比较通过尼泊尔农村社区卫生工作者跟踪孕产妇和儿童健康生命事件的两种数据收集方法。

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Population Health Metrics Pub Date : 2022-07-27 DOI:10.1186/s12963-022-00293-4
Nandini Choudhury, Aparna Tiwari, Wan-Ju Wu, Ved Bhandari, Laxman Bhatta, Bhawana Bogati, David Citrin, Scott Halliday, Sonu Khadka, Nutan Marasini, Sachit Pandey, Madeleine Ballard, Hari Jung Rayamazi, Sabitri Sapkota, Ryan Schwarz, Lisa Sullivan, Duncan Maru, Aradhana Thapa, Sheela Maru
{"title":"比较通过尼泊尔农村社区卫生工作者跟踪孕产妇和儿童健康生命事件的两种数据收集方法。","authors":"Nandini Choudhury,&nbsp;Aparna Tiwari,&nbsp;Wan-Ju Wu,&nbsp;Ved Bhandari,&nbsp;Laxman Bhatta,&nbsp;Bhawana Bogati,&nbsp;David Citrin,&nbsp;Scott Halliday,&nbsp;Sonu Khadka,&nbsp;Nutan Marasini,&nbsp;Sachit Pandey,&nbsp;Madeleine Ballard,&nbsp;Hari Jung Rayamazi,&nbsp;Sabitri Sapkota,&nbsp;Ryan Schwarz,&nbsp;Lisa Sullivan,&nbsp;Duncan Maru,&nbsp;Aradhana Thapa,&nbsp;Sheela Maru","doi":"10.1186/s12963-022-00293-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Timely tracking of health outcomes is difficult in low- and middle-income countries without comprehensive vital registration systems. Community health workers (CHWs) are increasingly collecting vital events data while delivering routine care in low-resource settings. It is necessary, however, to assess whether routine programmatic data collected by CHWs are sufficiently reliable for timely monitoring and evaluation of health interventions. To study this, we assessed the consistency of vital events data recorded by CHWs using two methodologies-routine data collected while delivering an integrated maternal and child health intervention, and data from a birth history census approach at the same site in rural Nepal.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We linked individual records from routine programmatic data from June 2017 to May 2018 with those from census data, both collected by CHWs at the same site using a mobile platform. We categorized each vital event over a one-year period as 'recorded by both methods,' 'census alone,' or 'programmatic alone.' We further assessed whether vital events data recorded by both methods were classified consistently.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From June 2017 to May 2018, we identified a total of 713 unique births collectively from the census (birth history) and programmatic maternal 'post-delivery' data. Three-fourths of these births (n = 526) were identified by both. There was high consistency in birth location classification among the 526 births identified by both methods. Upon including additional programmatic 'child registry' data, we identified 746 total births, of which 572 births were identified by both census and programmatic methods. Programmatic data (maternal 'post-delivery' and 'child registry' combined) captured more births than census data (723 vs. 595). Both methods consistently classified most infants as 'living,' while infant deaths and stillbirths were largely classified inconsistently or recorded by only one method. Programmatic data identified five infant deaths and five stillbirths not recorded in census data.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings suggest that data collected by CHWs from routinely tracking pregnancies, births, and deaths are promising for timely program monitoring and evaluation. Despite some limitations, programmatic data may be more sensitive in detecting vital events than cross-sectional census surveys asking women to recall these events.</p>","PeriodicalId":51476,"journal":{"name":"Population Health Metrics","volume":"20 1","pages":"16"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9327361/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing two data collection methods to track vital events in maternal and child health via community health workers in rural Nepal.\",\"authors\":\"Nandini Choudhury,&nbsp;Aparna Tiwari,&nbsp;Wan-Ju Wu,&nbsp;Ved Bhandari,&nbsp;Laxman Bhatta,&nbsp;Bhawana Bogati,&nbsp;David Citrin,&nbsp;Scott Halliday,&nbsp;Sonu Khadka,&nbsp;Nutan Marasini,&nbsp;Sachit Pandey,&nbsp;Madeleine Ballard,&nbsp;Hari Jung Rayamazi,&nbsp;Sabitri Sapkota,&nbsp;Ryan Schwarz,&nbsp;Lisa Sullivan,&nbsp;Duncan Maru,&nbsp;Aradhana Thapa,&nbsp;Sheela Maru\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12963-022-00293-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Timely tracking of health outcomes is difficult in low- and middle-income countries without comprehensive vital registration systems. Community health workers (CHWs) are increasingly collecting vital events data while delivering routine care in low-resource settings. It is necessary, however, to assess whether routine programmatic data collected by CHWs are sufficiently reliable for timely monitoring and evaluation of health interventions. To study this, we assessed the consistency of vital events data recorded by CHWs using two methodologies-routine data collected while delivering an integrated maternal and child health intervention, and data from a birth history census approach at the same site in rural Nepal.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We linked individual records from routine programmatic data from June 2017 to May 2018 with those from census data, both collected by CHWs at the same site using a mobile platform. We categorized each vital event over a one-year period as 'recorded by both methods,' 'census alone,' or 'programmatic alone.' We further assessed whether vital events data recorded by both methods were classified consistently.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From June 2017 to May 2018, we identified a total of 713 unique births collectively from the census (birth history) and programmatic maternal 'post-delivery' data. Three-fourths of these births (n = 526) were identified by both. There was high consistency in birth location classification among the 526 births identified by both methods. Upon including additional programmatic 'child registry' data, we identified 746 total births, of which 572 births were identified by both census and programmatic methods. Programmatic data (maternal 'post-delivery' and 'child registry' combined) captured more births than census data (723 vs. 595). Both methods consistently classified most infants as 'living,' while infant deaths and stillbirths were largely classified inconsistently or recorded by only one method. Programmatic data identified five infant deaths and five stillbirths not recorded in census data.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings suggest that data collected by CHWs from routinely tracking pregnancies, births, and deaths are promising for timely program monitoring and evaluation. Despite some limitations, programmatic data may be more sensitive in detecting vital events than cross-sectional census surveys asking women to recall these events.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51476,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Population Health Metrics\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"16\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9327361/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Population Health Metrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12963-022-00293-4\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Population Health Metrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12963-022-00293-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:在没有全面生命登记系统的低收入和中等收入国家,及时跟踪健康结果是困难的。在资源匮乏的环境中,社区卫生工作者在提供常规护理的同时,越来越多地收集生命事件数据。然而,有必要评估卫生保健员收集的常规规划数据是否足够可靠,可用于及时监测和评估卫生干预措施。为了研究这一点,我们使用两种方法评估了chw记录的生命事件数据的一致性——在提供综合妇幼健康干预时收集的常规数据,以及在尼泊尔农村同一地点的出生史普查方法收集的数据。方法:我们将2017年6月至2018年5月的常规程序数据中的个人记录与人口普查数据中的个人记录联系起来,这些数据都是由卫生工作者在同一地点使用移动平台收集的。我们将一年期间的每个重大事件归类为“两种方法记录”、“单独的人口普查”或“单独的规划”。我们进一步评估两种方法记录的生命事件数据分类是否一致。结果:从2017年6月至2018年5月,我们从人口普查(出生史)和规划的产妇“产后”数据中共确定了713例独特的出生。这些新生儿中有四分之三(n = 526)被两者都识别出来。两种方法对526例新生儿的出生地点分类具有较高的一致性。在纳入额外的程序化“儿童登记”数据后,我们确定了746例出生,其中572例出生是通过人口普查和程序化方法确定的。规划数据(孕产妇“产后”和“儿童登记”的总和)捕获的出生人数超过人口普查数据(723人对595人)。这两种方法一致地将大多数婴儿归类为“活着的”,而婴儿死亡和死产的分类很大程度上不一致,或者只有一种方法记录。规划数据确定了人口普查数据中未记录的5例婴儿死亡和5例死产。结论:我们的研究结果表明,chw通过常规跟踪妊娠、出生和死亡收集的数据有望用于及时的项目监测和评估。尽管存在一些局限性,程序化数据在检测生命事件方面可能比要求妇女回忆这些事件的横断面人口普查更敏感。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Comparing two data collection methods to track vital events in maternal and child health via community health workers in rural Nepal.

