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?

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 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 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 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. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	McCarthy, Katharine J. [verfasserIn] Blanc, Ann K. Warren, Charlotte E. Bajracharya, Ashish Bellows, Ben

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2023

Schlagwörter:	Validation Maternal and newborn care Postnatal care Antenatal care Meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy Intervention coverage Monitoring

Anmerkung:	© The Author(s) 2023

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: BMC pregnancy and childbirth - London : BioMed Central, 2001, 23(2023), 1 vom: 16. Juni
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:23 ; year:2023 ; number:1 ; day:16 ; month:06

Links:	Volltext

DOI / URN:	10.1186/s12884-023-05755-7

Katalog-ID:	SPR051930226

Internformat


LEADER	01000naa a22002652 4500
001	SPR051930226
003	DE-627
005	20230617064832.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230617s2023 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1186/s12884-023-05755-7 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)SPR051930226
035			\|a (SPR)s12884-023-05755-7-e
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
100	1		\|a McCarthy, Katharine J. \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a 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?
264		1	\|c 2023
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
500			\|a © The Author(s) 2023
520			\|a 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 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 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 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.
650		4	\|a Validation \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Maternal and newborn care \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Postnatal care \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Antenatal care \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Intervention coverage \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Monitoring \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
700	1		\|a Blanc, Ann K. \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Warren, Charlotte E. \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Bajracharya, Ashish \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Bellows, Ben \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t BMC pregnancy and childbirth \|d London : BioMed Central, 2001 \|g 23(2023), 1 vom: 16. Juni \|w (DE-627)335489087 \|w (DE-600)2059869-5 \|x 1471-2393 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:23 \|g year:2023 \|g number:1 \|g day:16 \|g month:06
856	4	0	\|u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-023-05755-7 \|z kostenfrei \|3 Volltext
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_SPRINGER
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2011
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 23 \|j 2023 \|e 1 \|b 16 \|c 06

