Institute for International Programs, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Population Council, New York, New York, USA.
J Glob Health. 2018 Dec;8(2):020804. doi: 10.7189/jogh.08.020804.
Population-based intervention coverage indicators are widely used to track country and program progress in improving health and to evaluate health programs. Indicator validation studies that compare survey responses to a "gold standard" measure are useful to understand whether the indicator provides accurate information. The Improving Coverage Measurement (ICM) Core Group has developed and implemented a standard approach to validating coverage indicators measured in household surveys, described in this paper.
The general design of these studies includes measurement of true health status and intervention receipt (gold standard), followed by interviews with the individuals observed, and a comparison of the observations (gold standard) to the responses to survey questions. The gold standard should use a data source external to the respondent to document need for and receipt of an intervention. Most frequently, this is accomplished through direct observation of clinical care, and/or use of a study-trained clinician to obtain a gold standard diagnosis. Follow-up interviews with respondents should employ standard survey questions, where they exist, as well as alternative or additional questions that can be compared against the standard household survey questions.
Indicator validation studies should report on participation at every stage, and provide data on reasons for non-participation. Metrics of individual validity (sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) and population-level validity (inflation factor) should be reported, as well as the percent of survey responses that are "don't know" or missing. Associations between interviewer and participant characteristics and measures of validity should be assessed and reported.
These methods allow respondent-reported coverage measures to be validated against more objective measures of need for and receipt of an intervention, and should be considered together with cognitive interviewing, discriminative validity, or reliability testing to inform decisions about which indicators to include in household surveys. Public health researchers should assess the evidence for validity of existing and proposed household survey coverage indicators and consider validation studies to fill evidence gaps.
基于人群的干预覆盖指标被广泛用于跟踪国家和项目在改善健康方面的进展,并评估卫生项目。将调查答复与“黄金标准”测量值进行比较的指标验证研究有助于了解该指标是否提供了准确的信息。改进覆盖范围测量(ICM)核心小组制定并实施了一种标准方法来验证家庭调查中测量的覆盖范围指标,本文对此进行了描述。
这些研究的总体设计包括对真实健康状况和干预措施的接受情况进行测量(黄金标准),然后对所观察到的个体进行访谈,并将观察结果(黄金标准)与调查问题的答复进行比较。黄金标准应使用受访者以外的数据源来记录干预措施的需求和接受情况。最常见的方法是通过直接观察临床护理来实现,以及/或使用经过研究培训的临床医生来获得黄金标准诊断。对受访者的后续访谈应使用标准调查问题(如果存在),以及可与标准家庭调查问题进行比较的替代或附加问题。
指标验证研究应报告每个阶段的参与情况,并提供未参与的原因数据。应报告个体有效性(灵敏度、特异性、接收者操作特征曲线下面积)和人群有效性(膨胀因子)的指标,以及调查答复中“不知道”或缺失的百分比。应评估和报告访谈者和参与者特征与有效性衡量标准之间的关联。
这些方法允许将受访者报告的覆盖范围衡量标准与干预需求和接受情况的更客观衡量标准进行比较,应与认知访谈、判别有效性或可靠性测试一起考虑,以告知关于将哪些指标纳入家庭调查的决策。公共卫生研究人员应评估现有和拟议的家庭调查覆盖范围指标的有效性证据,并考虑进行验证研究以填补证据空白。