Dataset Information

Comparability of family planning quality of care measurement tools in low-and-middle income country settings: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In low-and-middle income countries (LMICs), accurate measures of the elements of quality care provided by a health worker through family planning services (also known as process quality) are required to ensure family's contraceptives needs are being met. There are many tools used to assess family planning process quality of care (QoC) but no one standardized method. Those measuring QoC in LMICs should select an appropriate tool based the program context and financial/logistical parameters, but they require data on how well each tool measures routine clinical care. We aim to synthesize the literature on validity/comparability of family planning process QoC measurement tools through a quantitative systematic review with no meta-analysis.

Methods

We searched six literature databases for studies that compared quality measurements from different tools using quantitative statistics such as sensitivity/specificity, kappa statistic or absolute difference. We extracted the comparative measure along with other relevant study information, organized by quality indicator domain (e.g. counseling and privacy), and then classified the measure by low, medium, and high agreement.

Results

We screened 8172 articles and identified eight for analysis. Studies comparing quality measurements from simulated clients, direct observation, client exit interview, provider knowledge quizzes, and medical record review were included. These eight studies were heterogenous in their methods and the measurements compared. There was insufficient data to estimate overall summary measures of validity for the tools. Client exit interviews compared to direct observation or simulated client protocols had the most data and they were a poor proxy of the actual quality care received for many measurements.

Conclusion

To measure QoC consistently and accurately in LMICs, standardized tools and measures are needed along with an established method of combining them for a comprehensive picture of quality care. Data on how different tools proxy quality client care will inform these guidelines. Despite the small number of studies found during the review, we described important differences on how tools measure quality of care.

SUBMITTER: Hazel E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8557007 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparability of family planning quality of care measurement tools in low-and-middle income country settings: a systematic review.

Hazel Elizabeth E Mohan Diwakar D Gross Margaret M Kattinakere Sreedhara Sushama S Shrestha Prakriti P Johnstone Maia M Marx Melissa M

Reproductive health 20211030 1

<h4>Background</h4>In low-and-middle income countries (LMICs), accurate measures of the elements of quality care provided by a health worker through family planning services (also known as process quality) are required to ensure family's contraceptives needs are being met. There are many tools used to assess family planning process quality of care (QoC) but no one standardized method. Those measuring QoC in LMICs should select an appropriate tool based the program context and financial/logistica ...[more]

PMID: 34717686

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionSubstance use disorder (SUD) and problematic substance use are global public health concerns with significant multifaceted implications for physical health and psychosocial well-being. The impact of SUD extends beyond the individual to their family while imposing financial and social burdens on the community. Though family-centred interventions have shown promise in addressing SUD, their implementation and impact in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) remain underexplored.Methods and analysisPer Joanna Briggs Institute's scoping review protocol, a systematic search strategy was employed across OVID Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science-Core Collection, Global Health and CINAHL from 22 February 2024 to 26 February 2024, to identify relevant studies focused on family-centred interventions for SUD in LMIC, devoid of publication time and language constraints. Two independent reviewers will screen the titles, abstracts and full texts, with discrepancies resolved through discussion or third-party reviews. The extracted data charted in a structured form will be visualised by diagrams or tables, focusing on the feasibility and impact of family-centred interventions for SUD in LMIC. For qualitative studies, the findings will be synthesised and presented in thematic clusters, and for studies that report quantitative outcomes, specific health, including SUD and psychosocial, outcomes will be synthesised, aligning with the Population, Concept and Context framework.Ethics and disseminationThese data on substance use, psychosocial outcomes and perspectives of individuals with SUD and their families will be presented in narrative format, highlighting patterns and identifying research gaps. This review aims to synthesise the existing evidence on family-centred interventions for improving substance use and/or psychosocial outcomes in individuals with SUD in LMIC and seeks to inform future policy and practice. Ethics approval is not required for this scoping review, and modifications to the review protocol will be disclosed. Findings will be disseminated through conference proceedings and peer-reviewed publication.

