2022
DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2022-009200
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Inequalities in effective coverage measures: are we asking too much of the data?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
(28 reference statements)
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Recently, in 2021, with the growing panoply of terms, concepts, and measures, Exley and colleagues conducted rapid systematic reviews of effective coverage and coverage cascades in the literature since 2010 for childbirth, newborn, and child health interventions in low- and middle-income countries [ 18 , 39 ]. They concluded that the definitions of effective coverage differed across 64 reports on effective coverage, and varied with the number of cascade steps used to “adjust” for quality of care and the methods used to generate a composite measure.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recently, in 2021, with the growing panoply of terms, concepts, and measures, Exley and colleagues conducted rapid systematic reviews of effective coverage and coverage cascades in the literature since 2010 for childbirth, newborn, and child health interventions in low- and middle-income countries [ 18 , 39 ]. They concluded that the definitions of effective coverage differed across 64 reports on effective coverage, and varied with the number of cascade steps used to “adjust” for quality of care and the methods used to generate a composite measure.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In such cases, either the summary of the facility’s capacity to provide high-quality care is linked with individual data, or individuals are linked to their reported source of care. Such methods overlook variation in the quality of care both within and between health facilities [ 22 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%