Exploring the accuracy of self-reported maternal and newborn care in select studies from low and middle-income country settings: do respondent and facility characteristics affect measurement?
Antenatal care
Intervention coverage
Maternal and newborn care
Meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy
Monitoring
Postnatal care
Validation
Journal
BMC pregnancy and childbirth
ISSN: 1471-2393
Titre abrégé: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967799
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Jun 2023
16 Jun 2023
Historique:
received:
08
09
2021
accepted:
02
06
2023
medline:
19
6
2023
pubmed:
17
6
2023
entrez:
16
6
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Accurate data on the receipt of essential maternal and newborn health interventions is necessary to interpret and address gaps in effective coverage. Validation results of commonly used content and quality of care indicators routinely implemented in international survey programs vary across settings. We assessed how respondent and facility characteristics influenced the accuracy of women's recall of interventions received in the antenatal and postnatal periods. We synthesized reporting accuracy using data from a known sample of validation studies conducted in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia, which assessed the validity of women's self-report of received antenatal care (ANC) (N = 3 studies, 3,169 participants) and postnatal care (PNC) (N = 5 studies, 2,462 participants) compared to direct observation. For each study, indicator sensitivity and specificity are presented with 95% confidence intervals. Univariate fixed effects and bivariate random effects models were used to examine whether respondent characteristics (e.g., age group, parity, education level), facility quality, or intervention coverage level influenced the accuracy of women's recall of whether interventions were received. Intervention coverage was associated with reporting accuracy across studies for the majority (9 of 12) of PNC indicators. Increasing intervention coverage was associated with poorer specificity for 8 indicators and improved sensitivity for 6 indicators. Reporting accuracy for ANC or PNC indicators did not consistently differ by any other respondent or facility characteristic. High intervention coverage may contribute to higher false positive reporting (poorer specificity) among women who receive facility-based maternal and newborn care while low intervention coverage may contribute to false negative reporting (lower sensitivity). While replication in other country and facility settings is warranted, results suggest that monitoring efforts should consider the context of care when interpreting national estimates of intervention coverage.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Accurate data on the receipt of essential maternal and newborn health interventions is necessary to interpret and address gaps in effective coverage. Validation results of commonly used content and quality of care indicators routinely implemented in international survey programs vary across settings. We assessed how respondent and facility characteristics influenced the accuracy of women's recall of interventions received in the antenatal and postnatal periods.
METHODS
METHODS
We synthesized reporting accuracy using data from a known sample of validation studies conducted in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia, which assessed the validity of women's self-report of received antenatal care (ANC) (N = 3 studies, 3,169 participants) and postnatal care (PNC) (N = 5 studies, 2,462 participants) compared to direct observation. For each study, indicator sensitivity and specificity are presented with 95% confidence intervals. Univariate fixed effects and bivariate random effects models were used to examine whether respondent characteristics (e.g., age group, parity, education level), facility quality, or intervention coverage level influenced the accuracy of women's recall of whether interventions were received.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Intervention coverage was associated with reporting accuracy across studies for the majority (9 of 12) of PNC indicators. Increasing intervention coverage was associated with poorer specificity for 8 indicators and improved sensitivity for 6 indicators. Reporting accuracy for ANC or PNC indicators did not consistently differ by any other respondent or facility characteristic.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
High intervention coverage may contribute to higher false positive reporting (poorer specificity) among women who receive facility-based maternal and newborn care while low intervention coverage may contribute to false negative reporting (lower sensitivity). While replication in other country and facility settings is warranted, results suggest that monitoring efforts should consider the context of care when interpreting national estimates of intervention coverage.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37328744
doi: 10.1186/s12884-023-05755-7
pii: 10.1186/s12884-023-05755-7
pmc: PMC10273708
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
448Subventions
Organisme : Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
ID : OPP1172551
Organisme : Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
ID : OPP1172551
Organisme : Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
ID : OPP1172551
Organisme : Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
ID : OPP1172551
Organisme : Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
ID : OPP1172551
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Jun 24;4(Suppl 4):e001297
pubmed: 31297252
BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 May 23;15:206
pubmed: 26002611
J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Oct;58(10):982-90
pubmed: 16168343
PLoS One. 2013 Nov 27;8(11):e81089
pubmed: 24312265
BMC Public Health. 2012 Nov 13;12:973
pubmed: 23148456
J Glob Health. 2018 Jun;8(1):010606
pubmed: 29977531
PLoS One. 2013 May 07;8(5):e60762
pubmed: 23667429
J Clin Epidemiol. 2003 Nov;56(11):1129-35
pubmed: 14615004
Lancet. 2015 Oct 17;386(10003):1511-4
pubmed: 26530604
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Jan;62(1):5-12
pubmed: 18778913
PLoS One. 2015 May 22;10(5):e0126840
pubmed: 26000829
BMJ Glob Health. 2017 Sep 04;2(3):e000424
pubmed: 29632704
Lancet. 2005 Mar 5-11;365(9462):891-900
pubmed: 15752534
J Glob Health. 2018 Jun;8(1):010605
pubmed: 29904605
BMJ Open. 2019 Jul 30;9(7):e029486
pubmed: 31366657
Bull World Health Organ. 2005 Jun;83(6):449-55
pubmed: 15976896
BMC Public Health. 2011 Mar 23;11:177
pubmed: 21429207
J Glob Health. 2018 Jun;8(1):010602
pubmed: 29619212
BMC Public Health. 2013;13 Suppl 3:S2
pubmed: 24564800
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021 Jan 25;21(1):82
pubmed: 33494712
PLoS One. 2013 May 07;8(5):e60694
pubmed: 23667427
J Glob Health. 2018 Jun;8(1):010604
pubmed: 29899981
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016 Aug 30;16:255
pubmed: 27577266
PLoS One. 2013 May 07;8(5):e60761
pubmed: 23667428
J Glob Health. 2019 Jun;9(1):011101
pubmed: 31275570
J Glob Health. 2019 Jun;9(1):010902
pubmed: 30863542
Soc Sci Med. 2007 Mar;64(6):1311-25
pubmed: 17174017
J Glob Health. 2016 Jun;6(1):010405
pubmed: 27231541
Korean J Radiol. 2015 Nov-Dec;16(6):1188-96
pubmed: 26576107
Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2017 Nov;1(3):203-212
pubmed: 30169169
Trop Med Int Health. 2011 Jan;16(1):84-96
pubmed: 21044235
BMJ Open. 2011 Jan 1;1(2):e000226
pubmed: 22021886
J Glob Health. 2018 Dec;8(2):020804
pubmed: 30202519
Health Technol Assess. 2005 Mar;9(12):1-113, iii
pubmed: 15774235
Lancet. 2018 Apr 14;391(10129):1538-1548
pubmed: 29395268
PLoS One. 2019 May 9;14(5):e0216612
pubmed: 31071142
BMC Public Health. 2011 Aug 24;11:667
pubmed: 21864405
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019 Apr 2;19(1):113
pubmed: 30940114
Glob Health Sci Pract. 2014 Apr 08;2(2):173-81
pubmed: 25276575
J Glob Health. 2016 Dec;6(2):020502
pubmed: 27606061
PLoS One. 2015 Apr 02;10(4):e0122828
pubmed: 25835713