Project description:IntroductionInequities in reproductive health are widespread, and periodic surveys can trace trends in inequities to guide policies and program implementation.MethodsWe examined National Composite Index for Family Planning surveys from 2017 and 2021 that assessed inequities in access to 7 contraceptive methods and traced patterns of discrimination involving 5 subgroups in low- and middle-income countries. These surveys use 10-25 informants in each country who are knowledgeable at the national level. Measures are based on questionnaire ratings on a scale of 1-10.ResultsAccess to contraceptive methods averages about half of the maximum of 100%, with substantial variation across regions and countries for the score levels. Score profiles are similar among high-scoring and low-scoring countries, suggesting that access to each method reflects common determinants in the nature of each method and the influences acting upon national family planning programs. Access to short-term methods (pill, injectable, and condom) is much better than for long-term methods (sterilization, intrauterine device, and implant). Community-based distribution of contraceptives averages low, as it is not part of some programs. Over time the scores have improved modestly. Correlations imply that better access leads to more contraceptive use. Inequity of use across wealth groups is less where overall equity has improved. Measures of discrimination against youth, unmarried women, postabortion clients, HIV carriers, and different wealth groups indicate a need for additional policies and considerable latitude for stronger actions by providers.ConclusionsThe surveys in 2017 and 2021 demonstrate both progress and deficiencies for equitable access to contraceptive methods, with highly variable results among regions and countries. Much remains to be done to alleviate discriminatory practices against particular subgroups. Equity has improved for access to contraception and contraceptive use, and it can continue to do so with greater attention to policies and practices in national programs.

Project description:BackgroundPrior research has demonstrated that low- and low-middle-income countries (LLMICs) bear a higher burden of critical illness and have a higher rate of mortality from critical illness than high-income countries (HICs). There is a pressing need for improved critical care delivery in LLMICs to reduce this inequity. This systematic review aimed to characterise the range of critical care interventions and services delivered within LLMIC health care systems as reported in the literature.MethodsA search strategy using terms related to critical care in LLMICs was implemented in multiple databases. We included English language articles with human subjects describing at least one critical care intervention or service in an LLMIC setting published between 1 January 2008 and 1 January 2020.ResultsA total of 1620 studies met the inclusion criteria. Among the included studies, 45% of studies reported on pediatric patients, 43% on adults, 23% on infants, 8.9% on geriatric patients and 4.2% on maternal patients. Most of the care described (94%) was delivered in-hospital, with the remainder (6.2%) taking place in out-of-hospital care settings. Overall, 49% of critical care described was delivered outside of a designated intensive care unit. Specialist physicians delivered critical care in 60% of the included studies. Additional critical care was delivered by general physicians (40%), as well as specialist physician trainees (22%), pharmacists (16%), advanced nursing or midlevel practitioners (8.9%), ambulance providers (3.3%) and respiratory therapists (3.1%).ConclusionsThis review represents a comprehensive synthesis of critical care delivery in LLMIC settings. Approximately 50% of critical care interventions and services were delivered outside of a designated intensive care unit. Specialist physicians were the most common health care professionals involved in care delivery in the included studies, however generalist physicians were commonly reported to provide critical care interventions and services. This study additionally characterised the quality of the published evidence guiding critical care practice in LLMICs, demonstrating a paucity of interventional and cost-effectiveness studies. Future research is needed to understand better how to optimise critical care interventions, services, care delivery and costs in these settings.RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42019146802.

