Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Apr 1;19(4):e0298101. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298101

Quality of routine health facility data for monitoring maternal, newborn and child health indicators: A desk review of DHIS2 data in Lumbini Province, Nepal

Keshab Sanjel 1,*, Shiv Lal Sharma 2, Swadesh Gurung 1, Man Bahadur Oli 3, Samikshya Singh 1, Tuk Prasad Pokhrel 4
Editor: Kanchan Thapa5
PMCID: PMC10984527  PMID: 38557754

Abstract

Introduction

Health-facility data serves as a primary source for monitoring service provision and guiding the attainment of health targets. District Health Information Software (DHIS2) is a free open software predominantly used in low and middle-income countries to manage the facility-based data and monitor program wise service delivery. Evidence suggests the lack of quality in the routine maternal and child health information, however there is no robust analysis to evaluate the extent of its inaccuracy. We aim to bridge this gap by accessing the quality of DHIS2 data reported by health facilities to monitor priority maternal, newborn and child health indicators in Lumbini Province, Nepal.

Methods

A facility-based descriptive study design involving desk review of Maternal, Neonatal and Child Health (MNCH) data was used. In 2021/22, DHIS2 contained a total of 12873 reports in safe motherhood, 12182 reports in immunization, 12673 reports in nutrition and 12568 reports in IMNCI program in Lumbini Province. Of those, monthly aggregated DHIS2 data were downloaded at one time and included 23 priority maternal and child health related data items. Of these 23 items, nine were chosen to assess consistency over time and identify outliers in reference years. Twelve items were selected to examine consistency between related data, while five items were chosen to assess the external consistency of coverage rates. We reviewed the completeness, timeliness and consistency of these data items and considered the prospects for improvement.

Results

The overall completeness of facility reporting was found within 98% to 100% while timeliness of facility reporting ranged from 94% to 96% in each Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (MNCH) datasets. DHIS2 reported data for all 9 MNCH data items are consistent over time in 4 of 12 districts as all the selected data items are within ±33% difference from the provincial ratio. Of the eight MNCH data items assessed, four districts reported ≥5% monthly values that were moderate outliers in a reference year with no extreme outliers in any districts. Consistency between six-pairs of data items that are expected to show similar patterns are compared and found that three pairs are within ±10% of each other in all 12 districts. Comparison between the coverage rates of selected tracer indicators fall within ±33% of the DHS survey result.

Conclusion

Given the WHO data quality guidance and national benchmark, facilities in the Lumbini province well maintained the completeness and timeliness of MNCH datasets. Nevertheless, there is room for improvement in maintaining consistency over time, plausibility and predicted relationship of reported data. Encouraging the promotion of data review through the data management committee, strengthening the system inbuilt data validation mechanism in DHIS2, and promoting routine data quality assessment systems should be greatly encouraged.

Introduction

Routine health information system comprises data collection, analysis, dissemination and use that provides information at regular intervals and that is produced through routine mechanisms [1]. It aims to improve health management through optimal informational support [2]. Informational support is required for all levels of health management for planning, policy making, operational management and continuous quality improvement [3]. The functionality of the health system and the ability of policymakers to assess the impact of health system initiatives on population health heavily rely on the quality of routine health information generated in the health facilities [4].

Many countries, particularly in low-income settings, lack well-functioning information systems that can support health system strengthening. The large variety and volume of data produced in public health facilities through routine health systems are often overlooked due to their poor quality [57]. Specific data quality issues may arise, including incomplete, inconsistent, and irrelevant data, as well as imprecise estimates of the target population for coverage. These issues could limit the usefulness of the data for decision-makers [8, 9]. It is common to observe discrepancies between the findings derived from data generated in routine health information systems and those obtained through population-based surveys [10].

The Countdown to 2030, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and other global initiatives emphasize the importance of routine health information system to monitor and measure progress and take corrective action [1113]. Nepal is also the part of these initiatives and developed action plans to reduce preventable deaths for mothers and children and has made considerable investment in strengthening information systems, to support performance management and service delivery [14, 15].

The DHIS2 is customizable free open source software currently used in over 75+ countries to manage and visualize routine health information. It has advance system for transmission and aggregation of data faster than paper-based information systems [13, 16]. The Ministry of Health and Population (MoHP) in Nepal introduced DHIS2 nationally as an electronic platform for data management since 2016. The DHIS2 Platform is being used as a national database for electronic management of the Health Management Information System (HMIS) data. Being a digital platform, it increases the accessibility of facility data for program managers at federal, provincial and local levels. Although the DHIS2 is operational in Nepal, few assessments suggest the health facilities usually report incomplete, untimely, incorrect and inconsistent data in HMIS that do not provide a good basis for knowledge-based decision-making on health system [17, 18]. Reported data might be subjected to data quality limitations like presence of measurement error, missing values and human errors in data collection, tally, data entry and calculation [17, 18]. This might jeopardize the efforts in achieving targets both at subnational and national levels.

