"What gets measured better gets done better": The landscape of validation of global maternal and newborn health indicators through key informant interviews
"What gets measured better gets done better": The landscape of validation of global maternal and newborn health indicators through key informant interviews
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0224746
复制
发表时间：
2019-11-05
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Moran, Allisyn C.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Benova, Lenka;Moller, Ann-Beth;Moran, Allisyn C.
背景目前有大量指标用于监测孕产妇和新生儿健康状况，包括那些反映卫生系统和投入、护理获得和提供、护理质量和安全、覆盖范围和成果以及影响等方面的指标。这些指标的有效性是评估指标绩效和适用性过程中的一个关键问题。本文旨在了解孕产妇和新生儿健康领域的指标有效性的意义，并确定未来research.MethodsThis定性研究的关键建议，采用立意抽样，以确定关键的线人，直到主题饱和。我们采访了32名受访者来自不同的背景，使用半结构化的采访，涵盖五个主题：指标有效性的含义，评估有效性的方法，指标有效性的可接受水平，验证研究的差距，并建议解决这些差距。访谈成绩单进行了分析，数据使用主题内容approach.ResultsThree概念上不同的定义指标效度的受访者。他们认为指标有效性包括意义和激励行动的潜力，超越了诊断有效性。指标验证被视为一个不断建立和综合各种证据的过程，而不是诊断有效性测试中一刀切的截止值。查明的差距包括评估护理质量指标和基于设施一级数据的指标的有效性，以及将研究扩大到更广泛的全球环境。的关键建议是制定一个协调的方法来总结和评估指标有效性的研究，包括能力建设评估和沟通现有的证据，为国家的具体需求。ConclusionThe调查结果将告知未来的建议指标测试和验证。
BackgroundA large number of indicators are currently used to monitor the state of maternal and newborn health, including those capturing dimensions of health system and input, care access and availability, care quality and safety, coverage and outcomes, and impact. Validity of these indicators is a key issue in the process of assessing indicator performance and suitability. This paper aims to understand the meaning of indicator validity in the field of maternal and newborn health, and to identify key recommendations for future research.MethodsThis qualitative study used purposive sampling to identify key informants until thematic saturation was achieved. We interviewed 32 respondents from a variety of backgrounds using semi-structured interviews covering five themes: the meaning of indicator validity, methodological approaches to assessing validity, acceptable levels of indicator validity, gaps in validation research, and recommendations for addressing these gaps. Interview transcripts were analysed data using thematic content approach.ResultsThree conceptually different definitions of indicator validity were described by respondents. They considered indicator validity to encompass meaning and potential to spur action, going beyond diagnostic validity. Indicator validation was seen as an ongoing process of building and synthesising a wide range of evidence rather than a one-size-fits-all cut-off in diagnostic validity tests. Gaps identified included assessing validity of indicators of quality of care and indicators based on facility-level data, as well as expanding studies to a broader range of global settings. The key recommendation was to develop a coordinated approach to summarising and evaluating research on indicator validity, including capacity building in appraising and communicating the available evidence for country-specific needs.ConclusionThe findings will inform future recommendations around indicator testing and validation.