A New Composite Index to Measure National-Level Quality of Family Planning Programs.

IF 4.4 3区 医学 Q1 Social Sciences International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health Pub Date : 2018-06-01 DOI:10.1363/44e6018
Anrudh K Jain
{"title":"A New Composite Index to Measure National-Level Quality of Family Planning Programs.","authors":"Anrudh K Jain","doi":"10.1363/44e6018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Despite efforts to use facility surveys to measure the quality of family planning programs, routine, reliable measurement and monitoring of national-level quality has not been possible.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A new composite index to measure national-level quality, the National Quality Composite Index (NQCI), is proposed and used to compare program quality in 30 developing countries. Index scores represent the unweighted average of scores from indicators of three different dimensions of quality-structure, process and outcome. The structural indicator, the Method Availability Index, used data from the 2014 Family Planning Effort survey, while the process indicator (the Method Information Index) and outcome indicator (the Method Success Index) used data from the most recent Demographic Health Surveys conducted in the included countries. Correlations between these and other indicators were examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The unweighted average NQCI score for the 30 countries was 60; scores ranged from 50 in Pakistan to 72 in Cambodia. The average scores for the three NQCI components were 52 for Method Availability (range, 40-73), 41 for Method Information (range, 13-71) and 86 for Method Success (range, 70-99). Scores for these components were not correlated with each other, suggesting that they measure distinct dimensions of program quality. Overall NQCI scores were correlated with existing measures of national-level quality, but not with total fertility rate and modern contraceptive prevalence rate.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The NQCI and its three components use data routinely collected through national surveys, and can be used to measure and monitor national-level quality of family planning programs.</p>","PeriodicalId":46940,"journal":{"name":"International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health","volume":"44 2","pages":"63-72"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1363/44e6018","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Context: Despite efforts to use facility surveys to measure the quality of family planning programs, routine, reliable measurement and monitoring of national-level quality has not been possible.

Methods: A new composite index to measure national-level quality, the National Quality Composite Index (NQCI), is proposed and used to compare program quality in 30 developing countries. Index scores represent the unweighted average of scores from indicators of three different dimensions of quality-structure, process and outcome. The structural indicator, the Method Availability Index, used data from the 2014 Family Planning Effort survey, while the process indicator (the Method Information Index) and outcome indicator (the Method Success Index) used data from the most recent Demographic Health Surveys conducted in the included countries. Correlations between these and other indicators were examined.

Results: The unweighted average NQCI score for the 30 countries was 60; scores ranged from 50 in Pakistan to 72 in Cambodia. The average scores for the three NQCI components were 52 for Method Availability (range, 40-73), 41 for Method Information (range, 13-71) and 86 for Method Success (range, 70-99). Scores for these components were not correlated with each other, suggesting that they measure distinct dimensions of program quality. Overall NQCI scores were correlated with existing measures of national-level quality, but not with total fertility rate and modern contraceptive prevalence rate.

Conclusions: The NQCI and its three components use data routinely collected through national surveys, and can be used to measure and monitor national-level quality of family planning programs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一种衡量国家计划生育工作质量的新综合指数。
背景:尽管努力使用设施调查来衡量计划生育项目的质量,但不可能对国家层面的质量进行常规、可靠的测量和监测。方法:提出了一种新的衡量国家质量的综合指数——国家质量综合指数(NQCI),并将其用于比较30个发展中国家的节目质量。指数得分代表质量-结构、过程和结果三个不同维度指标得分的未加权平均值。结构指标,即方法可得性指数,使用了2014年计划生育工作调查的数据,而过程指标(方法信息指数)和结果指标(方法成功指数)使用了在所包括国家进行的最新人口健康调查的数据。研究了这些指标与其他指标之间的相关性。结果:30个国家的未加权平均NQCI得分为60分;得分从巴基斯坦的50分到柬埔寨的72分不等。三个NQCI组成部分的平均得分为方法可用性(范围40-73)52分,方法信息(范围13-71)41分,方法成功(范围70-99)86分。这些组成部分的分数彼此之间并不相关,这表明它们衡量的是程序质量的不同维度。总体NQCI得分与现有的国家级质量指标相关,但与总生育率和现代避孕普及率无关。结论:国家计划生育质量指数及其三个组成部分使用通过国家调查常规收集的数据,可用于衡量和监测国家层面的计划生育项目质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Women's Perspectives on Contraceptive-Induced Amenorrhea in Burkina Faso and Uganda. Provider and Women Characteristics as Risk Factors for Postpartum Copper IUD Expulsion and Discontinuation in Nepal. Assessing Readiness to Provide Comprehensive Abortion Care in the Democratic Republic of the Congo After Passage of the Maputo Protocol. An Application of the List Experiment to Estimate Abortion Prevalence in Karachi, Pakistan. Chilean Medical and Midwifery Faculty's Views on Conscientious Objection for Abortion Services.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1