Indexfelder

author_variant	k j m kj kjm a k b ak akb c e w ce cew a b ab b b bb
matchkey_str	article:14712393:2023----::xlrntecuayfefeotdaenlnnwonaeneettdefolwnmdlicmcutyetnsoepnet
hierarchy_sort_str	2023
publishDate	2023
allfields	10.1186/s12884-023-05755-7 doi (DE-627)SPR051930226 (SPR)s12884-023-05755-7-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng McCarthy, Katharine J. verfasserin aut 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? 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2023 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 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 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 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. Validation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Maternal and newborn care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Postnatal care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Antenatal care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Intervention coverage (dpeaa)DE-He213 Monitoring (dpeaa)DE-He213 Blanc, Ann K. aut Warren, Charlotte E. aut Bajracharya, Ashish aut Bellows, Ben aut Enthalten in BMC pregnancy and childbirth London : BioMed Central, 2001 23(2023), 1 vom: 16. Juni (DE-627)335489087 (DE-600)2059869-5 1471-2393 nnns volume:23 year:2023 number:1 day:16 month:06 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-023-05755-7 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 23 2023 1 16 06
spelling	10.1186/s12884-023-05755-7 doi (DE-627)SPR051930226 (SPR)s12884-023-05755-7-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng McCarthy, Katharine J. verfasserin aut 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? 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2023 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 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 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 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. Validation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Maternal and newborn care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Postnatal care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Antenatal care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Intervention coverage (dpeaa)DE-He213 Monitoring (dpeaa)DE-He213 Blanc, Ann K. aut Warren, Charlotte E. aut Bajracharya, Ashish aut Bellows, Ben aut Enthalten in BMC pregnancy and childbirth London : BioMed Central, 2001 23(2023), 1 vom: 16. Juni (DE-627)335489087 (DE-600)2059869-5 1471-2393 nnns volume:23 year:2023 number:1 day:16 month:06 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-023-05755-7 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 23 2023 1 16 06
allfields_unstemmed	10.1186/s12884-023-05755-7 doi (DE-627)SPR051930226 (SPR)s12884-023-05755-7-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng McCarthy, Katharine J. verfasserin aut 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? 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2023 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 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 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 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. Validation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Maternal and newborn care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Postnatal care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Antenatal care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Intervention coverage (dpeaa)DE-He213 Monitoring (dpeaa)DE-He213 Blanc, Ann K. aut Warren, Charlotte E. aut Bajracharya, Ashish aut Bellows, Ben aut Enthalten in BMC pregnancy and childbirth London : BioMed Central, 2001 23(2023), 1 vom: 16. Juni (DE-627)335489087 (DE-600)2059869-5 1471-2393 nnns volume:23 year:2023 number:1 day:16 month:06 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-023-05755-7 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 23 2023 1 16 06
allfieldsGer	10.1186/s12884-023-05755-7 doi (DE-627)SPR051930226 (SPR)s12884-023-05755-7-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng McCarthy, Katharine J. verfasserin aut 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? 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2023 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 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 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 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. Validation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Maternal and newborn care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Postnatal care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Antenatal care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Intervention coverage (dpeaa)DE-He213 Monitoring (dpeaa)DE-He213 Blanc, Ann K. aut Warren, Charlotte E. aut Bajracharya, Ashish aut Bellows, Ben aut Enthalten in BMC pregnancy and childbirth London : BioMed Central, 2001 23(2023), 1 vom: 16. Juni (DE-627)335489087 (DE-600)2059869-5 1471-2393 nnns volume:23 year:2023 number:1 day:16 month:06 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-023-05755-7 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 23 2023 1 16 06
allfieldsSound	10.1186/s12884-023-05755-7 doi (DE-627)SPR051930226 (SPR)s12884-023-05755-7-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng McCarthy, Katharine J. verfasserin aut 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? 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2023 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 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 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 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. Validation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Maternal and newborn care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Postnatal care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Antenatal care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Intervention coverage (dpeaa)DE-He213 Monitoring (dpeaa)DE-He213 Blanc, Ann K. aut Warren, Charlotte E. aut Bajracharya, Ashish aut Bellows, Ben aut Enthalten in BMC pregnancy and childbirth London : BioMed Central, 2001 23(2023), 1 vom: 16. Juni (DE-627)335489087 (DE-600)2059869-5 1471-2393 nnns volume:23 year:2023 number:1 day:16 month:06 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-023-05755-7 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 23 2023 1 16 06
language	English
source	Enthalten in BMC pregnancy and childbirth 23(2023), 1 vom: 16. Juni volume:23 year:2023 number:1 day:16 month:06
sourceStr	Enthalten in BMC pregnancy and childbirth 23(2023), 1 vom: 16. Juni volume:23 year:2023 number:1 day:16 month:06
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Validation Maternal and newborn care Postnatal care Antenatal care Meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy Intervention coverage Monitoring
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	BMC pregnancy and childbirth
authorswithroles_txt_mv	McCarthy, Katharine J. @@aut@@ Blanc, Ann K. @@aut@@ Warren, Charlotte E. @@aut@@ Bajracharya, Ashish @@aut@@ Bellows, Ben @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2023-06-16T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	335489087
id	SPR051930226
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR051930226</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230617064832.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230617s2023 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12884-023-05755-7</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR051930226</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12884-023-05755-7-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">McCarthy, Katharine J.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">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?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">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 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 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 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.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Validation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Maternal and newborn care</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Postnatal care</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Antenatal care</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Intervention coverage</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Monitoring</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Blanc, Ann K.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Warren, Charlotte E.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bajracharya, Ashish</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bellows, Ben</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC pregnancy and childbirth</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">23(2023), 1 vom: 16. Juni</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)335489087</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2059869-5</subfield><subfield code="x">1471-2393</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:23</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2023</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:16</subfield><subfield code="g">month:06</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-023-05755-7</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">23</subfield><subfield code="j">2023</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">16</subfield><subfield code="c">06</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	McCarthy, Katharine J.
spellingShingle	McCarthy, Katharine J. misc Validation misc Maternal and newborn care misc Postnatal care misc Antenatal care misc Meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy misc Intervention coverage misc Monitoring 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?
authorStr	McCarthy, Katharine J.
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)335489087
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut
collection	springer
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	1471-2393
topic_title	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? Validation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Maternal and newborn care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Postnatal care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Antenatal care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Intervention coverage (dpeaa)DE-He213 Monitoring (dpeaa)DE-He213
topic	misc Validation misc Maternal and newborn care misc Postnatal care misc Antenatal care misc Meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy misc Intervention coverage misc Monitoring
topic_unstemmed	misc Validation misc Maternal and newborn care misc Postnatal care misc Antenatal care misc Meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy misc Intervention coverage misc Monitoring
topic_browse	misc Validation misc Maternal and newborn care misc Postnatal care misc Antenatal care misc Meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy misc Intervention coverage misc Monitoring
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	BMC pregnancy and childbirth
hierarchy_parent_id	335489087
hierarchy_top_title	BMC pregnancy and childbirth
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)335489087 (DE-600)2059869-5
title	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?
ctrlnum	(DE-627)SPR051930226 (SPR)s12884-023-05755-7-e
title_full	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?
author_sort	McCarthy, Katharine J.
journal	BMC pregnancy and childbirth
journalStr	BMC pregnancy and childbirth
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2023
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	McCarthy, Katharine J. Blanc, Ann K. Warren, Charlotte E. Bajracharya, Ashish Bellows, Ben
container_volume	23
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	McCarthy, Katharine J.
doi_str_mv	10.1186/s12884-023-05755-7
title_sort	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?
title_auth	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?
abstract	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 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 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 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. © The Author(s) 2023
abstractGer	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 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 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 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. © The Author(s) 2023
abstract_unstemmed	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 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 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 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. © The Author(s) 2023
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	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?
url	https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-023-05755-7
remote_bool	true
author2	Blanc, Ann K. Warren, Charlotte E. Bajracharya, Ashish Bellows, Ben
author2Str	Blanc, Ann K. Warren, Charlotte E. Bajracharya, Ashish Bellows, Ben
ppnlink	335489087
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1186/s12884-023-05755-7
up_date	2024-07-04T00:29:18.455Z
_version_	1803606250967007232
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR051930226</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230617064832.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230617s2023 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12884-023-05755-7</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR051930226</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12884-023-05755-7-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">McCarthy, Katharine J.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">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?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">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 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 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 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.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Validation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Maternal and newborn care</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Postnatal care</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Antenatal care</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Intervention coverage</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Monitoring</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Blanc, Ann K.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Warren, Charlotte E.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bajracharya, Ashish</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bellows, Ben</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC pregnancy and childbirth</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">23(2023), 1 vom: 16. Juni</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)335489087</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2059869-5</subfield><subfield code="x">1471-2393</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:23</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2023</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:16</subfield><subfield code="g">month:06</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-023-05755-7</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">23</subfield><subfield code="j">2023</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">16</subfield><subfield code="c">06</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.399722

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

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?

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?