Feasibility of establishing a core set of sexual, reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health indicators in humanitarian settings: results from a multi-methods assessment in the Democratic Republic of Congo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reliable and rigorously collected sexual, reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health (SRMNCAH) data in humanitarian settings are often sparse and variable in quality across different humanitarian settings, and there is a lack of consensus about a core set of indicators that humanitarian actors including national health systems should report on. To address this gap in quality data, the World Health Organization (WHO) developed a core set of indicators for monitoring and evaluating SRMNCAH services and outcomes and assessed their feasibility in four countries, including the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) with the goal of aggregating information from global consultations and field-level assessments to reach consensus on a set of core SRMNCAH indicators among WHO partners. METHODS: The feasibility assessment in the DRC focused on the following constructs: relevance/usefulness, feasibility of measurement, systems and resources, and ethical issues. The multi-methods assessment included five components; a desk review, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, facility assessments, and observational sessions. RESULTS: The findings suggest that there is widespread support among stakeholders for developing a standardized core list of SRMNCAH indicators to be collected among all humanitarian actors in the DRC. There are numerous resources and data collection systems that could be leveraged, built upon, and improved to ensure the feasibility of collecting this proposed set of indicators. However, the data collection load requested from donors, the national government, international and UN agencies, and coordination/cluster systems must be better harmonized, standardized, and less burdensome. CONCLUSIONS: Despite stakeholder support in developing a core set of indicators, this would only be useful if it has the buy-in from the international community. Greater harmonization and coordination, alongside increased resource allocation, would improve data collection efforts and allow stakeholders to meet indicators' reporting requirements.
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 | 0.297 | 0.285 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".