利用乌干达卫生设施数据评估基本妇幼保健干预措施的覆盖面。

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Population Health Metrics Pub Date : 2020-10-09 DOI:10.1186/s12963-020-00236-x
Elizabeth M Simmons, Kavita Singh, Jamiru Mpiima, Manish Kumar, William Weiss
{"title":"利用乌干达卫生设施数据评估基本妇幼保健干预措施的覆盖面。","authors":"Elizabeth M Simmons, Kavita Singh, Jamiru Mpiima, Manish Kumar, William Weiss","doi":"10.1186/s12963-020-00236-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Nationally representative household surveys are the gold standard for tracking progress in coverage of life-saving maternal and child interventions, but often do not provide timely information on coverage at the local and health facility level. Electronic routine health information system (RHIS) data could help provide this information, but there are currently concerns about data quality. This analysis seeks to improve the usability of and confidence in electronic RHIS data by using adjustments to calculate more accurate numerators and denominators for essential interventions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from three sources (Ugandan Demographic and Health (UDHS) survey, electronic RHIS, and census) were used to provide estimates of essential maternal (> 4 antenatal care visits (ANC), skilled delivery, and postnatal care visit (PNC)) and child health interventions (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, and hepatitis B and Haemophilus influenzae type b and polio vaccination series, measles vaccination, and vitamin A). Electronic RHIS data was checked for quality and both numerators and denominators were adjusted to improve accuracy. Estimates were compared between the three sources.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Estimates of maternal health interventions from adjusted electronic RHIS data were lower than those of the UDHS, while child intervention estimates were typically higher. Adjustment of electronic RHIS data generally improved accuracy compared with no adjustment. There was considerable agreement between estimates from adjusted, electronic RHIS data, and UDHS for skilled delivery and first dose of childhood vaccination series, but lesser agreement for ANC visits and second and third doses of childhood vaccinations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Nationally representative household surveys will likely continue being the gold standard of coverage estimates of maternal and child health interventions, but this analysis shows that current approaches to adjusting health facility estimate works better for some indications than others. Further efforts to improve accuracy of estimates from RHIS sources are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":51476,"journal":{"name":"Population Health Metrics","volume":"18 1","pages":"26"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s12963-020-00236-x","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing coverage of essential maternal and child health interventions using health-facility data in Uganda.\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeth M Simmons, Kavita Singh, Jamiru Mpiima, Manish Kumar, William Weiss\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12963-020-00236-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Nationally representative household surveys are the gold standard for tracking progress in coverage of life-saving maternal and child interventions, but often do not provide timely information on coverage at the local and health facility level. Electronic routine health information system (RHIS) data could help provide this information, but there are currently concerns about data quality. This analysis seeks to improve the usability of and confidence in electronic RHIS data by using adjustments to calculate more accurate numerators and denominators for essential interventions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from three sources (Ugandan Demographic and Health (UDHS) survey, electronic RHIS, and census) were used to provide estimates of essential maternal (> 4 antenatal care visits (ANC), skilled delivery, and postnatal care visit (PNC)) and child health interventions (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, and hepatitis B and Haemophilus influenzae type b and polio vaccination series, measles vaccination, and vitamin A). Electronic RHIS data was checked for quality and both numerators and denominators were adjusted to improve accuracy. Estimates were compared between the three sources.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Estimates of maternal health interventions from adjusted electronic RHIS data were lower than those of the UDHS, while child intervention estimates were typically higher. Adjustment of electronic RHIS data generally improved accuracy compared with no adjustment. There was considerable agreement between estimates from adjusted, electronic RHIS data, and UDHS for skilled delivery and first dose of childhood vaccination series, but lesser agreement for ANC visits and second and third doses of childhood vaccinations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Nationally representative household surveys will likely continue being the gold standard of coverage estimates of maternal and child health interventions, but this analysis shows that current approaches to adjusting health facility estimate works better for some indications than others. Further efforts to improve accuracy of estimates from RHIS sources are needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51476,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Population Health Metrics\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"26\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s12963-020-00236-x\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Population Health Metrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12963-020-00236-x\",\"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/s12963-020-00236-x","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:具有全国代表性的家庭调查是跟踪挽救生命的孕产妇和儿童干预措施覆盖面进展情况的黄金标准,但往往不能及时提供地方和卫生机构层面的覆盖面信息。电子常规健康信息系统(RHIS)数据可以帮助提供这些信息,但目前存在数据质量问题。该分析旨在通过调整来计算更准确的基本干预措施的分子和分母,从而提高电子RHIS数据的可用性和可信度。方法:来自三个来源的数据(乌干达人口与健康(UDHS)调查、电子RHIS和人口普查)被用来估计基本的孕产妇(产前保健访问(ANC)、熟练分娩和产后保健访问(PNC))和儿童保健干预措施(白喉、百日咳、破伤风、乙型肝炎和乙型流感嗜血杆菌和脊髓灰质炎疫苗接种系列、麻疹疫苗接种、检查电子RHIS数据的质量,并调整分子和分母以提高准确性。对三个来源的估计数进行了比较。结果:根据调整后的RHIS电子数据估计的孕产妇保健干预措施低于UDHS的估计,而儿童干预措施的估计通常较高。与不平差相比,电子RHIS数据平差总体上提高了精度。调整后的电子RHIS数据的估计值与UDHS在熟练分娩和儿童接种系列第一剂疫苗方面有相当大的一致性,但在ANC就诊和儿童接种第二剂和第三剂疫苗方面的一致性较小。结论:具有全国代表性的家庭调查很可能继续作为孕产妇和儿童保健干预措施覆盖率估计的金标准,但本分析表明,目前调整卫生设施估计的方法对某些指征比其他指征效果更好。需要进一步努力提高来自RHIS来源的估计的准确性。
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
Assessing coverage of essential maternal and child health interventions using health-facility data in Uganda.

Background: Nationally representative household surveys are the gold standard for tracking progress in coverage of life-saving maternal and child interventions, but often do not provide timely information on coverage at the local and health facility level. Electronic routine health information system (RHIS) data could help provide this information, but there are currently concerns about data quality. This analysis seeks to improve the usability of and confidence in electronic RHIS data by using adjustments to calculate more accurate numerators and denominators for essential interventions.

Methods: Data from three sources (Ugandan Demographic and Health (UDHS) survey, electronic RHIS, and census) were used to provide estimates of essential maternal (> 4 antenatal care visits (ANC), skilled delivery, and postnatal care visit (PNC)) and child health interventions (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, and hepatitis B and Haemophilus influenzae type b and polio vaccination series, measles vaccination, and vitamin A). Electronic RHIS data was checked for quality and both numerators and denominators were adjusted to improve accuracy. Estimates were compared between the three sources.

Results: Estimates of maternal health interventions from adjusted electronic RHIS data were lower than those of the UDHS, while child intervention estimates were typically higher. Adjustment of electronic RHIS data generally improved accuracy compared with no adjustment. There was considerable agreement between estimates from adjusted, electronic RHIS data, and UDHS for skilled delivery and first dose of childhood vaccination series, but lesser agreement for ANC visits and second and third doses of childhood vaccinations.

Conclusions: Nationally representative household surveys will likely continue being the gold standard of coverage estimates of maternal and child health interventions, but this analysis shows that current approaches to adjusting health facility estimate works better for some indications than others. Further efforts to improve accuracy of estimates from RHIS sources are needed.

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