“What gets measured better gets done better”: The landscape of validation of global maternal and newborn health indicators through key informant interviews


Autoři: Lenka Benova aff001;  Ann-Beth Moller aff003;  Allisyn C. Moran aff004
Působiště autorů: Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom aff001;  Department of Public Health, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium aff002;  UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland aff003;  Department of Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland aff004
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224746

Souhrn

Background

A large number of indicators are currently used to monitor the state of maternal and newborn health, including those capturing dimensions of health system and input, care access and availability, care quality and safety, coverage and outcomes, and impact. Validity of these indicators is a key issue in the process of assessing indicator performance and suitability. This paper aims to understand the meaning of indicator validity in the field of maternal and newborn health, and to identify key recommendations for future research.

Methods

This qualitative study used purposive sampling to identify key informants until thematic saturation was achieved. We interviewed 32 respondents from a variety of backgrounds using semi-structured interviews covering five themes: the meaning of indicator validity, methodological approaches to assessing validity, acceptable levels of indicator validity, gaps in validation research, and recommendations for addressing these gaps. Interview transcripts were analysed data using thematic content approach.

Results

Three conceptually different definitions of indicator validity were described by respondents. They considered indicator validity to encompass meaning and potential to spur action, going beyond diagnostic validity. Indicator validation was seen as an ongoing process of building and synthesising a wide range of evidence rather than a one-size-fits-all cut-off in diagnostic validity tests. Gaps identified included assessing validity of indicators of quality of care and indicators based on facility-level data, as well as expanding studies to a broader range of global settings. The key recommendation was to develop a coordinated approach to summarising and evaluating research on indicator validity, including capacity building in appraising and communicating the available evidence for country-specific needs.

Conclusion

The findings will inform future recommendations around indicator testing and validation.

Klíčová slova:

Global health – Health systems strengthening – Neonatal care – Neonates – Quality of care – Research assessment – Research validity – Surveys


Zdroje

1. Alkema L, Chou D, Hogan D, Zhang S, Moller AB, Gemmill A, et al. Global, regional, and national levels and trends in maternal mortality between 1990 and 2015, with scenario-based projections to 2030: a systematic analysis by the UN Maternal Mortality Estimation Inter-Agency Group. Lancet. 2015;http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00838-7.

2. United Nations Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation (UN IGME). Levels & Trends in Child Mortality Estimates developed by the UN Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund, 2018.

3. Blencowe H, Cousens S, Jassir FB, Say L, Chou D, Mathers C, et al. National, regional, and worldwide estimates of stillbirth rates in 2015, with trends from 2000: a systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2016;4(2):e98–e108. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(15)00275-2 26795602

4. United Nations. Sustainable Development Goals New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs; [accessed April 4 2019]. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg3#targets.

5. Every Woman Every Child. The Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s, and Adolescent’s Health (2016–2030): Survive, Thrive, Transform New York, NY, USA: United Nations, 2015.

6. Every Newborn: an action plan to end preventable deaths. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2014.

7. Strategies towards ending preventable maternal mortality (EPMM). Geneva: World Health Organization.

8. Moller AB, Newby H, Hanson C, Morgan A, El Arifeen S, Chou D, et al. Measures matter: A scoping review of maternal and newborn indicators. PLoS One. 2018;13(10):e0204763. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204763 30300361

9. Saturno-Hernandez PJ, Martinez-Nicolas I, Moreno-Zegbe E, Fernandez-Elorriaga M, Poblano-Verastegui O. Indicators for monitoring maternal and neonatal quality care: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19(1):25. doi: 10.1186/s12884-019-2173-2 30634946

10. Moran AC, Moller AB, Chou D, Morgan A, El Arifeen S, Hanson C, et al. 'What gets measured gets managed': revisiting the indicators for maternal and newborn health programmes. Reprod Health. 2018;15(1):19. doi: 10.1186/s12978-018-0465-z 29394947

11. WHO. https://www.who.int/data/maternal-newborn-child-adolescent/monitor (Accessed July 31, 2019) 2019.

12. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 17872937

13. Al-Yateem N. The effect of interview recording on quality of data obtained: a methodological reflection. Nurse Researcher. 2012;19(4):31–5. doi: 10.7748/nr2012.07.19.4.31.c9222 22866556

14. Hayes T, Mattimoe R. To tape or not to tape, that is the question: reflections on methods of data collection (https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/30934564.pdf, accessed on July 16, 2019). Dublin City University Business School.

15. Baxter P, Jack S. Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The qualitative report. 2008;13(4):544–59.

16. Green J, Thorogood N. Qualitative methods for health research. London UK: SAGE; 2013.

17. Gilson L, Hanson K, Sheikh K, Agyepong IA, Ssengooba F, Bennett S. Building the field of health policy and systems research: social science matters. PLoS Med. 2011;8(8):e1001079. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001079 21886488

18. Demographic and Health Survey (accessed April 4, 2019) https://dhsprogram.com/What-We-Do/Survey-Types/DHS.cfm.

19. Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (accessed April 4, 2019 http://mics.unicef.org/).

