Linking household surveys and facility assessments: a comparison of geospatial methods using nationally representative data from Malawi.

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Michael A Peters, Diwakar Mohan, Patrick Naphini, Emily Carter, Melissa A Marx
{"title":"Linking household surveys and facility assessments: a comparison of geospatial methods using nationally representative data from Malawi.","authors":"Michael A Peters, Diwakar Mohan, Patrick Naphini, Emily Carter, Melissa A Marx","doi":"10.1186/s12963-020-00242-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Linking facility and household surveys through geographic methods is a popular technique to draw conclusions about the relationship between health services and population health outcomes at local levels. These methods are useful tools for measuring effective coverage and tracking progress towards Universal Health Coverage, but are understudied. This paper compares the appropriateness of several geospatial methods used for linking individuals (within displaced survey cluster locations) to their source of family planning (at undisplaced health facilities) at a national level.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In Malawi, geographic methods linked a population health survey, rural clusters from the Woman's Questionnaire of the 2015 Malawi Demographic and Health Survey (MDHS 2015), to Malawi's national health facility census to understand the service environment where women receive family planning services. Individuals from MDHS 2015 clusters were linked to health facilities through four geographic methods: (i) closest facility, (ii) buffer (5 km), (iii) administrative boundary, and (iv) a newly described theoretical catchment area method. Results were compared across metrics to assess the number of unlinked clusters (data lost), the number of linkages per cluster (precision of linkage), and the number of women linked to their last source of modern contraceptive (appropriateness of linkage).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The closest facility and administrative boundary methods linked every cluster to at least one facility, while the 5-km buffer method left 288 clusters (35.3%) unlinked. The theoretical catchment area method linked all but one cluster to at least one facility (99.9% linked). Closest facility, 5-km buffer, administrative boundary, and catchment methods linked clusters to 1.0, 1.4, 21.1, and 3.3 facilities on average, respectively. Overall, the closest facility, 5-km buffer, administrative boundary, and catchment methods appropriately linked 64.8%, 51.9%, 97.5%, and 88.9% of women to their last source of modern contraceptive, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Of the methods studied, the theoretical catchment area linking method loses a marginal amount of population data, links clusters to a relatively low number of facilities, and maintains a high level of appropriate linkages. This linking method is demonstrated at scale and can be used to link individuals to qualities of their service environments and better understand the pathways through which interventions impact health.</p>","PeriodicalId":51476,"journal":{"name":"Population Health Metrics","volume":"18 1","pages":"30"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7731755/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Population Health Metrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12963-020-00242-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Linking facility and household surveys through geographic methods is a popular technique to draw conclusions about the relationship between health services and population health outcomes at local levels. These methods are useful tools for measuring effective coverage and tracking progress towards Universal Health Coverage, but are understudied. This paper compares the appropriateness of several geospatial methods used for linking individuals (within displaced survey cluster locations) to their source of family planning (at undisplaced health facilities) at a national level.

Methods: In Malawi, geographic methods linked a population health survey, rural clusters from the Woman's Questionnaire of the 2015 Malawi Demographic and Health Survey (MDHS 2015), to Malawi's national health facility census to understand the service environment where women receive family planning services. Individuals from MDHS 2015 clusters were linked to health facilities through four geographic methods: (i) closest facility, (ii) buffer (5 km), (iii) administrative boundary, and (iv) a newly described theoretical catchment area method. Results were compared across metrics to assess the number of unlinked clusters (data lost), the number of linkages per cluster (precision of linkage), and the number of women linked to their last source of modern contraceptive (appropriateness of linkage).

Results: The closest facility and administrative boundary methods linked every cluster to at least one facility, while the 5-km buffer method left 288 clusters (35.3%) unlinked. The theoretical catchment area method linked all but one cluster to at least one facility (99.9% linked). Closest facility, 5-km buffer, administrative boundary, and catchment methods linked clusters to 1.0, 1.4, 21.1, and 3.3 facilities on average, respectively. Overall, the closest facility, 5-km buffer, administrative boundary, and catchment methods appropriately linked 64.8%, 51.9%, 97.5%, and 88.9% of women to their last source of modern contraceptive, respectively.

Conclusions: Of the methods studied, the theoretical catchment area linking method loses a marginal amount of population data, links clusters to a relatively low number of facilities, and maintains a high level of appropriate linkages. This linking method is demonstrated at scale and can be used to link individuals to qualities of their service environments and better understand the pathways through which interventions impact health.

将住户调查与设施评估联系起来:利用马拉维具有全国代表性的数据对地理空间方法进行比较。
背景:通过地理方法将医疗机构和住户调查联系起来,是一种常用的技术,可用于得出医疗服务与地方人口健康结果之间关系的结论。这些方法是衡量有效覆盖率和跟踪全民健康覆盖进展情况的有用工具,但研究不足。本文比较了几种地理空间方法的适当性,这些方法用于在全国范围内将个人(在流离失所的调查群组地点内)与其计划生育来源(在未流离失所的医疗机构内)联系起来:在马拉维,地理方法将人口健康调查、2015 年马拉维人口与健康调查(MDHS 2015)妇女问卷中的农村群组与马拉维全国医疗机构普查联系起来,以了解妇女接受计划生育服务的服务环境。通过四种地理方法将 2015 年人口与健康调查群组中的个人与医疗机构联系起来:(i) 最近的医疗机构,(ii) 缓冲区(5 公里),(iii) 行政边界,(iv) 新描述的理论集水区方法。对不同指标的结果进行比较,以评估未链接群组的数量(数据丢失)、每个群组的链接数量(链接的精确度)以及与最后一个现代避孕药具来源链接的妇女人数(链接的适当性):最近设施法和行政边界法将每个群组与至少一个设施联系起来,而 5 公里缓冲区法则有 288 个群组(35.3%)没有联系起来。理论集水区法将除一个群组外的所有群组与至少一个设施联系起来(99.9%的群组与设施联系起来)。最近设施法、5 公里缓冲区法、行政边界法和集水区法分别将各群组与平均 1.0、1.4、21.1 和 3.3 个设施联系起来。总体而言,最近设施、5 公里缓冲区、行政边界和集聚法分别将 64.8%、51.9%、97.5% 和 88.9% 的妇女与她们最后的现代避孕药具来源适当地联系起来:在所研究的方法中,理论集水区联系法仅损失了少量人口数据,将集群与相对较少的设施联系起来,并保持了较高水平的适当联系。这种联系方法在规模上得到了验证,可用于将个人与其服务环境的质量联系起来,并更好地了解干预措施影响健康的途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Population Health Metrics
Population Health Metrics PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
审稿时长
29 weeks
期刊介绍: Population Health Metrics aims to advance the science of population health assessment, and welcomes papers relating to concepts, methods, ethics, applications, and summary measures of population health. The journal provides a unique platform for population health researchers to share their findings with the global community. We seek research that addresses the communication of population health measures and policy implications to stakeholders; this includes papers related to burden estimation and risk assessment, and research addressing population health across the full range of development. Population Health Metrics covers a broad range of topics encompassing health state measurement and valuation, summary measures of population health, descriptive epidemiology at the population level, burden of disease and injury analysis, disease and risk factor modeling for populations, and comparative assessment of risks to health at the population level. The journal is also interested in how to use and communicate indicators of population health to reduce disease burden, and the approaches for translating from indicators of population health to health-advancing actions. As a cross-cutting topic of importance, we are particularly interested in inequalities in population health and their measurement.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信