Amouzou Agbessi, Leslie Hannah Hogan, Ram Malathi, Fox Monica, Jiwani Safia S, Requejo Jennifer, Marchant Tanya, Munos Melinda Kay, Vaz Lara M E, Weiss William, Hayashi Chika, Boerma Ties
Department of International Health, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Global Health and Population, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Jun 24;4(Suppl 4):e001297. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001297. eCollection 2019.
Current methods for measuring intervention coverage for reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health and nutrition (RMNCH+N) do not adequately capture the quality of services delivered. Without information on the quality of care, it is difficult to assess whether services provided will result in expected health improvements. We propose a six-step coverage framework, starting from a target population to (1) service contact, (2) likelihood of services, (3) crude coverage, (4) quality-adjusted coverage, (5) user-adherence-adjusted coverage and (6) outcome-adjusted coverage. We support our framework with a comprehensive review of published literature on effective coverage for RMNCH+N interventions since 2000. We screened 8103 articles and selected 36 from which we summarised current methods for measuring effective coverage and computed the gaps between 'crude' coverage measures and quality-adjusted measures. Our review showed considerable variability in data sources, indicator definitions and analytical approaches for effective coverage measurement. Large gaps between crude coverage and quality-adjusted coverage levels were evident, ranging from an average of 10 to 38 percentage points across the RMNCH+N interventions assessed. We define effective coverage as the proportion of individuals experiencing health gains from a service among those who need the service, and distinguish this from other indicators along a coverage cascade that make quality adjustments. We propose a systematic approach for analysis along six steps in the cascade. Research to date shows substantial drops in effective delivery of care across these steps, but variation in methods limits comparability of the results. Advancement in coverage measurement will require standardisation of effective coverage terminology and improvements in data collection and methodological approaches.
目前用于衡量生殖、孕产妇、新生儿、儿童健康与营养(RMNCH+N)干预措施覆盖率的方法,无法充分体现所提供服务的质量。如果没有关于医疗服务质量的信息,就难以评估所提供的服务是否会带来预期的健康改善。我们提出了一个六步覆盖率框架,从目标人群开始,依次为:(1)服务接触,(2)获得服务的可能性,(3)粗略覆盖率,(4)质量调整覆盖率,(5)用户依从性调整覆盖率,以及(6)结果调整覆盖率。我们通过全面回顾自2000年以来关于RMNCH+N干预措施有效覆盖率的已发表文献,来支持我们的框架。我们筛选了8103篇文章,从中选取了36篇,总结了当前衡量有效覆盖率的方法,并计算了“粗略”覆盖率指标与质量调整指标之间的差距。我们的综述表明,在有效覆盖率测量的数据来源、指标定义和分析方法方面存在很大差异。粗略覆盖率和质量调整覆盖率水平之间存在明显差距,在所评估的RMNCH+N干预措施中,差距平均为10至38个百分点。我们将有效覆盖率定义为在需要某项服务的人群中,因该服务而获得健康改善的个体比例,并将其与覆盖层级中其他进行质量调整的指标区分开来。我们提出了一种沿覆盖层级六个步骤进行系统分析的方法。迄今为止的研究表明,在这些步骤中医疗服务的有效提供大幅下降,但方法的差异限制了结果的可比性。提高覆盖率测量水平需要对有效覆盖率术语进行标准化,并改进数据收集和方法学途径。