20. Measuring Coverage in Maternal NaCHPC. https://collections.plos.org/measuring-coverage-in-mnch (Accessed February 1, 2017). 2013.

21. Improving Coverage Measurement Journal of Global Health Collection. http://www.jogh.org/col-coverage-measurement.htm (Accessed October 14, 2018). 2017.

22. Baschieri A, Gordeev V, et al. Every Newborn-INDEPTH” (EN-INDEPTH) study protocol for a randomised comparison of household survey modules for measuring stillbirths and neonatal deaths in five Health and Demographic Surveillance sites. Journal of Global Health. 2019;9(1): doi: 10.7189/jogh.09.010901 30820319

23. Day LT, Ruysen H, Gordeev VS, Gore-Langton GR, Boggs D, Cousens S, et al. "Every Newborn-BIRTH" protocol: observational study validating indicators for coverage and quality of maternal and newborn health care in Bangladesh, Nepal and Tanzania. J Glob Health. 2019;9(1):010902. doi: 10.7189/jogh.09.01902 30863542

24. Munos MK, Blanc AK, Carter ED, Eisele TP, Gesuale S, Katz J, et al. Validation studies for population-based intervention coverage indicators: design, analysis, and interpretation. J Glob Health. 2018;8(2):020804. doi: 10.7189/jogh.08.020804 30202519

25. Sadana R. Measuring reproductive health: review of community-based approaches to assessing morbidity. Bull World Health Organ. 2000;78(5):640–54. 10859858

26. Stanton C, Holtz SA, Ahmed S. Challenges in measuring obstetric fistula. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007;99 Suppl 1:S4–9.

27. Ronsmans C. Studies validating women's reports of reproductive ill health: How useful are they? Seninar Innovative approaches to the assessment of reproductive health (IUSSP); Manila, the Philippines1996.

28. Graham WJ, Varghese B. Quality, quality, quality: gaps in the continuum of care. Lancet. 2012;379(9811):e5–6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62267-2 21474173

29. Kruk ME, Gage AD, Arsenault C, Jordan K, Leslie HH, Roder-DeWan S, et al. High-quality health systems in the Sustainable Development Goals era: time for a revolution. Lancet Glob Health. 2018;6(11):e1196–e252. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30386-3 30196093

30. Koblinsky M, Moyer CA, Calvert C, Campbell J, Campbell OM, Feigl AB, et al. Quality maternity care for every woman, everywhere: a call to action. Lancet. 2016;388(10057):2307–20. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31333-2 27642018

31. Marchant T, Bryce J, Victora C, Moran AC, Claeson M, Requejo J, et al. Improved measurement for mothers, newborns and children in the era of the Sustainable Development Goals. J Glob Health. 2016;6(1):010506. doi: 10.7189/jogh.06.010506 27418960

32. Willey B, Waiswa P, Kajjo D, Munos M, Akuze J, Allen E, et al. Linking data sources for measurement of effective coverage in maternal and newborn health: what do we learn from individual- vs ecological-linking methods? J Glob Health. 2018;8(1):010601. doi: 10.7189/jogh.08.010601 29497508

33. Amouzou A, Mehra V, Carvajal-Aguirre L, Khan SM, Sitrin D, Vaz LM. Measuring postnatal care contacts for mothers and newborns: An analysis of data from the MICS and DHS surveys. J Glob Health. 2017;7(2):020502. doi: 10.7189/jogh.07.020502 29423179

34. Stanton CK, Dubourg D, De Brouwere V, Pujades M, Ronsmans C. Reliability of data on caesarean sections in developing countries. Bull World Health Organ. 2005;83(6):449–55. 15976896

35. Freeman L. Confronting diminished epistemic privilege and epistemic injustice in pregnancy by challenging a "panoptics of the womb". J Med Philos. 2015;40(1):44–68. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhu046 25503792

36. Moran AC, Kerber K, Sitrin D, Guenther T, Morrissey CS, Newby H, et al. Measuring coverage in MNCH: indicators for global tracking of newborn care. PLoS Med. 2013;10(5):e1001415. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001415 23667335

37. Arnold F, Khan SM. Perspectives and implications of the Improving Coverage Measurement Core Group's validation studies for household surveys. J Glob Health. 2018;8(1):010606. doi: 10.7189/jogh.08.010606 29977531

38. UNAIDS. 90-90-90: An ambitious treatments target to help end the AIDS epidemic. Geneva, Switzerland: UNAIDS, 2017.

39. Marchant T, Bhutta ZA, Black R, Grove J, Kyobutungi C, Peterson S. Advancing measurement and monitoring of reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health and nutrition: global and country perspectives. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(Suppl 4):e001512. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001512 31297256

40. ICF. Measure Evaluation Criteria and Guidance for Evaluating Measures for Endorsement Effective August 2016. 2016.


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 11