Background: Timely tracking of health outcomes is difficult in low- and middle-income countries without comprehensive vital registration systems. Community health workers (CHWs) are increasingly collecting vital events data while delivering routine care in low-resource settings. It is necessary, however, to assess whether routine programmatic data collected by CHWs are sufficiently reliable for timely monitoring and evaluation of health interventions. To study this, we assessed the consistency of vital events data recorded by CHWs using two methodologies-routine data collected while delivering an integrated maternal and child health intervention, and data from a birth history census approach at the same site in rural Nepal.

Methods: We linked individual records from routine programmatic data from June 2017 to May 2018 with those from census data, both collected by CHWs at the same site using a mobile platform. We categorized each vital event over a one-year period as 'recorded by both methods,' 'census alone,' or 'programmatic alone.' We further assessed whether vital events data recorded by both methods were classified consistently.

Results: From June 2017 to May 2018, we identified a total of 713 unique births collectively from the census (birth history) and programmatic maternal 'post-delivery' data. Three-fourths of these births (n = 526) were identified by both. There was high consistency in birth location classification among the 526 births identified by both methods. Upon including additional programmatic 'child registry' data, we identified 746 total births, of which 572 births were identified by both census and programmatic methods. Programmatic data (maternal 'post-delivery' and 'child registry' combined) captured more births than census data (723 vs. 595). Both methods consistently classified most infants as 'living,' while infant deaths and stillbirths were largely classified inconsistently or recorded by only one method. Programmatic data identified five infant deaths and five stillbirths not recorded in census data.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that data collected by CHWs from routinely tracking pregnancies, births, and deaths are promising for timely program monitoring and evaluation. Despite some limitations, programmatic data may be more sensitive in detecting vital events than cross-sectional census surveys asking women to recall these events.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Population Health Metrics
Population Health Metrics PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
审稿时长
29 weeks
期刊介绍: Population Health Metrics aims to advance the science of population health assessment, and welcomes papers relating to concepts, methods, ethics, applications, and summary measures of population health. The journal provides a unique platform for population health researchers to share their findings with the global community. We seek research that addresses the communication of population health measures and policy implications to stakeholders; this includes papers related to burden estimation and risk assessment, and research addressing population health across the full range of development. Population Health Metrics covers a broad range of topics encompassing health state measurement and valuation, summary measures of population health, descriptive epidemiology at the population level, burden of disease and injury analysis, disease and risk factor modeling for populations, and comparative assessment of risks to health at the population level. The journal is also interested in how to use and communicate indicators of population health to reduce disease burden, and the approaches for translating from indicators of population health to health-advancing actions. As a cross-cutting topic of importance, we are particularly interested in inequalities in population health and their measurement.
期刊最新文献
A new method for estimating recent adult mortality from summary sibling histories. Investigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the nutritional status of infants and toddlers: insights from China. Harmonizing measurements: establishing a common metric via shared items across instruments. Examining select sociodemographic characteristics of sub-county geographies for public health surveillance. Deriving disability weights for the Netherlands: findings from the Dutch disability weights measurement study.
×
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