Comparing two data collection methods to track vital events in maternal and child health via community health workers in rural Nepal

• Main Authors: Nandini Choudhury (Author), Aparna Tiwari (Author), Wan-Ju Wu (Author), Ved Bhandari (Author), Laxman Bhatta (Author), Bhawana Bogati (Author), David Citrin (Author), Scott Halliday (Author), Sonu Khadka (Author), Nutan Marasini (Author), Sachit Pandey (Author), Madeleine Ballard (Author), Hari Jung Rayamazi (Author), Sabitri Sapkota (Author), Ryan Schwarz (Author), Lisa Sullivan (Author), Duncan Maru (Author), Aradhana Thapa (Author), Sheela Maru (Author)
• Format: Book
• Published: BMC, 2022-07-01T00:00:00Z.
• Subjects: article
• Online Access: Connect to this object online.
• Notes: 10.1186/s12963-022-00293-4; 1478-7954
• Keywords: Vital events; Maternal and child health; Community health workers; mHealth; Computer applications to medicine. Medical informatics; R858-859.7; Public aspects of medicine; RA1-1270
• Source: Population Health Metrics, Vol 20, Iss 1, Pp 1-11 (2022)

Abstract Background Timely tracking of health outcomes is difficult in low- and middle-income countries without comprehensive vital registration systems. Community health workers (CHWs) are increasingly collecting vital events data while delivering routine care in low-resource settings. It is necessary, however, to assess whether routine programmatic data collected by CHWs are sufficiently reliable for timely monitoring and evaluation of health interventions. To study this, we assessed the consistency of vital events data recorded by CHWs using two methodologies-routine data collected while delivering an integrated maternal and child health intervention, and data from a birth history census approach at the same site in rural Nepal. Methods We linked individual records from routine programmatic data from June 2017 to May 2018 with those from census data, both collected by CHWs at the same site using a mobile platform. We categorized each vital event over a one-year period as 'recorded by both methods,' 'census alone,' or 'programmatic alone.' We further assessed whether vital events data recorded by both methods were classified consistently. Results From June 2017 to May 2018, we identified a total of 713 unique births collectively from the census (birth history) and programmatic maternal 'post-delivery' data. Three-fourths of these births (n = 526) were identified by both. There was high consistency in birth location classification among the 526 births identified by both methods. Upon including additional programmatic 'child registry' data, we identified 746 total births, of which 572 births were identified by both census and programmatic methods. Programmatic data (maternal 'post-delivery' and 'child registry' combined) captured more births than census data (723 vs. 595). Both methods consistently classified most infants as 'living,' while infant deaths and stillbirths were largely classified inconsistently or recorded by only one method. Programmatic data identified five infant deaths and five stillbirths not recorded in census data. Conclusions Our findings suggest that data collected by CHWs from routinely tracking pregnancies, births, and deaths are promising for timely program monitoring and evaluation. Despite some limitations, programmatic data may be more sensitive in detecting vital events than cross-sectional census surveys asking women to recall these events.