Cargando…

How within-country inequalities and co-coverage may affect LiST estimates of lives saved by scaling up interventions

Lives-saved estimates calculated by LiST include the implicit assumptions that there are no inequalities among different socioeconomic groups, and also that the likelihood of a mother or child receiving a given intervention is independent from the probability of receiving any other interventions. It...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Victora, Cesar G, Barros, Aluisio J D, Malpica-Llanos, Tanya, Walker, Neff
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3847580/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24564259
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-S3-S24
_version_ 1782293626868465664
author Victora, Cesar G
Barros, Aluisio J D
Malpica-Llanos, Tanya
Walker, Neff
author_facet Victora, Cesar G
Barros, Aluisio J D
Malpica-Llanos, Tanya
Walker, Neff
author_sort Victora, Cesar G
collection PubMed
description Lives-saved estimates calculated by LiST include the implicit assumptions that there are no inequalities among different socioeconomic groups, and also that the likelihood of a mother or child receiving a given intervention is independent from the probability of receiving any other interventions. It is reasonable to assume that, as a consequence of these assumptions, LiST estimates may exaggerate the numbers of lives saved in a population, by ignoring the fact that coverage is likely to be lower and mortality higher among the poor than the rich, and also by failing to take into account that coverage with different interventions may be clustered at individual mothers and children – a phenomenon described as co-coverage. We used data from 127 DHS surveys to estimate how much these two assumptions may bias estimates produced by LiST, and conclude that under real-life conditions bias occurred in both directions, with LiST results either over or underestimating the more complex estimates. With few exceptions, bias tended to be small (less than 10% in either direction).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3847580
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38475802013-12-09 How within-country inequalities and co-coverage may affect LiST estimates of lives saved by scaling up interventions Victora, Cesar G Barros, Aluisio J D Malpica-Llanos, Tanya Walker, Neff BMC Public Health Review Lives-saved estimates calculated by LiST include the implicit assumptions that there are no inequalities among different socioeconomic groups, and also that the likelihood of a mother or child receiving a given intervention is independent from the probability of receiving any other interventions. It is reasonable to assume that, as a consequence of these assumptions, LiST estimates may exaggerate the numbers of lives saved in a population, by ignoring the fact that coverage is likely to be lower and mortality higher among the poor than the rich, and also by failing to take into account that coverage with different interventions may be clustered at individual mothers and children – a phenomenon described as co-coverage. We used data from 127 DHS surveys to estimate how much these two assumptions may bias estimates produced by LiST, and conclude that under real-life conditions bias occurred in both directions, with LiST results either over or underestimating the more complex estimates. With few exceptions, bias tended to be small (less than 10% in either direction). BioMed Central 2013-09-17 /pmc/articles/PMC3847580/ /pubmed/24564259 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-S3-S24 Text en Copyright © 2013 Victora et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review
Victora, Cesar G
Barros, Aluisio J D
Malpica-Llanos, Tanya
Walker, Neff
How within-country inequalities and co-coverage may affect LiST estimates of lives saved by scaling up interventions
title How within-country inequalities and co-coverage may affect LiST estimates of lives saved by scaling up interventions
title_full How within-country inequalities and co-coverage may affect LiST estimates of lives saved by scaling up interventions
title_fullStr How within-country inequalities and co-coverage may affect LiST estimates of lives saved by scaling up interventions
title_full_unstemmed How within-country inequalities and co-coverage may affect LiST estimates of lives saved by scaling up interventions
title_short How within-country inequalities and co-coverage may affect LiST estimates of lives saved by scaling up interventions
title_sort how within-country inequalities and co-coverage may affect list estimates of lives saved by scaling up interventions
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3847580/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24564259
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-S3-S24
work_keys_str_mv AT victoracesarg howwithincountryinequalitiesandcocoveragemayaffectlistestimatesoflivessavedbyscalingupinterventions
AT barrosaluisiojd howwithincountryinequalitiesandcocoveragemayaffectlistestimatesoflivessavedbyscalingupinterventions
AT malpicallanostanya howwithincountryinequalitiesandcocoveragemayaffectlistestimatesoflivessavedbyscalingupinterventions
AT walkerneff howwithincountryinequalitiesandcocoveragemayaffectlistestimatesoflivessavedbyscalingupinterventions