IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0060762.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring Coverage in MNCH: A Validation Study Linking Population Survey Derived Coverage to Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health Care Records in Rural China

Author

Listed:
  • Li Liu
  • Mengying Li
  • Li Yang
  • Lirong Ju
  • Biqin Tan
  • Neff Walker
  • Jennifer Bryce
  • Harry Campbell
  • Robert E Black
  • Yan Guo

Abstract

Background: Accurate data on coverage of key maternal, newborn, and child health (MNCH) interventions are crucial for monitoring progress toward the Millennium Development Goals 4 and 5. Coverage estimates are primarily obtained from routine population surveys through self-reporting, the validity of which is not well understood. We aimed to examine the validity of the coverage of selected MNCH interventions in Gongcheng County, China. Method and Findings: We conducted a validation study by comparing women’s self-reported coverage of MNCH interventions relating to antenatal and postnatal care, mode of delivery, and child vaccinations in a community survey with their paper- and electronic-based health care records, treating the health care records as the reference standard. Of 936 women recruited, 914 (97.6%) completed the survey. Results show that self-reported coverage of these interventions had moderate to high sensitivity (0.57 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.50–0.63] to 0.99 [95% CI: 0.98–1.00]) and low to high specificity (0 to 0.83 [95% CI: 0.80–0.86]). Despite varying overall validity, with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) ranging between 0.49 [95% CI: 0.39–0.57] and 0.90 [95% CI: 0.88–0.92], bias in the coverage estimates at the population level was small to moderate, with the test to actual positive (TAP) ratio ranging between 0.8 and 1.5 for 24 of the 28 indicators examined. Our ability to accurately estimate validity was affected by several caveats associated with the reference standard. Caution should be exercised when generalizing the results to other settings. Conclusions: The overall validity of self-reported coverage was moderate across selected MNCH indicators. However, at the population level, self-reported coverage appears to have small to moderate degree of bias. Accuracy of the coverage was particularly high for indicators with high recorded coverage or low recorded coverage but high specificity. The study provides insights into the accuracy of self-reports based on a population survey in low- and middle-income countries. Similar studies applying an improved reference standard are warranted in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Li Liu & Mengying Li & Li Yang & Lirong Ju & Biqin Tan & Neff Walker & Jennifer Bryce & Harry Campbell & Robert E Black & Yan Guo, 2013. "Measuring Coverage in MNCH: A Validation Study Linking Population Survey Derived Coverage to Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health Care Records in Rural China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-10, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0060762
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060762
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0060762
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0060762&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0060762?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Patrick Royston & Abdel Babiker, 2002. "A menu-driven facility for complex sample size calculation in randomized controlled trials with a survival or a binary outcome," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 2(2), pages 151-163, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zoe Dettrick & Hebe N Gouda & Andrew Hodge & Eliana Jimenez-Soto, 2016. "Measuring Quality of Maternal and Newborn Care in Developing Countries Using Demographic and Health Surveys," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-20, June.
    2. Lenka Benova & Ann-Beth Moller & Kathleen Hill & Lara M E Vaz & Alison Morgan & Claudia Hanson & Katherine Semrau & Shams Al Arifeen & Allisyn C Moran, 2020. "What is meant by validity in maternal and newborn health measurement? A conceptual framework for understanding indicator validation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-19, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Karla Hemming & Jen Marsh, 2013. "A menu-driven facility for sample-size calculations in cluster randomized controlled trials," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 13(1), pages 114-135, March.
    2. H. Joseph Newton & Nicholas J. Cox, 2016. "The Stata Journal Editors' Prize 2016: Patrick Royston," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 16(4), pages 815-825, December.
    3. Friederike M.-S. Barthel & Patrick Royston & Abdel Babiker, 2005. "A menu-driven facility for complex sample size calculation in randomized controlled trials with a survival or a binary outcome: Update," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 5(1), pages 123-129, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0060762. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.