Project description:BackgroundParental child feeding practices (PCFP) are a key factor influencing children's dietary intake, especially in the preschool years when eating behavior is being established. Instruments to measure PCFP have been developed and validated in high-income countries with a high prevalence of childhood obesity. The aim of this study was to test the appropriateness, content, and construct validity of selected measures of PCFP in a low and middle-income country (LMIC) in which there is both undernutrition and obesity in children.MethodsAn expert panel selected subscales and items from measures of PCFP that have been well-tested in high-income countries to measure both "coercive" and "structural" behaviors. Two sequential cross-sectional studies (Study 1, n = 154; Study 2, n = 238) were conducted in two provinces in Indonesia. Findings of the first study were used to refine subscales used in Study 2. An additional qualitative study tested content validity from the perspective of mothers (the intended respondents). Factorial validation and reliability were also tested. Convergent validity was tested with child nutritional status.ResultsIn Study 1, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model with 11 factors provided good fit (RMSEA = 0.045; CFI = 0.95 and TLI = 0.95) after two subscales were removed. Reliability was good among seven of the subscales. Following a decision to take out an additional subscale, the instrument was tested for factorial validity (Study 2). A CFA model with 10 subscales provided good fit (RMSEA = 0.03; CFI = 0.92 and TLI = 0.90). The reliability of subscales was lower than in Study 1. Convergent validity with nutrition status was found with two subscales.ConclusionsThe two studies provide evidence of acceptable psychometric properties for 10 subscales from tested instruments to measure PCFP in Indonesia. This provides the first evidence of the validity of these measures in a LMIC setting. Some shortcomings, such in the reliability of some subscales and further tests of predictive validity, require further investigation.

Project description:ImportanceMost of the global morbidity and mortality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) occurs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), with significant economic effects.ObjectiveTo assess the discriminative accuracy of 3 instruments using questionnaires and peak expiratory flow (PEF) to screen for COPD in 3 LMIC settings.Design, setting, and participantsA cross-sectional analysis of discriminative accuracy, conducted between January 2018 and March 2020 in semiurban Bhaktapur, Nepal; urban Lima, Peru; and rural Nakaseke, Uganda, using a random age- and sex-stratified sample of the population 40 years or older.ExposuresThree screening tools, the COPD Assessment in Primary Care to Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk (CAPTURE; range, 0-6; high risk indicated by a score of 5 or more or score 2-5 with low PEF [<250 L/min for females and <350 L/min for males]), the COPD in LMICs Assessment questionnaire (COLA-6; range, 0-5; high risk indicated by a score of 4 or more), and the Lung Function Questionnaire (LFQ; range, 0-25; high risk indicated by a score of 18 or less) were assessed against a reference standard diagnosis of COPD using quality-assured postbronchodilator spirometry. CAPTURE and COLA-6 include a measure of PEF.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was discriminative accuracy of the tools in identifying COPD as measured by area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) with 95% CIs. Secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value.ResultsAmong 10 709 adults who consented to participate in the study (mean age, 56.3 years (SD, 11.7); 50% female), 35% had ever smoked, and 30% were currently exposed to biomass smoke. The unweighted prevalence of COPD at the 3 sites was 18.2% (642/3534 participants) in Nepal, 2.7% (97/3550) in Peru, and 7.4% (264/3580) in Uganda. Among 1000 COPD cases, 49.3% had clinically important disease (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease classification B-D), 16.4% had severe or very severe airflow obstruction (forced expiratory volume in 1 second <50% predicted), and 95.3% of cases were previously undiagnosed. The AUC for the screening instruments ranged from 0.717 (95% CI, 0.677-0.774) for LFQ in Peru to 0.791 (95% CI, 0.770-0.809) for COLA-6 in Nepal. The sensitivity ranged from 34.8% (95% CI, 25.3%-45.2%) for COLA-6 in Nepal to 64.2% (95% CI, 60.3%-67.9%) for CAPTURE in Nepal. The mean time to administer the instruments was 7.6 minutes (SD 1.11), and data completeness was 99.5%.Conclusions and relevanceThis study demonstrated that screening instruments for COPD were feasible to administer in 3 low- and middle-income settings. Further research is needed to assess instrument performance in other low- and middle-income settings and to determine whether implementation is associated with improved clinical outcomes.

Project description: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. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12884-023-05755-7.

Dataset Information

Comparability of family planning quality of care measurement tools in low-and-middle income country settings: a systematic review.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Comparability of family planning quality of care measurement tools in low-and-middle income country settings: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets