Using multi-country household surveys to understand who provides reproductive and maternal health services in low and middle-income countries: a critical appraisal of the Demographic and Health Surveys.


Footman, K; Benova, L; Goodman, C; Macleod, D; Lynch, CA; Penn-Kekana, L; Campbell, OM; (2015) Using multi-country household surveys to understand who provides reproductive and maternal health services in low and middle-income countries: a critical appraisal of the Demographic and Health Surveys. Tropical medicine & international health , 20 (5). pp. 589-606. ISSN 1360-2276 DOI: 10.1111/tmi.12471

[img] Text - Published Version
License:

Download (265Kb)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) are a vital data resource for cross-country comparative analyses. This study is part of a set of analyses assessing the types of providers being used for reproductive and maternal health care across 57 countries. Here, we examine some of the challenges encountered using DHS data for this purpose, present the provider classification we used, and provide recommendations to enable more detailed and accurate cross-country comparisons of healthcare provision.<br/> METHODS: We used the most recent DHS surveys between 2000 and 2012; 57 countries had data on family planning and delivery care providers and 47 countries had data on antenatal care. Every possible response option across the 57 countries was listed and categorised. We then developed a classification to group provider response options according to two key dimensions: clinical nature and profit motive.<br/> RESULTS: We classified the different types of maternal and reproductive healthcare providers, and the individuals providing care. Documented challenges encountered during this process were limitations inherent in household survey data based on respondents' self-report; conflation of response options in the questionnaire or at the data processing stage; category errors of the place vs. professional for delivery; inability to determine whether care received at home is from the public or private sector; a large number of negligible response options; inconsistencies in coding and analysis of data sets; and the use of inconsistent headings.<br/> CONCLUSIONS: To improve clarity, we recommend addressing issues such as conflation of response options, data on public vs. private provider, inconsistent coding and obtaining metadata. More systematic and standardised collection of data would aid international comparisons of progress towards improved financial protection, and allow us to better characterise the incentives and commercial nature of different providers.<br/>

Item Type: Article
Faculty and Department: Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health > Dept of Infectious Disease Epidemiology
Faculty of Public Health and Policy > Dept of Global Health and Development
Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases > Dept of Disease Control
Faculty of Public Health and Policy > Dept of Health Services Research and Policy
Research Centre: Centre for Maternal, Reproductive and Child Health (MARCH)
Maternal Health Group
PubMed ID: 25641212
Web of Science ID: 352534600004
URI: http://researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/id/eprint/2167288

Statistics


Download activity - last 12 months
Downloads since deposit
198Downloads
293Hits
Accesses by country - last 12 months
Accesses by referrer - last 12 months
Impact and interest
Additional statistics for this record are available via IRStats2

Actions (login required)

Edit Item Edit Item