ABSTRACT
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.
What is already known?
Linking population-based and provider data is a means of generating effective coverage estimates, however little guidance exists on methodological considerations for linking these data sources
What are the new findings?
62 publications address issues related to the 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
There was variable and limited evidence on the suitability of data household and provider data, particularly collecting and constructing indicators of provider quality, and on the implications of the design of existing data sources
The most consistent evidence suggested under certain conditions, combining data sets based of geographical proximity or administrative unit produced similar estimates to linking based on the specific provider utilized
What do the new findings imply?
There is need for additional research to develop evidence-based, standardized best practices for linked analyses of health system and population data
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the Improving Coverage Measurement grant (OPP1172551) from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The funders did not have any role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data or in writing the manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval was not required as this review only included publicly available, published data.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
As a review article, this article reports data from previously published studies.
