IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0204763.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measures matter: A scoping review of maternal and newborn indicators

Author

Listed:
  • Ann-Beth Moller
  • Holly Newby
  • Claudia Hanson
  • Alison Morgan
  • Shams El Arifeen
  • Doris Chou
  • Theresa Diaz
  • Lale Say
  • Ian Askew
  • Allisyn C Moran

Abstract

Background: A variety of global-level monitoring initiatives have recommended indicators for tracking progress in maternal and newborn health. As a first step supporting the work of WHO’s Mother and Newborn Information for Tracking Outcomes and Results (MoNITOR) Technical Advisory Group, we aimed to compile and synthesize recommended indicators in order to document the landscape of maternal and newborn measurement and monitoring. Methods: We conducted a scoping review of indicators proposed by global multi-stakeholder groups to suggest next steps to further support maternal and newborn measurement and monitoring. Results: We identified 140 indicators linked to maternal and newborn health topics across the continuum of service provision. Fifty-five indicators relate to inputs and processes, 30 indicators relate to outputs, outcomes comprise 37 indicators in the database, and 18 impact indicators. A quarter of indicators proposed by global groups is either under development/discussion or is considered “aspirational”, highlighting the currently evolving monitoring landscape. Although considerable efforts have been made to harmonize indicator recommendations, there are still relatively few indicators shared across key monitoring initiatives and some of those that are shared may have definitional variation. Conclusion: Rapid, wide-ranging work by a number of multi-stakeholder groups has resulted in a substantial number of indicators, many of which partially overlap and many are not supported with adequate documentation or guidance. The volume of indicators, coupled with the number of initiatives promoting different indicator lists, highlight the need for strengthened coordination and technical leadership to harmonize recommendations for improved measurement and monitoring of data related to maternal and newborn heath.

Suggested Citation

  • Ann-Beth Moller & Holly Newby & Claudia Hanson & Alison Morgan & Shams El Arifeen & Doris Chou & Theresa Diaz & Lale Say & Ian Askew & Allisyn C Moran, 2018. "Measures matter: A scoping review of maternal and newborn indicators," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-19, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0204763
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204763
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0204763
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0204763&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0204763?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Alan de Brauw & Amber Peterman, 2020. "Can conditional cash transfers improve maternal health care? Evidence from El Salvador's Comunidades Solidarias Rurales program," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(6), pages 700-715, June.
    2. Lenka Benova & Ann-Beth Moller & Allisyn C Moran, 2019. "“What gets measured better gets done better”: The landscape of validation of global maternal and newborn health indicators through key informant interviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-16, November.
    3. 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.

    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:pone00:0204763. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.