Using health management information system data: case study and verification of institutional deliveries in Ethiopia

Abstract

Health management information systems (HMIS) are a crucial source of timely health statistics and have the potential to improve reporting in low-income countries. However, concerns about data quality have hampered their widespread adoption in research and policy decisions. This article presents results from a data verification study undertaken to gain insights into the quality of HMIS data in Ethiopia. We also provide recommendations for working with HMIS data for research and policy translation. We linked the HMIS to the 2016 Emergency Obstetric and Newborn Care Assessment, a national census of all health facilities that provided maternal and newborn health services in Ethiopia. We compared the number of visits for deliveries and caesarean sections (C-sections) reported in the HMIS in 2015 (January–December) to those found in source documents (paper-based labour and delivery and operating theatre registers) in 2425 facilities across Ethiopia. We found that two-thirds of facilities had ‘good’ HMIS reporting for deliveries (defined as reporting within 10% of source documents) and half had ‘very good’ reporting (within 5% of source documents). Results were similar for reporting on C-section deliveries. We found that good reporting was more common in urban areas (OR: 1.30, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.59), public facilities (OR: 2.95, 95% CI 1.38 to 6.29) and in hospitals compared with health centres (OR: 1.71, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.61). Facilities in the Somali and Afar regions had the lowest odds of good reporting compared with Addis Ababa and were more likely to over-report deliveries in the HMIS. Further work remains to address remaining discrepancies in the Ethiopian HMIS. Nonetheless, our findings corroborate previous data verification exercises in Ethiopia and support greater use and uptake of HMIS data for research and policy decisions (particularly, greater use of HMIS data elements (eg, absolute number of services provided each month) rather than coverage indicators). Increased use of these data, combined with feedback mechanisms, is necessary to maintain data quality.

COVID-19 and resilience of healthcare systems in ten countries

“…Detailed definitions are shown in Supplementary Table 1 . We analyzed the absolute number of visits or services provided rather than service coverage indicators (that is, proportion of target population who received a specific service) as the latter can be unreliable because they depend on estimated target population sizes (for example, facility catchment population) as denominators 78 , 79 .…”

Healthcare utilization and maternal and child mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic in 18 low- and middle-income countries: An interrupted time-series analysis with mathematical modeling of administrative data

“…HMIS data validity is often assessed in the context of measuring service coverage levels and can reflect challenges due to factors such as poor representativeness and the accuracy of population denominators [ 28 ]. Despite finding shortcomings in measuring service coverage, previous authors have called for the greater use of HMIS data, specifically the absolute number of services provided each month, in research and policy decisions.…”

‘The false reporter will get a praise and the one who reported truth will be discouraged’: a qualitative study on intentional data falsification by frontline maternal and newborn healthcare workers in two regions in Ethiopia

“…Despite these efforts the second HSTP identified poor data quality as a system weakness7; this was also reported by several studies which characterised Ethiopia’s HMIS as providing incomplete, inaccurate and untimely data with low utilisation for decision making 8–13. Possible reasons for the poor quality data include poor support by the facility management, poor supervision and feedback, high workload, staff turnover, lack of tools, low competency, low motivation for accurate reporting, carelessness, lack of accountability for false reports, manipulating data for competition, and a lack of a separate and responsible unit for routine HMIS 10 13…”