How within-country inequalities and co-coverage may affect LiST estimates of lives saved by scaling up interventions

Cesar G. Victora, Aluisio J D Barros, Tanya Malpica-Llanos, Neff Walker

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Lives-saved estimates calculated by LiST include the implicit assumptions that there are no inequalities among different socioeconomic groups, and also that the likelihood of a mother or child receiving a given intervention is independent from the probability of receiving any other interventions. It is reasonable to assume that, as a consequence of these assumptions, LiST estimates may exaggerate the numbers of lives saved in a population, by ignoring the fact that coverage is likely to be lower and mortality higher among the poor than the rich, and also by failing to take into account that coverage with different interventions may be clustered at individual mothers and children - a phenomenon described as co-coverage. We used data from 127 DHS surveys to estimate how much these two assumptions may bias estimates produced by LiST, and conclude that under real-life conditions bias occurred in both directions, with LiST results either over or underestimating the more complex estimates. With few exceptions, bias tended to be small (less than 10% in either direction).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numberS24
JournalBMC Public Health
Volume13
Issue numberSUPPL.3
DOIs
StatePublished - 2013

Fingerprint

Mothers
Mortality
Population
Direction compound
Surveys and Questionnaires

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

How within-country inequalities and co-coverage may affect LiST estimates of lives saved by scaling up interventions. / Victora, Cesar G.; Barros, Aluisio J D; Malpica-Llanos, Tanya; Walker, Neff.

In: BMC Public Health, Vol. 13, No. SUPPL.3, S24, 2013.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Victora, Cesar G. ; Barros, Aluisio J D ; Malpica-Llanos, Tanya ; Walker, Neff. / How within-country inequalities and co-coverage may affect LiST estimates of lives saved by scaling up interventions. In: BMC Public Health. 2013 ; Vol. 13, No. SUPPL.3.
@article{f5fcc5e2b6d447fa97fb75781a104283,
title = "How within-country inequalities and co-coverage may affect LiST estimates of lives saved by scaling up interventions",
abstract = "Lives-saved estimates calculated by LiST include the implicit assumptions that there are no inequalities among different socioeconomic groups, and also that the likelihood of a mother or child receiving a given intervention is independent from the probability of receiving any other interventions. It is reasonable to assume that, as a consequence of these assumptions, LiST estimates may exaggerate the numbers of lives saved in a population, by ignoring the fact that coverage is likely to be lower and mortality higher among the poor than the rich, and also by failing to take into account that coverage with different interventions may be clustered at individual mothers and children - a phenomenon described as co-coverage. We used data from 127 DHS surveys to estimate how much these two assumptions may bias estimates produced by LiST, and conclude that under real-life conditions bias occurred in both directions, with LiST results either over or underestimating the more complex estimates. With few exceptions, bias tended to be small (less than 10{\%} in either direction).",
author = "Victora, {Cesar G.} and Barros, {Aluisio J D} and Tanya Malpica-Llanos and Neff Walker",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1186/1471-2458-13-S3-S24",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "13",
journal = "BMC Public Health",
issn = "1471-2458",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "SUPPL.3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How within-country inequalities and co-coverage may affect LiST estimates of lives saved by scaling up interventions

AU - Victora, Cesar G.

AU - Barros, Aluisio J D

AU - Malpica-Llanos, Tanya

AU - Walker, Neff

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - Lives-saved estimates calculated by LiST include the implicit assumptions that there are no inequalities among different socioeconomic groups, and also that the likelihood of a mother or child receiving a given intervention is independent from the probability of receiving any other interventions. It is reasonable to assume that, as a consequence of these assumptions, LiST estimates may exaggerate the numbers of lives saved in a population, by ignoring the fact that coverage is likely to be lower and mortality higher among the poor than the rich, and also by failing to take into account that coverage with different interventions may be clustered at individual mothers and children - a phenomenon described as co-coverage. We used data from 127 DHS surveys to estimate how much these two assumptions may bias estimates produced by LiST, and conclude that under real-life conditions bias occurred in both directions, with LiST results either over or underestimating the more complex estimates. With few exceptions, bias tended to be small (less than 10% in either direction).

AB - Lives-saved estimates calculated by LiST include the implicit assumptions that there are no inequalities among different socioeconomic groups, and also that the likelihood of a mother or child receiving a given intervention is independent from the probability of receiving any other interventions. It is reasonable to assume that, as a consequence of these assumptions, LiST estimates may exaggerate the numbers of lives saved in a population, by ignoring the fact that coverage is likely to be lower and mortality higher among the poor than the rich, and also by failing to take into account that coverage with different interventions may be clustered at individual mothers and children - a phenomenon described as co-coverage. We used data from 127 DHS surveys to estimate how much these two assumptions may bias estimates produced by LiST, and conclude that under real-life conditions bias occurred in both directions, with LiST results either over or underestimating the more complex estimates. With few exceptions, bias tended to be small (less than 10% in either direction).

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84884307218&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84884307218&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/1471-2458-13-S3-S24

DO - 10.1186/1471-2458-13-S3-S24

M3 - Article

C2 - 24564259

AN - SCOPUS:84884307218

VL - 13

JO - BMC Public Health

JF - BMC Public Health

SN - 1471-2458

IS - SUPPL.3

M1 - S24

ER -