Data quality monitoring could be done to figure-out how much confidence we can place in the routine data that are used to measure performance and to articulate relative strengths and weaknesses of the routine data sources. Therefore, this study aims to assess the quality of facility based MNCH data in DHIS2 to monitor priority maternal and child health indicators in Lumbini Province, Nepal. The key maternal and child health indicators of Lumbini province are reported to be either above or consistent with national average but challenge remains to achieve national as well as SDG targets. Data reveals that, almost 84% of births in the province are delivered at health facilities and 87% of births are assisted by a skilled birth attendants [19]. Almost 97% of children are fully immunized, incidence of diarrhoea and pneumonia among under-five children (per 1000) are 346.6 and 29.3, respectively [20]. Still, 25% of children under age 5 are stunted and 29% are underweight [19]. The assessment will review the quality of key indicators reported through the routine information system in Lumbini Province.

Methods

Study Setting

Lumbini Province is one of the seven provinces of Nepal. It is located within western region and comprises a total population of 5.1 million [21]. The province has 12 districts and 109 local levels. Provincial Ministry of Health (MoH) oversees the health service delivery in secondary and tertiary facilities, and health sections in each local levels oversee the basic health facilities including basic hospitals, health posts, urban health clinics, basic health service centers and others.

A total of 1047 health facilities across 12 districts reported to DHIS2 in 2021/22. In general, health facility staff complete the Health Management Information System (HMIS) registers to document the services they provide each day. Every month, selected data in these registers are tallied, compiled and summarized in paper based monthly HMIS reports and health facilities either enter into DHIS2 by themselves (72%) or send to the municipal health section (28%) for data entry into DHIS2.

Study design and data sources

We employed a facility-based descriptive study design to examine the facility-based MNCH service data in DHIS2. In 2021/22, DHIS2 contained a total of 12,509 reports. Reports refer to the monthly report submitted by each health facility through HMIS system (Report code: HMIS 9.3/9.4/9.5). This report includes individual sections for immunization, safe motherhood, nutrition, and IMNCI. Of those reports, monthly aggregated DHIS2 data for the reference year 2021/22 were downloaded at one time and included priority maternal and child health related data elements (Table 1). Additionally, we downloaded data for three previous fiscal years (FY 2018/19 to 2020/21) as comparison years for assessing the consistency of reported data over time. We also accessed the Nepal Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) 2022 key indicators report to measure the consistency of DHIS2 data with the estimates from external sources of data. For this, five tracer indicators are taken from both DHIS2 and NDHS survey and compared the results.

Table 1. Priority maternal, newborn and child health data items for data consistency review.

Priority maternal and child health data items Data quality metrics
Consistency over time Outliers in reference year (2021/22) Consistency between related data Consistency between DHS survey and DHIS2 data
Data elements (in number)
First Antenatal care (ANC) visit (any time) ×
Pregnant women receiving deworming tablets ×
Four ANC visits as per protocol × × ×
Pregnant women receiving 180 Iron tablets ×
Total institutional deliveries × × ×
Total delivery presentations (Cephalic, Shoulder, Breech) ×
Women received delivery incentive on transportation × ×
3 Postnatal Care (PNC) Visits as per Protocol × ×
Children Immunized with BCG × ×
Children Immunized with DPT-HepB-Hib 1st ×
Children Immunized with PCV- 1st ×
Children Immunized with Measles/Rubella-2nd × ×
New Growth Monitoring visits (0–11 months) × ×
Children with exclusive Breastfeeding practice × ×
Diarrhoea cases (2–59 months) ×
Diraahoea cases treated with ORS and Zinc × × ×
Pneumonia cases (2–59 months) ×
Pneumonia cases treated with antibiotics ×
Indicators
Percentage of four or more ANC visits ×
Percentage of institutional delivery ×
Births assisted by skilled provider ×
BCG coverage ×
Measles Rubella1 ×

The symbol ’×’ denotes the selection of data items in each row corresponding to the data quality metrics mentioned in the respective column of the table above

Selection of priority maternal and child health indicators

DHIS2 listed four MNCH datasets: Immunization, Community Based Management of Neonatal and Childhood Illness (CBIMNCI), Nutrition, and Safe Motherhood, are considered for assessing completeness and timeliness of facility reporting. To select these dataset related data items, we selected priority MNCH related data items from the Data quality Review Toolkit (Module 1) developed by World Health Organization [22]. The selection of data items takes into account the MNCH continuum of care approach, their ability to cross-verify and measure data quality issues, as well as their importance in program monitoring and evaluation, as stated in national and provincial policy documents [2325]. (Table 1).

Data analysis

We assessed the timeliness and completeness of facility reporting for the MNCH-specific datasets, as specified in DHIS2. We reviewed the consistency of the DHIS2 data according to metrics outlined by the World Health Organization data quality report card and a toolkit for facility data quality assessment [22, 26]. Data items are also contextualized based on the data validation rules set in the DHIS2 platform and considered the data review guideline practiced by the Lumbini Province (Table 2). We applied each of the metrics to assess the data quality status at the district level.

