ArticlesMind the gap: equity and trends in coverage of maternal, newborn, and child health services in 54 Countdown countries
Introduction
Coverage, defined as the percentage of people receiving a specific intervention in those who need it,1 is an important output of health services and should be an essential part of any strategy to monitor progress in programme implementation. Coverage includes two interactive components—service provision and service use—indicating the need for effective public health actions to address both supply and demand. The ability to reach and maintain high rates of coverage for priority interventions among the general and disadvantaged populations in a country is an indication of the strength of the health system.2
The Countdown to 2015 for Maternal, Newborn and Child Survival3 initiative consists of individuals and institutions who share the aim of stimulating country action by tracking coverage for interventions that are essential for the attainment of major health Millennium Development Goals (MDG). The Countdown strategy is to establish a process through which national and international policy makers, programme implementers, development and media partners, and researchers can work together to compile and disseminate the most recent information about individual countries' progress in achieving high, sustained, and equitable coverage—with health interventions effective in reducing mortality in women, newborn babies, and children under 5 years of age. Country-specific data are presented for the 68 countries that represent an estimated 97% of yearly maternal and child deaths worldwide.4 Coverage levels are presented in the Countdown report in a two-page country profile that combines estimates and trends for coverage with other information needed to interpret them.3 This profile includes country-specific data for nutrition and mortality, the uptake of relevant policies, the status of selected measures of health system strength, and equity.
Previous work has shown the usefulness of an index that summarises coverage across a range of interventions.5 Victora and colleagues5 used data from Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) to construct a so-called co-coverage score including eight public health interventions with proven benefit in reducing child mortality: vaccinations for BCG, diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus (DPT), and measles; tetanus toxoid vaccination for the mother; vitamin A supplementation; antenatal care; skilled birth attendance; and safe water supply. The resulting score was used as an outcome measure to describe within-country inequalities in coverage by socioeconomic status, and served as the indicator of equity in the 2005 cycle of Countdown.2 The co-coverage score was calculated for each child within the survey sample, and was therefore limited to the subset of interventions that all children and their mothers should receive—ie, the measure was limited to preventive interventions. A similar measure was recently used to describe inequities in coverage of four neonatal survival interventions in eight countries.6
A wider range of interventions was used to develop a composite measure of health system coverage to compare health system performance between states in Mexico.7 This measure was based on 14 interventions for child and adult health for which state-level estimates of coverage were available. This method allowed the inclusion of curative as well as preventive interventions.
Here we extend these earlier efforts by developing and applying an aggregate coverage gap measure based on a broad set of interventions in maternal, newborn, and child health programme areas. The immediate objective was to develop a summary measure of coverage that could be used to assess and report on equity in the 2008 Countdown cycle, with special attention to time trends.
Section snippets
Data
Estimates for intervention coverage were obtained from large-scale nationally-representative surveys implemented under the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) programme8 or UNICEF's Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) programme9 between 1990 and 2006. Coverage data were obtained in these surveys through standardised interviews with women aged 15–49 years. We included all low-income and lower middle-income countries identified as priority countries in the 2008 Countdown cycle.4 Data from
Results
Table 2 shows the mean coverage gap by wealth quintile for the summary measure and each of the four intervention areas with respective indicators for 54 countries, on the basis of the most recent survey data (median year of survey 2004). The mean overall gap was 43%, ranging from around 54% for the poorest to almost 29% for the wealthiest quintiles. The mean size of the gap was largest for the treatment interventions, followed by family planning and maternal and newborn care, and was smallest
Discussion
We have shown that the coverage gap index can serve as a reliable and meaningful summary measure to describe and monitor trends and equity in coverage of key interventions for maternal, newborn, and child health. The basic approach identifies a set of intervention areas, each containing one or more coverage indicators that have distinct delivery strategies within the health system.
One application of the coverage gap index is to document long-term trends. The summary measure of the four
References (22)
- et al.
Reducing child mortality: can public health deliver?
Lancet
(2003) - et al.
Countdown to 2015: tracking intervention coverage for child survival
Lancet
(2006) - et al.
Co-coverage of preventive interventions and implications for child-survival strategies: evidence from national surveys
Lancet
(2005) - et al.
Benchmarking of performance of Mexican states with effective coverage
Lancet
(2006) - et al.
Continuum of care for maternal, newborn, and child health: from slogan to service delivery
Lancet
(2007) - et al.
Explaining trends in inequities: evidence from Brazilian child health studies
Lancet
(2000) - et al.
Tracking progress in maternal, newborn, and child survival: the 2008 report
Countdown to 2015 for maternal, newborn, and child survival: the 2008 report on tracking intervention coverage
Lancet
(2008)- et al.
Inequities in neonatal survival interventions: evidence from national surveys
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed
(2008) Demographic and Health Surveys
Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys
Cited by (235)
Delivery channels and socioeconomic inequalities in coverage of reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health interventions: analysis of 36 cross-sectional surveys in low-income and middle-income countries
2021, The Lancet Global HealthCitation Excerpt :The indicators selected, their definitions, and the target age groups are in appendix 4 (pp 7–8). On the basis of how interventions are usually delivered to women, children, and households in most LMICs,1,3,4,9 we grouped the 20 interventions into four groups, as follows: environmental interventions, including clean fuels for cooking, improved sanitation, and piped water; health facility-based interventions, including antenatal care (four or more visits), institutional childbirth, postnatal visit for mothers, and birth registration; community-based interventions, including demand for family planning satisfied with modern methods (appendix 4 p 7), postnatal visit for babies, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP3) immunisation, measles immunisation, polio immunisation, vitamin A supplementation, care seeking for any disease, oral rehydration treatment for diarrhoea, minimum dietary diversity, antimalarial treatment for fever, and ownership of insecticide-treated bednets or household sprayed; and culturally driven interventions, including exclusive breastfeeding (0–5 months) and continued breastfeeding (12–15 months). Of these interventions, antimalarial treatment for fever and ownership of insecticide-treated bednets or household sprayed were only collected in countries endemic for malaria.
Economic-related inequalities in child health interventions: An analysis of 65 low- and middle-income countries
2021, Social Science and Medicine
- ‡
Members listed at end of paper