Cargando…

Does adjusting for recall in trend analysis affect coverage estimates for maternal and child health indicators? An analysis of DHS and MICS survey data

BACKGROUND: The Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) are the major data sources in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) for evaluating health service coverage. For certain maternal and child health (MCH) indicators, the two surveys use different reca...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ngandu, Nobubelo K., Manda, Samuel, Besada, Donela, Rohde, Sarah, Oliphant, Nicholas P., Doherty, Tanya
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Co-Action Publishing 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102105/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27829489
http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/gha.v9.32408
_version_ 1782466397646880768
author Ngandu, Nobubelo K.
Manda, Samuel
Besada, Donela
Rohde, Sarah
Oliphant, Nicholas P.
Doherty, Tanya
author_facet Ngandu, Nobubelo K.
Manda, Samuel
Besada, Donela
Rohde, Sarah
Oliphant, Nicholas P.
Doherty, Tanya
author_sort Ngandu, Nobubelo K.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) are the major data sources in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) for evaluating health service coverage. For certain maternal and child health (MCH) indicators, the two surveys use different recall periods: 5 years for DHS and 2 years for MICS. OBJECTIVE: We explored whether the different recall periods for DHS and MICS affect coverage trend analyses as well as missing data and coverage estimates. DESIGNS: We estimated coverage, using proportions with 95% confidence intervals, for four MCH indicators: intermittent preventive treatment of malaria in pregnancy, tetanus vaccination, early breastfeeding and postnatal care. Trends in coverage were compared using data from 1) standard 5-year DHS and 2-year MICS recall periods (unmatched) and 2) DHS restricted to 2-year recall to match the MICS 2-year recall periods (matched). Linear regression was used to explore the relationship between length of recall, missing data and coverage estimates. RESULTS: Differences in coverage trends were observed between matched and unmatched data in 7 of 18 (39%) comparisons performed. The differences were in the direction of the trend over time, the slope of the coverage change or the significance levels. Consistent trends were seen in 11 of the 18 (61%) comparisons. Proportion of missing data was inversely associated with coverage estimates in both short (2 years) and longer (5 years) recall of the DHS (r=−0.3, p=0.02 and r=−0.4, p=0.004, respectively). The amount of missing information was increased for longer recall compared with shorter recall for all indicators (significant odds ratios ranging between 1.44 and 7.43). CONCLUSIONS: In a context where most LMICs are dependent on population-based household surveys to derive coverage estimates, users of these types of data need to ensure that variability in recall periods and the proportion of missing data across data sources are appropriately accounted for when trend analyses are conducted.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5102105
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Co-Action Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51021052016-11-18 Does adjusting for recall in trend analysis affect coverage estimates for maternal and child health indicators? An analysis of DHS and MICS survey data Ngandu, Nobubelo K. Manda, Samuel Besada, Donela Rohde, Sarah Oliphant, Nicholas P. Doherty, Tanya Glob Health Action Original Article BACKGROUND: The Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) are the major data sources in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) for evaluating health service coverage. For certain maternal and child health (MCH) indicators, the two surveys use different recall periods: 5 years for DHS and 2 years for MICS. OBJECTIVE: We explored whether the different recall periods for DHS and MICS affect coverage trend analyses as well as missing data and coverage estimates. DESIGNS: We estimated coverage, using proportions with 95% confidence intervals, for four MCH indicators: intermittent preventive treatment of malaria in pregnancy, tetanus vaccination, early breastfeeding and postnatal care. Trends in coverage were compared using data from 1) standard 5-year DHS and 2-year MICS recall periods (unmatched) and 2) DHS restricted to 2-year recall to match the MICS 2-year recall periods (matched). Linear regression was used to explore the relationship between length of recall, missing data and coverage estimates. RESULTS: Differences in coverage trends were observed between matched and unmatched data in 7 of 18 (39%) comparisons performed. The differences were in the direction of the trend over time, the slope of the coverage change or the significance levels. Consistent trends were seen in 11 of the 18 (61%) comparisons. Proportion of missing data was inversely associated with coverage estimates in both short (2 years) and longer (5 years) recall of the DHS (r=−0.3, p=0.02 and r=−0.4, p=0.004, respectively). The amount of missing information was increased for longer recall compared with shorter recall for all indicators (significant odds ratios ranging between 1.44 and 7.43). CONCLUSIONS: In a context where most LMICs are dependent on population-based household surveys to derive coverage estimates, users of these types of data need to ensure that variability in recall periods and the proportion of missing data across data sources are appropriately accounted for when trend analyses are conducted. Co-Action Publishing 2016-11-07 /pmc/articles/PMC5102105/ /pubmed/27829489 http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/gha.v9.32408 Text en © 2016 Nobubelo K. Ngandu et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
spellingShingle Original Article
Ngandu, Nobubelo K.
Manda, Samuel
Besada, Donela
Rohde, Sarah
Oliphant, Nicholas P.
Doherty, Tanya
Does adjusting for recall in trend analysis affect coverage estimates for maternal and child health indicators? An analysis of DHS and MICS survey data
title Does adjusting for recall in trend analysis affect coverage estimates for maternal and child health indicators? An analysis of DHS and MICS survey data
title_full Does adjusting for recall in trend analysis affect coverage estimates for maternal and child health indicators? An analysis of DHS and MICS survey data
title_fullStr Does adjusting for recall in trend analysis affect coverage estimates for maternal and child health indicators? An analysis of DHS and MICS survey data
title_full_unstemmed Does adjusting for recall in trend analysis affect coverage estimates for maternal and child health indicators? An analysis of DHS and MICS survey data
title_short Does adjusting for recall in trend analysis affect coverage estimates for maternal and child health indicators? An analysis of DHS and MICS survey data
title_sort does adjusting for recall in trend analysis affect coverage estimates for maternal and child health indicators? an analysis of dhs and mics survey data
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102105/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27829489
http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/gha.v9.32408
work_keys_str_mv AT ngandunobubelok doesadjustingforrecallintrendanalysisaffectcoverageestimatesformaternalandchildhealthindicatorsananalysisofdhsandmicssurveydata
AT mandasamuel doesadjustingforrecallintrendanalysisaffectcoverageestimatesformaternalandchildhealthindicatorsananalysisofdhsandmicssurveydata
AT besadadonela doesadjustingforrecallintrendanalysisaffectcoverageestimatesformaternalandchildhealthindicatorsananalysisofdhsandmicssurveydata
AT rohdesarah doesadjustingforrecallintrendanalysisaffectcoverageestimatesformaternalandchildhealthindicatorsananalysisofdhsandmicssurveydata
AT oliphantnicholasp doesadjustingforrecallintrendanalysisaffectcoverageestimatesformaternalandchildhealthindicatorsananalysisofdhsandmicssurveydata
AT dohertytanya doesadjustingforrecallintrendanalysisaffectcoverageestimatesformaternalandchildhealthindicatorsananalysisofdhsandmicssurveydata