Table 2. Data quality dimensions, metrics and benchmarks.

Data Quality metric Measurement/analysis
Dimension 1: Completeness and timeliness
Completeness of facility reporting Percentage of expected monthly reports of MNCH datasets submitted in 2021/22
Extent to which each health facilities submitted monthly reports in DHIS2 (calculated based on MNCH datasets)
Completeness of facility reporting should be 100%
Timeliness of facility reporting Percentage of expected monthly reports of MNCH datasets submitted on time (monthly reporting by 14th of next month) in 2021/22
Extent to which each health facilities submitted monthly reports on time (calculated based on MNCH datasets)
Timeliness of facility reporting should be 90% or higher
Dimension 2: Internal consistency
Consistency over time Ratio of value of indicator for reference year (2021/22) to the mean of preceding 3 years (FY 2018/19 to 2020/21)
The consistency of the values for key MNCH indicators in the most recent year compared with the mean value of the same indicator for the previous three years combined
Ratio of value of indicator for reference year should be within ±33% of mean of preceding 3 years
[If any district has a difference by more than ±33% in more than one indicator, it is also counted once as it is the same district]
Outliers in the current year Number of moderate outliers (±2SD from the mean) and extreme outliers (±3SD from the mean) of monthly values during the reference year
Extent to which the values reported for a given indicators are extreme and potentially implausible
Value of indicator should be within ±2SD from the mean
Consistency between related data Ratio for values of indicator-pairs (a set of related data items) that have a predictable relationship
Extent to which the values for two or more indicators exhibit the predicted relationship and how much the data is trustworthy
Indicator-pairs that should be roughly equal should be within ±10% of each other (i.e., no extreme difference)
Dimension 3: External consistency of data
Consistency between household surveys and reported data in DHIS2: Extent to which values for given indicators agree with an external data source- Demographic and Health survey Ratio of indicator values in most recent household survey for facility catchment areas to matching facilities in DHIS2 Indicator values from facility reports in DHIS2 should be within ±33% of household survey value or within confidence limits of household survey.

The analysis of mentioned dimensions was performed using a Microsoft Excel Worksheet. Descriptive analyses, including frequency, percentage, mean, and ratio, were calculated to assess the quality of MNCH data items using the measurements explained in Table 2. The analysis focused on completeness and timeliness of health facility reporting, consistency over time, identification of outliers in the current year, consistency between related data, and external consistency of the data.

Results

Completeness of maternal, newborn and child health datasets

All the health facilities need to complete the assigned datasets each month for reporting completeness. At the province level, the completeness of each MNCH datasets in 2021/22 ranged from 99.7% to 99.9%. At the district level, 10 out of 12 districts have 100% completeness for immunization dataset, 7 out of 12 districts have 100% completeness for nutrition, and IMNCI datasets (in each) and 8 out of 12 districts have 100% completeness for safe motherhood datasets. Overall, The MNCH datasets in five districts (Rolpa, Gulmi, Arghakhanchi, Dang, and Bardiya) have achieved 100% completeness. Very few of the health facilities have not completed the assigned datasets in the reference year (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (MNCH) program datasets completeness status.

Fig 1

Timeliness of maternal, newborn and child health datasets

This dimension is assessed by measuring whether the health facilities which submitted reports did so before a predefined deadline set by government. By district, 9 out of 12 districts have more than 90% reporting rate on time for each of the selected datasets. The reporting timeliness of Rolpa, Pyuthan, and Bardiya districts is better in comparison to other districts. The timeliness of MNCH datasets in 2021/22 ranged from 94–96% considering provincial average (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Timeliness of maternal and child health datasets.

Fig 2

Internal consistency of reported data

This metrics examined the coherence between the same data items at different points in time (monthly, annual) and coherence between related data items. Major causes of inconsistency are an error during data entry, for example, when data are maintained in service registers, compiled in a tally sheet, and transferred to monthly reports and entered from a paper-based reports into DHIS2. Key dimensions included for assessing internal consistency include:

Consistency over time

The consistency of the time was assessed to observe whether the differences in values are expected from one year to the next. In the case where there is an existence of larger difference, it suggests the need for further scrutiny. While large differences usually suggest some type of reporting error, it is also possible that the introduction of a new intervention might have contributed to a significant percentage increase in indicator values from one year to the next. Consistency of the mean values is an indicator of reliability-meaning the greater probability that data source is trustworthy. This perspective examined the plausibility of reported data for 9 MNCH data elements in terms of the trends of reporting and determines whether reported values are extreme in relation to other values reported over four years. Table 3 depicts the consistency of the values in 2021/22 compared with the mean value of the same data item for the preceding three years combined. Eight out of 12 districts have a ratio that is more than ±33% difference from the provincial ratio in at least one data item. The data items with more than ±33% difference included: women who received transportation incentive (Palpa and Rupandehi), PNC visit as per protocol (Arghakhanchi and Bardiya), new growth monitoring (Dang) and exclusive breastfeeding (Rukum East, Palpa, Dang and Banke) (Table 3).

