Dataset Information

Validation studies for population-based intervention coverage indicators: design, analysis, and interpretation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Population-based intervention coverage indicators are widely used to track country and program progress in improving health and to evaluate health programs. Indicator validation studies that compare survey responses to a "gold standard" measure are useful to understand whether the indicator provides accurate information. The Improving Coverage Measurement (ICM) Core Group has developed and implemented a standard approach to validating coverage indicators measured in household surveys, described in this paper.

Methods

The general design of these studies includes measurement of true health status and intervention receipt (gold standard), followed by interviews with the individuals observed, and a comparison of the observations (gold standard) to the responses to survey questions. The gold standard should use a data source external to the respondent to document need for and receipt of an intervention. Most frequently, this is accomplished through direct observation of clinical care, and/or use of a study-trained clinician to obtain a gold standard diagnosis. Follow-up interviews with respondents should employ standard survey questions, where they exist, as well as alternative or additional questions that can be compared against the standard household survey questions.

Results

Indicator validation studies should report on participation at every stage, and provide data on reasons for non-participation. Metrics of individual validity (sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) and population-level validity (inflation factor) should be reported, as well as the percent of survey responses that are "don't know" or missing. Associations between interviewer and participant characteristics and measures of validity should be assessed and reported.

Conclusions

These methods allow respondent-reported coverage measures to be validated against more objective measures of need for and receipt of an intervention, and should be considered together with cognitive interviewing, discriminative validity, or reliability testing to inform decisions about which indicators to include in household surveys. Public health researchers should assess the evidence for validity of existing and proposed household survey coverage indicators and consider validation studies to fill evidence gaps.

SUBMITTER: Munos MK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6126515 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Validation studies for population-based intervention coverage indicators: design, analysis, and interpretation.

Munos Melinda K MK Blanc Ann K AK Carter Emily D ED Eisele Thomas P TP Gesuale Steve S Katz Joanne J Marchant Tanya T Stanton Cynthia K CK Campbell Harry H

Journal of global health 20181201 2

<h4>Background</h4>Population-based intervention coverage indicators are widely used to track country and program progress in improving health and to evaluate health programs. Indicator validation studies that compare survey responses to a "gold standard" measure are useful to understand whether the indicator provides accurate information. The Improving Coverage Measurement (ICM) Core Group has developed and implemented a standard approach to validating coverage indicators measured in household ...[more]

PMID: 30202519

Similar Datasets

Project description:Eimeria infection impacts upon chicken welfare and economic productivity of the poultry sector. Live coccidiosis vaccines for chickens have been available for almost 70 years, but the requirement to formulate blends of oocysts from multiple Eimeria species makes vaccine production costly and logistically demanding. A multivalent vaccine that does not require chickens for its production and can induce protection against multiple Eimeria species is highly desirable. However, despite the identification and testing of many vaccine candidate antigens, no recombinant coccidiosis vaccine has been developed commercially. Currently, assessment of vaccine efficacy against Eimeria, and the disease coccidiosis, can be done only through in vivo vaccination and challenge experiments but the design of such studies has been highly variable. Lack of a "standard" protocol for assessing vaccine efficacy makes comparative evaluations very difficult, complicating vaccine development, and validation. The formulation and schedule of vaccination, the breed of chicken and choice of husbandry system, the species, strain, magnitude, and timing of delivery of the parasite challenge, and the parameters used to assess vaccine efficacy all influence the outcomes of experimental trials. In natural Eimeria infections, the induction of strong cell mediated immune responses are central to the development of protective immunity against coccidiosis. Antibodies are generally regarded to be of lesser importance. Unfortunately, there are no specific immunological assays that can accurately predict how well a vaccine will protect against coccidiosis (i.e., no "correlates of protection"). Thus, experimental vaccine studies rely on assessing a variety of post-challenge parameters, including assessment of pathognomonic lesions, measurements of parasite replication such as oocyst output or quantification of Eimeria genomes, and/or measurements of productivity such as body weight gain and feed conversion rates. Understanding immune responses to primary and secondary infection can inform on the most appropriate immunological assays. The discovery of new antigens for different Eimeria species and the development of new methods of vaccine antigen delivery necessitates a more considered approach to assessment of novel vaccines with robust, repeatable study design. Careful consideration of performance and welfare factors that are genuinely relevant to chicken producers and vaccine manufacturers is essential.

