A methodological framework to assess temporal trends and sub-national disparities in healthcare quality metrics using facility surveys, with applications to sick-child care in Kenya, Senegal, and Tanzania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Monitoring healthcare quality at a subnational resolution is key to identify and resolve geographic inequities and ensure that no sub-population is left behind. Yet, health facility surveys are typically not powered to report reliable estimates at a subnational scale. In this study, we present a framework to fill this gap and jointly analyse publicly available facility survey data, allowing exploration of temporal trends and subnational disparities in healthcare quality metrics. Specifically, our Bayesian hierarchical model includes random effects to account for differences between survey instruments; space-time processes to leverage correlations in space and time; and covariates to incorporate auxiliary information. We apply this framework to Kenya, Senegal, and Tanzania - three countries with at least four rounds of standardized facility surveys each – and estimate the readiness and process quality of sick-child care over time and across subnational areas. These estimates of readiness and process quality of care over time and at a fine spatial resolution show uneven progress in improving facility-based service provision in Kenya, Senegal, and Tanzania. For instance, while national gains in overall readiness of care improved in Tanzania, geographic inequities persisted; in contrast, Senegal, and Kenya experienced stagnation in overall readiness at the national level, but disparities grew across subnational areas. Overall, providers adhered to about one-third of the clinical guidelines for managing sick-child illnesses at the national level. Yet across subnational units, such adherence greatly varied (e.g., 25% to 85% between counties of Kenya in 2020). Our new approach enables identifies precise estimation of changes in the spatial distribution of healthcare quality metrics over time, at a a programmatic spatial resolution, and with accompanying uncertainty estimates. Use of our framework will provide new insights at a policy-relevant spatial resolution for national and regional decision-makers, and international funders.
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 | 0.115 | 0.151 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".