Table 3. Consistency over time for priority maternal and child health indicators in DHIS2.

Tracer MNCH data elements   Rukum East Rolpa Pyuthan Gulmi Arghakhanchi Palpa Nawalparasi
West
Rupandehi Kapilbastu Dang Banke Bardiya Province
Four ANC visit as per protocol Ratio of Year 4 to mean of Year 1–3 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.1 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.1
≥±33% difference from provincial ratio 8.8 -7.7 -13.1 -15.6 -5.3 -15.7 -2.9 18.0 6.2 -7.1 3.2 -18.6  
Institutional delivery Ratio of Year 4 to mean of Year 1–3 1.2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.9 1.1 0.9 1.0
≥±33% difference from provincial ratio 14.0 -6.7 -3.4 -2.6 2.4 -18.4 0.0 2.6 17.5 -7.9 4.4 -16.0  
Women received delivery incentive on transportation Ratio of Year 4 to mean of Year 1–3 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.2 0.4 1.1 1.5 1.3 0.8 1.2 0.9 1.1
≥±33% difference from provincial ratio 9.0 -13.6 -12.9 -29.5 5.0 -66.9 -5.8 35.5 12.5 -28.6 3.4 -19.4  
PNC visit as per protocol Ratio of Year 4 to mean of Year 1–3 1.7 1.7 1.6 2.0 3.8 1.9 2.7 2.1 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.2 2.0
≥±33% difference from provincial ratio -16.5 -14.1 -18.8 -0.4 89.2 -4.7 36.8 5.7 22.9 8.7 3.2 -39.0  
Children immunized with BCG Ratio of Year 4 to mean of Year 1–3 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0
≥±33% difference from provincial ratio -9.0 -16.1 1.3 -10.9 -9.2 20.5 -4.2 0.4 5.6 -2.4 7.3 -6.5  
MR2 coverge Ratio of Year 4 to mean of Year 1–3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1
≥±33% difference from provincial ratio -9.2 -4.7 -2.6 -7.0 -9.7 -9.2 -4.3 0.8 15.1 -0.5 0.3 -2.1  
Diraahoea treated with ORS and Zinc Ratio of Year 4 to mean of Year 1–3 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8
≥±33% difference from provincial ratio 18.0 1.8 -10.7 -5.3 14.1 -15.8 -4.6 3.4 -1.4 -1.1 3.8 10.6  
New growth monitoring visit (0–11) Ratio of Year 4 to mean of Year 1–3 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.1 1.4 1.3 1.0 1.0
≥±33% difference from provincial ratio -32.5 -11.9 -22.7 -23.2 -22.0 -34.3 -18.8 10.7 1.2 35.9 23.7 -2.7  
Exclusive breastfeeding Ratio of Year 4 to mean of Year 1–3 1.8 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.5 0.8 0.8 1.2 1.1 1.7 1.9 1.0 1.2
≥±33% difference from provincial ratio 47.0 -19.5 -7.6 19.0 24.0 -30.0 -35.9 -1.0 -9.5 45.4 58.9 -16.8  

Data items with ±33%difference between district and provincial ratio are bold

Data source: HMIS/DHIS2

Accuracy of event reporting: outliers in the reference year

This dimension assesses if the reported data over a period (monthly) follow a pattern with no significant variations. To achieve this, we initially conducted a normality test to identify the distribution of the data. Since the data exhibited a symmetrical distribution, we then examined the presence of outliers for eight maternal and child health data items in the reference year 2021/22. District wise, four out of 12 (Rukum East, Rolpa, Nawalparasi and Dang) have 5% or more of reported values across eight items are moderate outliers. However, extreme outliers were not reported in the reference year (Table 4). The outlier details for maternal and child health indicators are provided in the S1 and S2 Tables.

Table 4. Summary result of number of outliers in selected MNCH data items.

Indicators Rukum West Rolpa Pyuthan Gulmi Arghakhanchi Palpa Nawalparasi West Rupandehi Kapilbastu Dang Banke Bardiya
Four ANC visit as per protocol 1 1 1 1 1 1
Institutional delivery 1 1 1 1 1
Women received delivery incentive on transportation 1 1 1 1 1
Three PNC visit as per protocol 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Children immunized with MR2 2 1 1 1
Diraahoea cases treated with ORS and Zinc 1 1 1 1 1
New Growth Monitoring visit (0–11 Months children) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Exclusive Breastfeeding practice 1 1 1
Total outliers 6 6 4 1 3 3 6 1 4 5 1 4
Average % of moderate outliers (± 2–3 SD from district mean)* 6.3 6.3 4.2 1.0 3.1 3.1 6.3 1.0 4.2 5.2 1.0 4.2

Districts with ≥ 5% of values that are moderate outliers are bold

*This represents the average percentage of values classified as moderate outliers among the eight data items (calculated as the total number of outliers divided by the total expected reported values, expressed as a percentage

