Lenka Benova1,2, Ann-Beth Moller3, Kathleen Hill4, Lara M E Vaz5, Alison Morgan6, Claudia Hanson7,8, Katherine Semrau9, Shams Al Arifeen10, Allisyn C Moran11. 1. Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom. 2. Department of Public Health, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium. 3. Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. 4. Maternal Child Survival Program, Jhpiego, Washington, DC, United States of America. 5. Population Reference Bureau, Washington, DC, United States of America. 6. Nossal Institute for Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 7. Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 8. Department of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom. 9. Division of Global Health Equity Brigham & Women's Hospital, Department of Medicine, Ariadne Labs, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America. 10. Maternal and Child Health Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh. 11. Department of Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rigorous monitoring supports progress in achieving maternal and newborn mortality and morbidity reductions. Recent work to strengthen measurement for maternal and newborn health highlights the existence of a large number of indicators being used for this purpose. The definitions and data sources used to produce indicator estimates vary and challenges exist with completeness, accuracy, transparency, and timeliness of data. The objective of this study is to create a conceptual overview of how indicator validity is defined and understood by those who develop and use maternal and newborn health indicators. METHODS: A conceptual framework of validity was developed using mixed methods. We were guided by principles for conceptual frameworks and by a review of the literature and key maternal and newborn health indicator guidance documents. We also conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with 32 key informants chosen through purposive sampling. RESULTS: We categorised indicator validity into three main types: criterion, convergent, and construct. Criterion or diagnostic validity, comparing a measure with a gold standard, has predominantly been used to assess indicators of care coverage and content. Studies assessing convergent validity quantify the extent to which two or more indicator measurement approaches, none of which is a gold-standard, relate. Key informants considered construct validity, or the accuracy of the operationalisation of a concept or phenomenon, a critical part of the overall assessment of indicator validity. CONCLUSION: Given concerns about the large number of maternal and newborn health indicators currently in use, a more consistent understanding of validity can help guide prioritization of key indicators and inform development of new indicators. All three types of validity are relevant for evaluating the performance of maternal and newborn health indicators. We highlight the need to establish a common language and understanding of indicator validity among the various global and local stakeholders working within maternal and newborn health.
BACKGROUND: Rigorous monitoring supports progress in achieving maternal and newborn mortality and morbidity reductions. Recent work to strengthen measurement for maternal and newborn health highlights the existence of a large number of indicators being used for this purpose. The definitions and data sources used to produce indicator estimates vary and challenges exist with completeness, accuracy, transparency, and timeliness of data. The objective of this study is to create a conceptual overview of how indicator validity is defined and understood by those who develop and use maternal and newborn health indicators. METHODS: A conceptual framework of validity was developed using mixed methods. We were guided by principles for conceptual frameworks and by a review of the literature and key maternal and newborn health indicator guidance documents. We also conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with 32 key informants chosen through purposive sampling. RESULTS: We categorised indicator validity into three main types: criterion, convergent, and construct. Criterion or diagnostic validity, comparing a measure with a gold standard, has predominantly been used to assess indicators of care coverage and content. Studies assessing convergent validity quantify the extent to which two or more indicator measurement approaches, none of which is a gold-standard, relate. Key informants considered construct validity, or the accuracy of the operationalisation of a concept or phenomenon, a critical part of the overall assessment of indicator validity. CONCLUSION: Given concerns about the large number of maternal and newborn health indicators currently in use, a more consistent understanding of validity can help guide prioritization of key indicators and inform development of new indicators. All three types of validity are relevant for evaluating the performance of maternal and newborn health indicators. We highlight the need to establish a common language and understanding of indicator validity among the various global and local stakeholders working within maternal and newborn health.
Authors: Fien Claessens; Deborah Seys; Jonas Brouwers; Astrid Van Wilder; Anneke Jans; Eva Marie Castro; Luk Bruyneel; Dirk De Ridder; Kris Vanhaecht Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-06-30 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: R Rima Jolivet; Jewel Gausman; Richard Adanu; Delia Bandoh; Maria Belizan; Mabel Berrueta; Suchandrima Chakraborty; Ernest Kenu; Nizamuddin Khan; Magdalene Odikro; Veronica Pingray; Sowmya Ramesh; Niranjan Saggurti; Paula Vázquez; Ana Langer Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-01-17 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Kimberly Peven; Louise Tina Day; Debra Bick; Edward Purssell; Cath Taylor; Joseph Akuze; Lindsay Mallick Journal: Glob Health Sci Pract Date: 2021-12-21
Authors: Amnesty E LeFevre; Fatima Mir; Dipak K Mitra; Shabina Ariff; Diwakar Mohan; Imran Ahmed; Shazia Sultana; Peter J Winch; Sadia Shakoor; Nicholas E Connor; Mohammad Shahidul Islam; Shams El-Arifeen; M A Quaiyum; Abdullah H Baqui; Michael G Gravett; Mathuram Santosham; Zulfiqar A Bhutta; Anita Zaidi; Samir K Saha; Saifuddin Ahmed; Sajid Soofi; Linda A Bartlett Journal: J Glob Health Date: 2021-11-27 Impact factor: 4.413