↓ Skip to main content

Linking household surveys and health facility assessments to estimate intervention coverage for the Lives Saved Tool (LiST)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
72 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Linking household surveys and health facility assessments to estimate intervention coverage for the Lives Saved Tool (LiST)
Published in
BMC Public Health, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4743-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mufaro Kanyangarara, Victoria B. Chou

Abstract

Calls have been made for improved measurement of coverage for maternal, newborn and child health interventions. Recently, methods linking household and health facility surveys have been used to improve estimation of intervention coverage. However, linking methods rely the availability of household and health facility surveys which are temporally matched. Because nationally representative health facility assessments are not yet routinely conducted in many low and middle income countries, estimates of intervention coverage based on linking methods can be produced for only a subset of countries. Estimates of intervention coverage are a critical input for modelling the health impact of intervention scale-up in the Lives Saved Tool (LiST). The purpose of this study was to develop a data-driven approach to estimate coverage for a subset of antenatal care interventions modeled in LiST. Using a five-step process, estimates of population level coverage for syphilis detection and treatment, case management of diabetes, malaria infection, hypertensive disorders, and pre-eclampsia, were computed by linking household and health facility surveys. Based on data characterizing antenatal care and estimates of coverage derived from the linking approach, predictive models for intervention coverage were developed. Updated estimates of coverage based on the predictive models were compared, first with current default proxies, then with estimates based on the linking approach. Model fit and accuracy were assessed using three measures: the coefficient of determination, Pearson's correlation coefficient, and the root mean square error (RMSE). The ability to predict intervention coverage was fairly accurate across all interventions considered. Predictive models accounted for 20-63% of the variance in intervention coverages, and correlation coefficients ranged from 0.5 to 0.83. The predictive model used to estimate coverage of management of pre-eclampsia performed relatively better (RMSE = 0.11) than the model estimating coverage of diabetes case management (RMSE = 0.19). The new approach to estimate coverage represents an improvement over current default proxies in LiST. As the availability of reliable coverage data improves, impact estimates generated by LiST will improve. This study underscores the need for continued efforts to improve coverage measurement, while bringing to the fore the importance of health facility assessments as complementary data sources.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 15%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 4 6%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 23 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 14%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 31 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 August 2018.
All research outputs
#15,483,707
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#11,439
of 14,989 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,606
of 331,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#131
of 169 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,989 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,366 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 169 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.