Data source: HMIS/DHIS2

Consistency between related data

Data items which have a predictable relationship are examined to determine whether the expected relationship exists between those data items. Out of six-pairs of data items compared, three pairs (DPT-HepB-Hib-1st Vs Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine - 1st, institutional delivery Vs delivery presentations, pneumonia cases Vs pneumonia cases treated with antibiotics) that should be equal are within ±10% of each other in all 12 districts. Related data items from the districts that should have equal values did not meet the WHO guidance are: first ANC visit (any time) of women did not equal the pregnant women receiving deworming tablets in women in Rupandehi and Dang districts, four ANC visit as per protocol did not equal the pregnant women receiving 180 iron tablets in Rupandehi district and total diarrhoea cases did not equal with diarrhoea cases treated with ORS and Zinc. Overall, the percent difference for these indicator pairs ranged from 11.4% to 14.1%. (Table 5).

Table 5. Consistency between related data in DHIS2.

Data elements/district Rukum
East
Rolpa Pyuthan Gulmi Arghakhanchi Palpa Nawalparasi
West
Rupandehi Kapilbastu Dang Banke Bardiya
Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis, Hepatitis B and Haemophilus Influenza vaccine (DPT-HepB-Hib)- 1st 1143 4464 4866 4372 3212 3783 6067 19313 14435 11431 12275 7490
Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV)-1st 1143 4448 4866 4374 3213 3783 6065 19313 14427 11445 12251 7490
% Difference 0.00 0.36 0.00 -0.05 -0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.06 -0.12 0.20 0.00
First ANC (any time) 1055 4734 4412 3928 2813 4517 7372 34846 16544 12456 14669 7876
Pregnant women receiving Deworming 980 4327 4412 3822 2833 4655 7004 30529 15275 11221 14316 7876
% Difference 7.7 9.4 0.0 2.8 -0.7 -3.0 5.3 14.1 8.3 11.0 2.5 0.0
Four ANC as per protocol 680 3257 3084 3276 2166 4143 5241 22185 9290 7922 9763 5597
Pregnant women receiving-180 Iron tablets 654 3269 3084 3279 2187 4162 5129 19785 9015 7620 9023 5597
% Difference 4.0 -0.4 0.0 -0.1 -1.0 -0.5 2.2 12.1 3.1 4.0 8.2 0.0
Institutional Deliveries 715 3304 3870 2546 1436 4526 3245 28858 8942 8029 20390 4664
Total delivery presentations 720 3304 3870 2542 1437 4527 3246 28863 8956 8046 20392 4664
% Difference -0.69 0.00 0.00 0.16 -0.07 -0.02 -0.03 -0.02 -0.16 -0.21 -0.01 0.00
Total Pneumonia cases 972 3130 1927 611 526 1022 354 886 427 1631 1474 979
Pneumonia treated with antibiotics 1051 3130 1927 620 528 972 357 888 434 1632 1474 979
% Difference -7.52 0.00 0.00 -1.45 -0.38 5.14 -0.84 -0.23 -1.61 -0.06 0.00 0.00
Total diarrhoea cases 1842 4961 3753 2644 1438 2155 2598 5935 8558 4250 5675 3866
Diarrhoea cases treated with Oral Rehydration Solution & Zinc 1654 4961 3759 2687 1490 2155 2568 6119 8744 4344 5649 3867
% Difference 11.4 0.0 -0.2 -1.6 -3.5 0.0 1.2 -3.0 -2.1 -2.2 0.5 0.0

Indicator pairs ≥±10% of each other are bold

Data source: HMIS/DHIS2

External consistency of coverage rates

This dimension assessed the level of agreement between two sources of data measuring the same health indicator based on five tracer indicators. Table 6 depicts a comparison of indicator yielded from DHIS2 to the estimates from 2021 DHS survey at the province level. The comparison of all five MNCH indicators falls within the confidence limit or within ±33% of the DHS survey result, indicating a consistent pattern between household survey data and facility-based routine data (Table 6).

Table 6. Consistency of data between HMIS/DHIS2 and DHS 2021 survey.

 Indicators Health facility coverage rate in 2021/22 DHS 2022 coverage rate Ratio of facility to survey rates ≥33% difference between routine data and survey data
Four or more ANC visits 79.5 86.9 0.9 -7.4
Health facility delivery 94.2 84.4 1.1 9.8
Births assisted by skilled provider 89.8 86.9 1.0 2.9
BCG coverage 103.1 96.6 1.1 6.5
Measles Rubella1 96.7 92.5 1.0 4.2

Discussion

Health facility reported routine data are critical for program monitoring, optimizing performance and for planning purposes [27]. We assessed the quality of routine health information for monitoring key Maternal, Newborn and Child Health Indicators of the districts in Lumbini Province. We included four MNCH datasets and 23 tracer indicators reflecting maternal and child health services for assessing data quality. Like other studies reviewing routine data, the MNCH data in DHIS2 for the districts in Lumbini Province indicate areas for improvement to fully meet all the defined criteria for internal consistency [2831], despite meeting the required criteria for timeliness and completeness.

All the districts achieved the reporting completeness of 98% or more of expected monthly reports for each MNCH datasets during the reference year 2021/22. Although few health facilities in 7 of 12 districts have issue of dataset completeness, no significant gap was observed in achieving the provincial target of 100% completeness of facility completeness in each of the datasets. Observed rate of completeness of MNCH dataset is good comparing with other provinces of Nepal and recent studies conducted in other settings. In India, average completeness levels for selected MNCH indicators were found to be 88.5% [10]. Data completeness was 76% in 17 districts of Ethiopia [32], 86.9% in Kenya [33] and 96.6% in Rwanda [34]. Challenges in achieving completeness of DHIS2 reporting are also noted in other studies as well [32, 35]. Timely submission of reports is crucial as this could have implications for guiding future plans in improving the health of maternal, newborn and child health. Based on this assessment, the provincial average of the timeliness of facility reporting ranged from 94% to 96% across MNCH datasets. Our assessment result of timeliness is observed higher than other provinces of the Nepal [36] as well as the rate reported elsewhere; 78.7% in Kenya [33], 70% in Ethiopia [37] and 46% in Uasin Gishu County Referral Hospital of Kenya, but findings are consistent to studies from Rwanda and Harari region, Ethiopia, where 93.8% and 93.7% timeliness was reported respectively [34]. Comparative higher completeness and timeliness of facility reporting rates of districts in Lumbini province could be attributable to a introduction of vigilant process of DHIS2 data sets assignment by Health Directorate, rigorous data quality review and follow-up through data management committees, six levels of reviews (health facility, LLGs, district, Provincial and federal), shifting of reporting role from municipal health sections to health facilities and knowledge transfer activities, including training and onsite coaching and mentoring on HMIS/DHIS2 [38].

DHIS2 reported data for all 9 MNCH data items in the reference year are consistent over time in 4 of 12 districts as all the selected data elements are within in ±33% difference from the provincial ratio. The introduction of new data quality review interventions, including the establishment of data management committees, the rollout of DHIS2 at the facility level, and relevant knowledge transfer and data monitoring activities in the reference year might also have contributed to inconsistencies in reporting between the reference year and the previous three fiscal years combined. Although the studies assessing consistency over time are limited, few studies in other countries also reported some data quality issue while analyzing trend over the years [39, 40]. Differences in values are obvious over period of time; however, if the differences are so large, it usually suggests data quality issue for further scrutiny. Nevertheless, there is also possibility of an introduction of new programmatic intervention which might have contributed to significant increase in values from one year to the next. To illustrate, the phase-wise rollout of the postnatal care home visit program by the government contributed [41] to a gradual increment in PNC coverage from FY 2018/19 to 2021/22. Therefore, there might be programmatic implications in not maintaining consistency over time for the specific indicator.

The outlier analysis provided valuable insights in addition to consistency over time reflected above. The assessment included 8 MNCH indicators for outlier analysis in which average percentage of moderate outliers ranged from 1–6% in a reference year, with four districts reported ≥5% monthly values that were moderate outliers for the selected MNCH indicators. Significant variations in these districts need further assessment at the facility level to confirm that these variations are legitimate or there is a serious data quality issue. Nevertheless, none of the data elements are prone to extreme outliers in any districts. These findings are better while comparing the result with other similar studies assessing outliers [42]. In contrast, no districts had reported ≥5% monthly values with moderate or extreme outliers in a study conducted in Ruwanda [43] and Ghana [40].

Internal consistency between six-pairs of data items that are expected to show similar patterns of behaviour are compared and found that three pairs are within ±10% of each other in all 12 districts. Nevertheless, two districts did not meet the criteria in: first ANC visit (any time) of women Vs pregnant women receiving deworming tablets, four ANC visit as per protocol Vs women receiving 180 iron and total diarrhoea cases Vs treated with ORS and Zinc. Findings explored the room for improvement to ensure internal consistency, preferably through sustaining integrated data review and feedback mechanisms at multiple levels. Related indicators that should show expected numerical relationship did not meet the WHO guidance are also found in other studies as well. A study conducted in Nigeria also showed that no one of the priority MNCH indicators compared showed the anticipated numerical relationship across all facilities [39].

We analyzed the external consistency of tracer MNCH indicators between DHIS2 and 2021 survey estimates at the province level. Comparison between the coverage rates of tracer indicators fall within ±33% of the DHS survey result and none of the coverage rates are flagged. In contrast to this result, greater degree of discordance was found between DHIS2 based facility reports and household survey data in a studies conducted in other settings [35, 44].