Project description:Advancing technologies have facilitated the ever-widening application of genetic markers such as microsatellites into new systems and research questions in biology. In light of the data and experience accumulated from several years of using microsatellites, we present here a literature review that synthesizes the limitations of microsatellites in population genetic studies. With a focus on population structure, we review the widely used fixation (F ST) statistics and Bayesian clustering algorithms and find that the former can be confusing and problematic for microsatellites and that the latter may be confounded by complex population models and lack power in certain cases. Clustering, multivariate analyses, and diversity-based statistics are increasingly being applied to infer population structure, but in some instances these methods lack formalization with microsatellites. Migration-specific methods perform well only under narrow constraints. We also examine the use of microsatellites for inferring effective population size, changes in population size, and deeper demographic history, and find that these methods are untested and/or highly context-dependent. Overall, each method possesses important weaknesses for use with microsatellites, and there are significant constraints on inferences commonly made using microsatellite markers in the areas of population structure, admixture, and effective population size. To ameliorate and better understand these constraints, researchers are encouraged to analyze simulated datasets both prior to and following data collection and analysis, the latter of which is formalized within the approximate Bayesian computation framework. We also examine trends in the literature and show that microsatellites continue to be widely used, especially in non-human subject areas. This review assists with study design and molecular marker selection, facilitates sound interpretation of microsatellite data while fostering respect for their practical limitations, and identifies lessons that could be applied toward emerging markers and high-throughput technologies in population genetics.

Project description:ObjectivesTo describe the procedures to derive complete prevalence and several indicators of cancer cure from population-based cancer registries.Materials and methodsCancer registry data (47% of the Italian population) were used to calculate limited duration prevalence for 62 cancer types by sex and registry. The incidence and survival models, needed to calculate the completeness index (R) and complete prevalence, were evaluated by likelihood ratio tests and by visual comparison. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the effect on the complete prevalence of using different R indexes. Mixture cure models were used to estimate net survival (NS); life expectancy of fatal (LEF) cases; cure fraction (CF); time to cure (TTC); cure prevalence, prevalent patients who were not at risk of dying as a result of cancer; and already cured patients, those living longer than TTC at a specific point in time. CF was also compared with long-term NS since, for patients diagnosed after a certain age, CF (representing asymptotical values of NS) is reached far beyond the patient's life expectancy.ResultsFor the most frequent cancer types, the Weibull survival model stratified by sex and age showed a very good fit with observed survival. For men diagnosed with any cancer type at age 65-74 years, CF was 41%, while the NS was 49% until age 100 and 50% until age 90. In women, similar differences emerged for patients with any cancer type or with breast cancer. Among patients alive in 2018 with colorectal cancer at age 55-64 years, 48% were already cured (had reached their specific TTC), while the cure prevalence (lifelong probability to be cured from cancer) was 89%. Cure prevalence became 97.5% (2.5% will die because of their neoplasm) for patients alive >5 years after diagnosis.ConclusionsThis study represents an addition to the current knowledge on the topic providing a detailed description of available indicators of prevalence and cancer cure, highlighting the links among them, and illustrating their interpretation. Indicators may be relevant for patients and clinical practice; they are unambiguously defined, measurable, and reproducible in different countries where population-based cancer registries are active.

Dataset Information

Validation studies for population-based intervention coverage indicators: design, analysis, and interpretation.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Validation studies for population-based intervention coverage indicators: design, analysis, and interpretation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets