在 10 个国家制定衡量卫生系统优质人工流产护理能力的指标:对衡量框架和指标的快速评估

Heidi Bart Johnston, Ulrika Rehnstrom Loi, Mohamed Ali, Katy Footman, Ghislaine Glitho Alinsato, Eman Aly, Asmani Chilanga, Shikha Bansal, Laurence Codjia, Fahdi Dkhimi, Sithembile Dlamini-Nqeketo, H. Elamin, Dina Gbenou, K. Gholbzouri, Lisa Hedman, N. Hemachandra, Yelmali Hien, Md Khurshid Alam Hyder, Theopista John, Amrita Kansal, Priya Karna, Laurence Läser, Antonella F. Lavelanet, Belete Mihretu, P. Onyiah, L. Ouedraogo, Sikander Qais, E. Thom, M. Upadhyay, Qudsia Uzma, S. Zan, B. Ganatra
{"title":"在 10 个国家制定衡量卫生系统优质人工流产护理能力的指标:对衡量框架和指标的快速评估","authors":"Heidi Bart Johnston, Ulrika Rehnstrom Loi, Mohamed Ali, Katy Footman, Ghislaine Glitho Alinsato, Eman Aly, Asmani Chilanga, Shikha Bansal, Laurence Codjia, Fahdi Dkhimi, Sithembile Dlamini-Nqeketo, H. Elamin, Dina Gbenou, K. Gholbzouri, Lisa Hedman, N. Hemachandra, Yelmali Hien, Md Khurshid Alam Hyder, Theopista John, Amrita Kansal, Priya Karna, Laurence Läser, Antonella F. Lavelanet, Belete Mihretu, P. Onyiah, L. Ouedraogo, Sikander Qais, E. Thom, M. Upadhyay, Qudsia Uzma, S. Zan, B. Ganatra","doi":"10.1136/bmjph-2023-000401","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A significant gap exists in the availability of indicators and tools to monitor health system capacity for quality abortion care at input and process levels. In this paper, we describe the process and results of developing and assessing indicators to monitor health system capacity strengthening for quality abortion care.As part of a 4-year (2019–2022) multicountry project focused on preventing unsafe abortion using a health system strengthening approach in 10 countries, we developed a monitoring framework with indicators and metadata. Through an internal consultative process, we identified a structured list of operational health system capacity indicators for abortion. After implementing the indicators for baseline and annual project monitoring, project staff from 10 teams assessed each indicator using 4 criteria: validity, feasibility, usefulness and importance.We identified 30 indicators aligning with 5 of the 6 WHO health system building blocks (excluding service delivery): 6 indicators in leadership and governance, 5 in health workforce, 6 in health information, 8 in access to medicines and health products and 5 in health financing. In our assessment of indicators, average scores against the predetermined criteria were lowest for feasibility (7.7 out of 10) compared with importance (8.5), usefulness (8.9) and validity (9.3). Assessors highlighted the need for fewer and less complex indicators, simplified language, clearer benchmarks, for indicators to be abortion-specific, less subjective and for future frameworks to also include service delivery and research and innovation.We used 30 indicators to monitor health system capacity for quality abortion care in 10 countries and gathered critical feedback that can be used to further strengthen the set of indicators in future work. Establishing core input and process indicators will be critical to inform and support evidence-based policy and programme improvements for quality abortion care.","PeriodicalId":117861,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Public Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development of indicators to measure health system capacity for quality abortion care in 10 countries: a rapid assessment of a measurement framework and indicators\",\"authors\":\"Heidi Bart Johnston, Ulrika Rehnstrom Loi, Mohamed Ali, Katy Footman, Ghislaine Glitho Alinsato, Eman Aly, Asmani Chilanga, Shikha Bansal, Laurence Codjia, Fahdi Dkhimi, Sithembile Dlamini-Nqeketo, H. Elamin, Dina Gbenou, K. Gholbzouri, Lisa Hedman, N. Hemachandra, Yelmali Hien, Md Khurshid Alam Hyder, Theopista John, Amrita Kansal, Priya Karna, Laurence Läser, Antonella F. Lavelanet, Belete Mihretu, P. Onyiah, L. Ouedraogo, Sikander Qais, E. Thom, M. Upadhyay, Qudsia Uzma, S. Zan, B. Ganatra\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjph-2023-000401\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A significant gap exists in the availability of indicators and tools to monitor health system capacity for quality abortion care at input and process levels. In this paper, we describe the process and results of developing and assessing indicators to monitor health system capacity strengthening for quality abortion care.As part of a 4-year (2019–2022) multicountry project focused on preventing unsafe abortion using a health system strengthening approach in 10 countries, we developed a monitoring framework with indicators and metadata. Through an internal consultative process, we identified a structured list of operational health system capacity indicators for abortion. After implementing the indicators for baseline and annual project monitoring, project staff from 10 teams assessed each indicator using 4 criteria: validity, feasibility, usefulness and importance.We identified 30 indicators aligning with 5 of the 6 WHO health system building blocks (excluding service delivery): 6 indicators in leadership and governance, 5 in health workforce, 6 in health information, 8 in access to medicines and health products and 5 in health financing. In our assessment of indicators, average scores against the predetermined criteria were lowest for feasibility (7.7 out of 10) compared with importance (8.5), usefulness (8.9) and validity (9.3). Assessors highlighted the need for fewer and less complex indicators, simplified language, clearer benchmarks, for indicators to be abortion-specific, less subjective and for future frameworks to also include service delivery and research and innovation.We used 30 indicators to monitor health system capacity for quality abortion care in 10 countries and gathered critical feedback that can be used to further strengthen the set of indicators in future work. Establishing core input and process indicators will be critical to inform and support evidence-based policy and programme improvements for quality abortion care.\",\"PeriodicalId\":117861,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Public Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Public Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjph-2023-000401\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjph-2023-000401","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在提供指标和工具以监测医疗系统在投入和流程层面提供优质人工流产护理的能力方面存在巨大差距。作为为期 4 年(2019-2022 年)的多国项目的一部分,该项目侧重于在 10 个国家采用加强卫生系统的方法预防不安全堕胎,我们制定了一个包含指标和元数据的监测框架。通过内部协商过程,我们确定了一份结构化的人工流产卫生系统业务能力指标清单。在实施基线和年度项目监测指标后,来自 10 个团队的项目人员使用 4 项标准对每项指标进行了评估:有效性、可行性、实用性和重要性:我们确定了 30 个指标,这些指标与世界卫生组织卫生系统 6 个组成部分中的 5 个(不包括服务提供)相一致:6 个指标涉及领导和管理,5 个指标涉及卫生人员队伍,6 个指标涉及卫生信息,8 个指标涉及药品和卫生产品的获取,5 个指标涉及卫生筹资。在我们对指标的评估中,与重要性(8.5 分)、实用性(8.9 分)和有效性(9.3 分)相比,可行性(7.7 分,满分 10 分)在预定标准方面的平均得分最低。评估人员强调,需要减少指标数量,降低指标复杂性,简化语言,制定更明确的基准,指标应针对人工流产,减少主观性,未来的框架还应包括服务提供以及研究和创新。建立核心投入和流程指标对于为优质人工流产护理的循证政策和计划改进提供信息和支持至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Development of indicators to measure health system capacity for quality abortion care in 10 countries: a rapid assessment of a measurement framework and indicators
A significant gap exists in the availability of indicators and tools to monitor health system capacity for quality abortion care at input and process levels. In this paper, we describe the process and results of developing and assessing indicators to monitor health system capacity strengthening for quality abortion care.As part of a 4-year (2019–2022) multicountry project focused on preventing unsafe abortion using a health system strengthening approach in 10 countries, we developed a monitoring framework with indicators and metadata. Through an internal consultative process, we identified a structured list of operational health system capacity indicators for abortion. After implementing the indicators for baseline and annual project monitoring, project staff from 10 teams assessed each indicator using 4 criteria: validity, feasibility, usefulness and importance.We identified 30 indicators aligning with 5 of the 6 WHO health system building blocks (excluding service delivery): 6 indicators in leadership and governance, 5 in health workforce, 6 in health information, 8 in access to medicines and health products and 5 in health financing. In our assessment of indicators, average scores against the predetermined criteria were lowest for feasibility (7.7 out of 10) compared with importance (8.5), usefulness (8.9) and validity (9.3). Assessors highlighted the need for fewer and less complex indicators, simplified language, clearer benchmarks, for indicators to be abortion-specific, less subjective and for future frameworks to also include service delivery and research and innovation.We used 30 indicators to monitor health system capacity for quality abortion care in 10 countries and gathered critical feedback that can be used to further strengthen the set of indicators in future work. Establishing core input and process indicators will be critical to inform and support evidence-based policy and programme improvements for quality abortion care.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Psychosocial health stigma related to COVID-19 disease among COVID-19 patients in Jordan: a comparative study Evaluating and mapping the evidence that screening for diabetic foot disease meets the criteria for population-wide screening: a scoping review Effectiveness of direct patient outreach with a narrative naloxone and overdose prevention video to patients prescribed long-term opioid therapy in the USA: the Naloxone Navigator randomised clinical trial Social media use and anxiety levels among school adolescents: a cross-sectional study in Kathmandu, Nepal Community childhood obesity assessment in elementary school, anthropometric indices as screening tools: a community cross-sectional study in Indonesia
×
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