Linking household survey and health facility data for effective coverage measures: a comparison of ecological and individual linking methods using the Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey in Côte d’Ivoire

Résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Population-based measures of intervention coverage are used in low- and middle-income countries for program planning, prioritization, and evaluation. There is increased interest in effective coverage, which integrates information about service quality or health outcomes. Approaches proposed for quality-adjusted effective coverage include linking data on need and service contact from population-based surveys with data on service quality from health facility surveys. However, there is limited evidence about the validity of different linking methods for effective coverage estimation. METHODS: We collaborated with the 2016 Côte d'Ivoire Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) to link data from a health provider assessment to care-seeking data collected by the MICS in the Savanes region of Côte d'Ivoire. The provider assessment was conducted in a census of public and non-public health facilities and pharmacies in Savanes in May-June 2016. We also included community health workers managing sick children who served the clusters sampled for the MICS. The provider assessment collected information on structural and process quality for antenatal care, delivery and immediate newborn care, postnatal care, and sick child care. We linked the MICS and provider data using exact-match and ecological linking methods, including aggregate linking and geolinking methods. We compared the results obtained from exact-match and ecological methods. RESULTS: We linked 731 of 786 care-seeking episodes (93%) from the MICS to a structural quality score for the provider named by the respondent. Effective coverage estimates computed using exact-match methods were 13%-63% lower than the care-seeking estimates from the MICS. Absolute differences between exact match and ecological linking methods were ±7 percentage points for all ecological methods. Incorporating adjustments for provider category and weighting by service-specific utilization into the ecological methods generally resulted in better agreement between ecological and exact match estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Ecological linking may be a feasible and valid approach for estimating quality-adjusted effective coverage when a census of providers is used. Adjusting for provider type and caseload may improve agreement with exact match results. There remain methodological questions to be addressed to develop guidance on using linking methods for estimating quality-adjusted effective coverage, including the effect of facility sampling and time displacement.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.