National health policy-makers' views on the clarity and utility of Countdown to 2015 country profiles and reports: findings from two exploratory qualitative studies

Travelling numbers and broken loops: A qualitative systematic review on collecting and reporting maternal and neonatal health data in low-and lower-middle income countries

Data and indicator estimates are considered vital to document persisting challenges in maternal and newborn health and track progress towards global goals. However, prioritization of standardised, comparable quantitative data can preclude the collection of locally relevant information and pose overwhelming burdens in low-resource settings, with negative effects on the provision of quality of care. A growing body of qualitative studies aims to provide a place-based understanding of the complex processes and human experiences behind the generation and use of maternal and neonatal health data. We conducted a qualitative systematic review exploring how national or international requirements to collect and report data on maternal and neonatal health indicators are perceived and experienced at the sub-national and country level in low-income and lower-middle income countries. We systematically searched six electronic databases for qualitative and mixed-methods studies published between January 2000 and March 2023. Following screening of 4084 records by four reviewers, 47 publications were included in the review. Data were analysed thematically and synthesised from a Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) theoretical perspective. Our findings show maternal and neonatal health data and indicators are not fixed, neutral entities, but rather outcomes of complex processes. Their collection and uptake is influenced by a multitude of system hardware elements (human resources, relevancy and adequacy of tools, infrastructure, and interoperability) and software elements (incentive systems, supervision and feedback, power and social relations, and accountability). When these components are aligned and sufficiently supportive, data and indicators can be used for positive system adaptivity through performance evaluation, prioritization, learning, and advocacy. Yet shortcomings and broken loops between system components can lead to unforeseen emergent behaviors such as blame, fear, and data manipulation. This review highlights the importance of measurement approaches that prioritize local relevance and feasibility, necessitating participatory approaches to define context-specific measurement objectives and strategies.

Health Indicators as a Measure of Individual Health Status: Public Perspectives

Background

Disease status (eg, cancer stage) has been used in routine clinical practice to determine more accurate treatment plans. Health-related indicators, such as mortality, morbidity, and population group life expectancy, have also been used. However, few studies have specifically focused on the comprehensive and objective measures of individual health status.

Objective

The aim of this study was to analyze the perspectives of the public toward 29 health indicators obtained from a literature review to provide evidence for further prioritization of the indicators. The difference between health status and disease status should be considered.

Methods

This study used a cross-sectional design. Online surveys were administered through Ohio University, ResearchMatch, and Clemson University, resulting in three samples. Participants aged 18 years or older rated the importance of the 29 health indicators. The rating results were aggregated and analyzed as follows (in each case, the dependent variables were the individual survey responses): (1) to determine the agreement among the three samples regarding the importance of each indicator, where the independent variables (IVs) were the three samples; (2) to examine the mean differences between the retained indicators with agreement across the three samples, where the IVs were the identified indicators; and (3) to rank the groups of indicators into various levels after grouping the indicators with no mean differences, where the IVs were the groups of indicators.

Results

In total, 1153 valid responses were analyzed. Descriptive statistics revealed that the top five–rated indicators were drug or substance abuse, smoking or tobacco use, alcohol abuse, major depression, and diet and nutrition. Among the 29 health indicators, the three samples agreed upon the importance of 13 indicators. Inferential statistical analysis indicated that some of the 13 indicators held equal importance. Therefore, the 13 indicators were categorized by rank into seven levels: level 1 included blood sugar level and immunization and vaccination; level 2 included LDL cholesterol; level 3 included HDL cholesterol, blood triglycerides, cancer screening detection, and total cholesterol; level 4 included health literacy rate; level 5 included personal care needs and air quality index greater than 100; level 6 included self-rated health status and HIV testing; and level 7 included the supply of dentists. Levels 1 to 3 were rated significantly higher than levels 4 to 7.

Conclusions

This study provides a baseline for prioritizing 29 health indicators, which can be used by electronic health record or personal health record system designers or developers to determine what can be included in the systems to capture an individual’s health status. Currently, self-rated health status is the predominantly used health indicator. Additionally, this study provides a foundation for tracking and measuring preventive health care services more accurately and for developing an individual health status index.

Antenatal care data sources and their policy and planning implications: a Palestinian example using the Lives Saved Tool

Background

Policy making in healthcare requires reliable and local data. Different sources of coverage data for health interventions can be utilized to populate the Lives Saved Tool (LiST), a commonly used policy-planning tool for women and children’s health. We have evaluated four existing sources of antenatal care data in Palestine to discuss the implications of their use in LiST.

Methods

We identified all intervention coverage and health status indicators around the antenatal period that could be used to populate LiST. These indicators were calculated from 1) routine reported data, 2) a Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS), 3) paper-based antenatal records and 4) the eRegistry (an electronic health information system) for public clinics in the West Bank, Palestine for the most recent year available. We scaled coverage of each indicator to 90%, in public clinics only, and compared this to a no-change scenario for a seven-year period.

Results

Eight intervention coverage and health status indicators needed to populate the antenatal section of LiST could be calculated from both paper-based antenatal records and the eRegistry. Only two could be calculated from routine reports and three from a national survey. Maternal lives saved over seven years ranged from 5 to 39, with percent reduction in the maternal mortality ratio (MMR) ranging from 1 to 6%. Pre-eclampsia management accounted for 25 to 100% of these lives saved.

Conclusions

The choice of data source for antenatal indicators will affect policy-based decisions when used to populate LiST. Although all data sources have their purpose, clinical data collected directly in an electronic registry during antenatal contacts may provide the most reliable and complete data to populate currently unavailable but needed indicators around specific antenatal care interventions.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-019-6427-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Taking account of context in systematic reviews and guidelines considering a complexity perspective

Systematic review teams and guideline development groups face considerable challenges when considering context within the evidence production process. Many complex interventions are context-dependent and are frequently evaluated within considerable contextual variation and change. This paper considers the extent to which current tools used within systematic reviews and guideline development are suitable in meeting these challenges. The paper briefly reviews strengths and weaknesses of existing approaches to specifying context. Illustrative tools are mapped to corresponding stages of the systematic review process. Collectively, systematic review and guideline production reveals a rich diversity of frameworks and tools for handling context. However, current approaches address only specific elements of context, are derived from primary studies which lack information or have not been tested within systematic reviews. A hypothetical example is used to illustrate how context could be integrated throughout the guideline development process. Guideline developers and evidence synthesis organisations should select an appropriate level of contextual detail for their specific guideline that is parsimonious and yet sensitive to health systems contexts and the values, preferences and needs of their target populations.