This assessment has certain limitations. The paper-based HMIS reports were not verified with DHIS2 data, as in other studies [4547]. Advanced analysis techniques, such as t-tests or ANOVA, were not utilized in the review to evaluate temporal changes in the related indicators to make the manuscript understandable up to the health facility level. In assessing external consistency, it is important to note that the DHS survey and facility-based DHIS2 data used in this assessment should not be considered the gold standard; rather, they were compared to provide relevant references for assessing the external consistency of routine data in DHIS2. It is imperative for health managers to identify consistency between multiple sources of data in order to make informed decisions about their appropriate use. Further, as the survey coverage rates for the selected tracer indicators are not available at the district level, we have only assessed the external consistency of data at province level.

This assessment extended the evidence that the health facility data available in DHIS2 is complete and reported on time considering national benchmark. Data is credible for use, although there is room for improvement in maintaining internal consistency of reported data. Findings of this assessment can be useful to researchers for standardizing published evidence relating to MNCH related routine data quality and providing evidence to data managers to develop, focus and evaluate facility-based data quality initiatives and ultimately contributing the MNCH outcomes.

The need for quality data is crucial, specifically for populations with greater risk of mortality and morbidity, such as pregnant and lactating women, newborn, and children. Therefore, health system should design multiple strategies and be watchful to maintain complete, timely, accurate and consistent data. Routine data review, feedback, and supervision at all levels of the health system have been proven essential to optimize routine data for monitoring [28, 29, 31, 48]. Data management committees formed at the various levels should be strengthened for routine data review, practice of knowledge transfer activities and information use at local level (i.e., where data is collected) should be promoted, system- inbuilt data validation mechanism of DHIS2 should be strengthened and data quality assessment systems should greatly be encouraged. As outlier analysis revealed significant variations in data for some districts, with ≥5% occurrence of moderate outliers for the selected data items, further assessment is warranted to confirm whether these variations are legitimate or indicative of issues in the quality of data.

Ethical consideration

This assessment obtained permission to access the DHIS2 platform and consent for the publication of the manuscript from the Provincial Health Directorate Office of the Lumbini Province government (Ref No. 2759). This analysis considered non-human subject assessment as only aggregated secondary source of data which can be accessible on request or available in the DHIS2 domain were included in the assessment. No Identifiers such as name of the individuals were considered for the assessment.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Outlier analysis of maternal health indicators.

(DOCX)

pone.0298101.s001.docx (26.9KB, docx)
S2 Table. Outlier analysis of child health indicators.

(DOCX)

pone.0298101.s002.docx (26.7KB, docx)
S1 File. Data analysis results.

(XLSX)

pone.0298101.s003.xlsx (103.1KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

