-person and then remote assessments in a fixed programme-wide sequence.
resultsMean QTA scores increased descriptively from 89.8% (SD 7.4) in 2019 to 94.2% (SD 4.7) in 2022. In the primary model, 2020 scores were lower than 2019 (B = -5.15; 95% CI -9.99 to -0.32). Active staff count was inversely associated with QTA scores (B = -2.86; 95% CI -4.47 to -1.26). Remote assessment was associated with higher adjusted scores, but this cannot be interpreted causally because modality was confounded with year and assessment order.
conclusionsQTA performance varied across calendar periods and workforce structure. Longitudinal evaluations should account for within-facility correlation and modality timing before attributing quality differences to the workforce or assessment approach.
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.