Suppr超能文献

衡量生殖、母婴、新生儿、儿童和青少年健康项目中社会问责制干预措施效果的方法:系统评价与批判。

Methods to measure effects of social accountability interventions in reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health programs: systematic review and critique.

机构信息

DEPTH Research Group, Department of Public Health, Environments & Society, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK.

Global Health Centre, Geneva Graduate Institute, Chemin Eugène-Rigot 2, 1202, Genève, Switzerland.

出版信息

J Health Popul Nutr. 2020 Dec 7;39(1):13. doi: 10.1186/s41043-020-00220-z.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

There is no agreed way to measure the effects of social accountability interventions. Studies to examine whether and how social accountability and collective action processes contribute to better health and healthcare services are underway in different areas of health, and health effects are captured using a range of different research designs.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of our review is to help inform evaluation efforts by identifying, summarizing, and critically appraising study designs used to assess and measure social accountability interventions' effects on health, including data collection methods and outcome measures. Specifically, we consider the designs used to assess social accountability interventions for reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health (RMNCAH).

DATA SOURCES

Data were obtained from the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Social Policy & Practice databases.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included papers published on or after 1 January 2009 that described an evaluation of the effects of a social accountability intervention on RMNCAH.

RESULTS

Twenty-two papers met our inclusion criteria. Methods for assessing or reporting health effects of social accountability interventions varied widely and included longitudinal, ethnographic, and experimental designs. Surprisingly, given the topic area, there were no studies that took an explicit systems-orientated approach. Data collection methods ranged from quantitative scorecard data through to in-depth interviews and observations. Analysis of how interventions achieved their effects relied on qualitative data, whereas quantitative data often raised rather than answered questions, and/or seemed likely to be poor quality. Few studies reported on negative effects or harms; studies did not always draw on any particular theoretical framework. None of the studies where there appeared to be financial dependencies between the evaluators and the intervention implementation teams reflected on whether or how these dependencies might have affected the evaluation. The interventions evaluated in the included studies fell into the following categories: aid chain partnership, social audit, community-based monitoring, community-linked maternal death review, community mobilization for improved health, community reporting hotline, evidence for action, report cards, scorecards, and strengthening health communities.

CONCLUSIONS

A wide range of methods are currently being used to attempt to evaluate effects of social accountability interventions. The wider context of interventions including the historical or social context is important, as shown in the few studies to consider these dimensions. While many studies collect useful qualitative data that help illuminate how and whether interventions work, the data and analysis are often limited in scope with little attention to the wider context. Future studies taking into account broader sociopolitical dimensions are likely to help illuminate processes of accountability and inform questions of transferability of interventions. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (registration # CRD42018108252).

摘要

背景

目前尚无衡量社会问责干预效果的公认方法。正在不同卫生领域开展研究,以检验和了解社会问责和集体行动进程是否以及如何有助于改善卫生和医疗服务,并且使用了一系列不同的研究设计来衡量卫生效果。

目的

我们的综述旨在通过确定、总结和批判性评估用于评估和衡量社会问责干预对健康影响的研究设计,包括数据收集方法和结果衡量指标,为评估工作提供信息。具体而言,我们考虑了用于评估生殖、孕产妇、新生儿、儿童和青少年健康(RMNCAH)方面的社会问责干预措施的设计。

资料来源

数据来自 Cochrane 图书馆、EMBASE、MEDLINE、SCOPUS 和社会政策与实践数据库。

入选标准

我们纳入了 2009 年 1 月 1 日或之后发表的描述社会问责干预对 RMNCAH 影响的评估论文。

结果

有 22 篇论文符合纳入标准。评估社会问责干预措施对健康影响的方法差异很大,包括纵向、人种学和实验设计。令人惊讶的是,鉴于该主题领域,没有任何研究采用明确的系统导向方法。数据收集方法从量化记分卡数据到深入访谈和观察不等。对干预措施如何实现其效果的分析依赖于定性数据,而定量数据往往提出了问题而不是回答了问题,并且/或者似乎质量较差。很少有研究报告负面效果或危害;研究并不总是借鉴任何特定的理论框架。在所评估的研究中,没有一个研究表明评估者和干预实施团队之间存在财务依赖关系,也没有一个研究报告了这种依赖关系是否以及如何影响评估。所纳入研究中评估的干预措施属于以下几类:援助链伙伴关系、社会审计、社区监测、以社区为基础的孕产妇死亡审查、社区动员以改善健康、社区举报热线、行动证据、记分卡、评分卡和加强社区健康。

结论

目前正在使用各种方法来尝试评估社会问责干预措施的效果。包括历史或社会背景在内的干预措施的更广泛背景很重要,正如少数考虑这些方面的研究所示。虽然许多研究收集了有用的定性数据,有助于说明干预措施的运作方式和效果,但数据和分析往往范围有限,很少关注更广泛的背景。考虑到更广泛的社会政治层面的未来研究可能有助于阐明问责制的过程,并为干预措施的可转移性问题提供信息。该综述方案已在 PROSPERO(注册号 CRD42018108252)中注册。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验