scholarly journals Comment on ‘Measuring the impact of medicines regulatory interventions - systematic review and methodological considerations’ by Goedecke et al .

2018 ◽  
Vol 84 (9) ◽  
pp. 2167-2168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Y. Lu ◽  
Stephen B. Soumerai
2017 ◽  
Vol 84 (3) ◽  
pp. 419-433 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Goedecke ◽  
Daniel R. Morales ◽  
Alexandra Pacurariu ◽  
Xavier Kurz

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. e045704
Author(s):  
Emily D Carter ◽  
Hannah H Leslie ◽  
Tanya Marchant ◽  
Agbessi Amouzou ◽  
Melinda K Munos

ObjectiveTo assess existing knowledge related to methodological considerations for linking population-based surveys and health facility data to generate effective coverage estimates. Effective coverage estimates the proportion of individuals in need of an intervention who receive it with sufficient quality to achieve health benefit.DesignSystematic review of available literature.Data sourcesMedline, Carolina Population Health Center and Demographic and Health Survey publications and handsearch of related or referenced works of all articles included in full text review. The search included publications from 1 January 2000 to 29 March 2021.Eligibility criteriaPublications explicitly evaluating (1) the suitability of data, (2) the implications of the design of existing data sources and (3) the impact of choice of method for combining datasets to obtain linked coverage estimates.ResultsOf 3805 papers reviewed, 70 publications addressed relevant issues. Limited data suggest household surveys can be used to identify sources of care, but their validity in estimating intervention need was variable. Methods for collecting provider data and constructing quality indices were diverse and presented limitations. There was little empirical data supporting an association between structural, process and outcome quality. Few studies addressed the influence of the design of common data sources on linking analyses, including imprecise household geographical information system data, provider sampling design and estimate stability. The most consistent evidence suggested under certain conditions, combining data based on geographical proximity or administrative catchment (ecological linking) produced similar estimates to linking based on the specific provider utilised (exact match linking).ConclusionsLinking household and healthcare provider data can leverage existing data sources to generate more informative estimates of intervention coverage and care. However, existing evidence on methods for linking data for effective coverage estimation are variable and numerous methodological questions remain. There is need for additional research to develop evidence-based, standardised best practices for these analyses.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily D Carter ◽  
Hannah H Leslie ◽  
Tanya Marchant ◽  
Agbessi Amouzou ◽  
Melinda Munos

Effective coverage measures assess the proportion of a population that receive a health intervention with sufficient quality to achieve health benefit. Linking population-based surveys and health facility data is a promising means of generating effective coverage estimates, however, little guidance exists on methodological considerations for these analyses. We conducted a systematic review to assess existing knowledge related to 1) the suitability of data used in linking analyses, 2) the implications of the design of existing data sources commonly used in linking analyses, and 3) the impact of choice of method for combining datasets to obtain linked coverage estimates. The primary search was completed in Medline, with additional reviews of select sources. Of 3192 papers reviewed, 62 publications addressed issues related to linking household and provider datasets. Limited data suggest household surveys can be used to identify sources of care, but their validity in estimating a denominator of intervention need was variable. Methods for collecting provider data and constructing quality indices were variable and presented limitations. There was little empirical data supporting an association between structural, process, and outcome quality. Few studies addressed the influence of the design of common data sources on linking analyses, including imprecise household GIS data, provider sampling frame and sampling design, and estimate stability. There was a lack of concrete evidence around the impact of these factors on linked effective coverage estimates. The most consistent evidence suggested under certain conditions, combining data sets based on geographical proximity (ecological linking) produced similar estimates to linking based on the specific provider utilized (exact-match linking). Linking household and healthcare provider can leverage existing data sources to generate more informative estimates of intervention coverage and care. However, there is need for additional research to develop evidence-based, standardized best practices for these analyses.


2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carina Van Rooyen ◽  
Ruth Stewart ◽  
Thea De Wet

Big international development donors such as the UK’s Department for International Development and USAID have recently started using systematic review as a methodology to assess the effectiveness of various development interventions to help them decide what is the ‘best’ intervention to spend money on. Such an approach to evidence-based decision-making has long been practiced in the health sector in the US, UK, and elsewhere but it is relatively new in the development field. In this article we use the case of a systematic review of the impact of microfinance on the poor in sub-Saharan African to indicate how systematic review as a methodology can be used to assess the impact of specific development interventions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document