Understanding the challenges associated with the use of data from routine health information systems in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Routine health information systems (RHISs) are crucial to informing decision-making at all levels of the health system. However, the use of RHIS data in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is limited due to concerns regarding quality, accuracy, timeliness, completeness and representativeness. OBJECTIVE: This study systematically reviewed technical, behavioural and organisational/environmental challenges that hinder the use of RHIS data in LMICs and strategies implemented to overcome these challenges. METHOD: Four electronic databases were searched for studies describing challenges associated with the use of RHIS data and/or strategies implemented to circumvent these challenges in LMICs. Identified articles were screened against inclusion and exclusion criteria by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: Sixty studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review, 55 of which described challenges in using RHIS data and 20 of which focused on strategies to address these challenges. Identified challenges and strategies were organised by their technical, behavioural and organisational/environmental determinants and by the core steps of the data process. Organisational/environmental challenges were the most commonly reported barriers to data use, while technical challenges were the most commonly addressed with strategies. CONCLUSION: Despite the known benefits of RHIS data for health system strengthening, numerous challenges continue to impede their use in practice. IMPLICATIONS: Additional research is needed to identify effective strategies for addressing the determinants of RHIS use, particularly given the disconnect identified between the type of challenge most commonly described in the literature and the type of challenge most commonly targeted for interventions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.048 | 0.211 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".