MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4247584427 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-26377/v1

Using Routine Health Information Data for Research in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

2020· review· en· W4247584427 on OpenAlexaff
Yuen Wai Hung, Klesta Hoxha, Bridget R. Irwin, Michael R. Law, Karen A. Grépin

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData extractionEconLitHealth informaticsScopusData qualityInformation systemLow and middle income countriesMEDLINEMedicineDeveloping countryEnvironmental healthBusinessPublic healthPolitical scienceEconomic growthNursingMetric (unit)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Routine health information systems (RHISs) support resource allocation and management decisions at all levels of the health system, as well as strategy development and policy-making in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Although RHIS data represent a rich source of information, such data are currently underused for research purposes, largely due to concerns over data quality. Given that substantial investments have been made in strengthening RHISs in LMICs in recent years and the growing demand for more real-time data from researchers, this systematic review builds upon the existing literature to summarize the extent to which RHIS data have been used in peer-reviewed research publications. Methods: Using terms ‘routine health information system’, ‘health information system’, or ‘health management information system’ and a list of LMICs, four electronic peer-review literature databases were searched from inception to February 20 2019: PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and EconLit. Articles were assessed based on pre-determined eligibility criteria. Identified characteristics were extracted using a piloted data extraction form. Results: We identified 132 studies that met our inclusion criteria in 37 different countries. Overall, the majority of the studies identified were from Sub-Saharan African countries and were published in the last five years. Malaria and maternal health were the most commonly studied health conditions, although a number of other health conditions and health services were also explored. Conclusions: Our study identified an increasing use of RHIS data in research with many studies applying rigorous study designs and analytic methods to advance program evaluation, monitoring and assessment of services, and epidemiology in LMICs. RHIS data represent an underused source of data and should be further embraced by the research community to gain insights from LMIC health systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.235
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.235
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.006
Bibliometrics0.0310.037
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.405
GPT teacher head0.565
Teacher spread0.160 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207