English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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 utilised 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 that 58% of the 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 that 64% of the 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.

global health action

Exploring approaches to weighting estimates of facility readiness to provide health services used for estimating input-adjusted effective coverage: a case study using data from Tanzania