ABSTRACT
The ideal approach for calculating effective coverage of health services using ecological linking requires accounting for variability in facility readiness to provide health services and patient volume by incorporating adjustments for facility type into estimates of facility readiness and weighting facility readiness estimates by service-specific caseload. The aim of this study is to compare the ideal caseload-weighted facility readiness approach to two alternative approaches 1) facility-weighted readiness and 2) observation-weighted readiness to assess the suitability of each as a proxy for caseload-weighted facility readiness. We utilized the 2014-2015 Tanzania Service Provision Assessment along with routine health information system data to calculate facility readiness estimates using the three approaches. We then conducted equivalence testing, using the caseload-weighted estimates as the ideal approach and comparing with the facility-weighted estimates and observation-weighted estimates to test for equivalence. Comparing the facility-weighted readiness estimates to the caseload-weighted readiness estimates, we found 58% of estimates met the requirements for equivalence. In addition, the facility-weighted readiness estimates consistently underestimated, by a small percentage, facility readiness as compared to the caseload-weighted readiness estimates. Comparing the observation-weighted readiness estimates to the caseload-weighted readiness estimates, we found 64% of estimates met the requirements for equivalence. We found that, in this setting, both facility-weighted readiness and observation-weighted readiness may be reasonable proxies for caseload-weighted readiness. However, in a setting with more variability in facility readiness or larger differences in facility readiness between low caseload and high caseload facilities, the observation-weighted approach would be a better option than the facility-weighted approach. While the methods compared showed equivalence, our results suggest that selecting the best method for weighting readiness estimates will require assessing data availability alongside knowledge of the country context.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the Improving Measurement and Program Design grant (OPP1172551) from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