The assessment team is thankful to the IHIMS Section- DOHS and Health Directorate for their support in retrieval of data from DHIS2. We are also thankful to Madhav Chaulagain, Lalita Timalsina and Nilakantha Gautam for their review and feedback in finalizing the manuscript.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Hotchkiss DR, Diana ML, Foreit K. How can routine health information systems improve health systems functioning in low-and middle-income countries? Assessing the evidence base. Adv Health Care Manag. 2012;12:25–58. doi: 10.1108/s1474-8231(2012)0000012006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Lippeveld T, Sauerborn R, Bodart C, Organization WH. Design and implementation of health information systems. 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.World Health Organization. Framework and standards for country health information systems. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.AbouZahr C, Boerma T. Health information systems: the foundations of public health. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2005;83:578–83. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Mbondji PE, Kebede D, Soumbey-Alley EW, Zielinski C, Kouvividila W, Lusamba-Dikassa P-S. Health information systems in Africa: descriptive analysis of data sources, information products and health statistics. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 2014;107(1_suppl):34–45. doi: 10.1177/0141076814531750 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Mutale W, Chintu N, Amoroso C, Awoonor-Williams K, Phillips J, Baynes C, et al. Improving health information systems for decision making across five sub-Saharan African countries: Implementation strategies from the African Health Initiative. BMC health services research. 2013;13(2):1–12. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-S2-S9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Rowe AK. Potential of integrated continuous surveys and quality management to support monitoring, evaluation, and the scale-up of health interventions in developing countries. The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene. 2009;80(6):971–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kebede D, Zielinski C, Mbondji PE, Sanou I, Asamoah-Odei E, Soumbey-Alley EW. Improving the availability, quality and use of health information, research evidence and knowledge to strengthen health systems. The African Health Monitor. 2010;12:53–64. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Maina I, Wanjala P, Soti D, Kipruto H, Droti B, Boerma T. Using health-facility data to assess subnational coverage of maternal and child health indicators, Kenya. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2017;95(10):683. doi: 10.2471/BLT.17.194399 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Sharma A, Rana SK, Prinja S, Kumar R. Quality of health management information system for maternal & child health care in Haryana state, India. PLoS One. 2016;11(2):e0148449. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Boerma T, Requejo J, Victora CG, Amouzou A, George A, Agyepong I, et al. Countdown to 2030: tracking progress towards universal coverage for reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health. The Lancet. 2018;391(10129):1538–48. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30104-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Nations UNited. Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. General Assembley 70 session. 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Victora C, Requejo J, Boerma T, Amouzou A, Bhutta ZA, Black RE, et al. Countdown to 2030 for reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health and nutrition. The Lancet Global Health. 2016;4(11):e775–e6. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(16)30204-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Child Health Division. Nisulka nawajaat sishu upachar karyakram karyabidhi nirdeshika 2074. Kathmandu N, Government of Nepal MoH, Department of Health services, Child Health Division; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ministry of Health. Nepal’s every newborn action plan 2016. K, Nepal: Ministry of Health; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.District Health Information System. District Health Information System (Version 2) Overview [April 22, 2020]. https://www.dhis2.org/overview. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Department of Health Services (DoHS), Ministry of Health and Population (MoHP), Nepal; and Nepal Health Sector Programme 3/Monitoring, Evaluation and Operational Research (MEOR). 2019. Improving Accuracy of District Coverage Estimates of Health Management Information System by Annealing it with Lot Quality Assurance Sampling Community Survey Data in Nepal. Kathmandu, Nepal: DoHS, MoHP, Nepal. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Collaborative UNCsFaHD. Assessing partner alignment in support of the health information system in Nepal. 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ministry of Health and Population. Nepal Demographic and Health Survey 2022: Key Indicators Report. Ministry of Health and Population NNEaIN. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ministry of Health and Population. Progress of Health and Population Sector 2021/22 (2078/79 BS). Government of Nepal MoHaP, Kathmandu; 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Centeral Bureau of Statistics. Preliminary Report of National Population Census 2021. Government of Nepal NPC, Central Bureau of Statistics, Kathmandu; 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.World Health Organization. Data quality review: a toolkit for facility data quality assessment. Module 1. Framework and metrics. Geneva1027. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Ministry of Health and Population. Nepal Health Sector Strategic Plan 2023–2030. MoHP, Government of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ministry of Health and Population. Provincial health sector strategic implementation plan 2023–2030, Ministry of Health, Lumbini Province government, Rapti Valley (Deukhuri), Nepal, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Family Welfare Division. Nepal Safe Motherhood and Newborn Health Roadmap 2030. Family Welfare Division, Ministry of Health and Population, Government of Nepal, September 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.World Health Organization. Guide to the health facility data quality report card [Internet]. 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Maïga A, Jiwani SS, Mutua MK, Porth TA, Taylor CM, Asiki G, et al. Generating statistics from health facility data: the state of routine health information systems in eastern and southern Africa. BMJ Global Health. 2019;4(5):e001849. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001849 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Hahn D, Wanjala P, Marx M. Where is information quality lost at clinical level? A mixed-method study on information systems and data quality in three urban Kenyan ANC clinics. Global health action. 2013;6(1):21424. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Kiberu VM, Matovu JK, Makumbi F, Kyozira C, Mukooyo E, Wanyenze RK. Strengthening district-based health reporting through the district health management information software system: the Ugandan experience. BMC medical informatics and decision making. 2014;14(1):1–9. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-14-40 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Makinde O, Onazi M, Adeleke O, Ohadi E, Dieng A, Osika J. Assessment of the routine health management information system in Delta State, Federal Republic of Nigeria. Bethesda, Maryland: Health Systems. 2012;20:20. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ronveaux O, Rickert D, Hadler S, Groom H, Lloyd J, Bchir A, et al. The immunization data quality audit: verifying the quality and consistency of immunization monitoring systems. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2005;83(7):503–10. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Gebrekidan M, Hajira M, Habtamu T, Negusu W, Dereje M, Nafo-Traoré F. Data quality and information use: A systematic review to improve evidence. Ethiopia Int J Intell Inf Syst. 2012;3(6):69–75. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Manya A, Nielsen P. Reporting practices and data quality in health information systems in developing countries: an exploratory case study in Kenya. Journal of Health Informatics in Developing Countries. 2016;10(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Karengera I, Anguyo R, Onzima D, Katongole SP, Govule P. Quality and use of routine healthcare data in selected districts of eastern province of Rwanda. 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Ouedraogo M, Kurji J, Abebe L, Labonté R, Morankar S, Bedru KH, et al. A quality assessment of health management information system (HMIS) data for maternal and child health in Jimma zone, Ethiopia. PloS one. 2019;14(3):e0213600. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213600 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.District Health Management Software (Version 2) [Internet]. 2023. [cited March 2023]. Available from: https://hmis.gov.np/hmis/dhis-web-commons/security/login.action. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Amoakoh-Coleman M, Kayode GA, Brown-Davies C, Agyepong IA, Grobbee DE, Klipstein-Grobusch K, et al. Completeness and accuracy of data transfer of routine maternal health services data in the greater Accra region. BMC research notes. 2015;8(1):1–9. doi: 10.1186/s13104-015-1058-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Health Directorate. Annual Health Progress Report of FY 2078/79. Health Directorate MoH, Lumbini Province, Nepal, 2079. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Bhattacharya AA, Umar N, Audu A, Felix H, Allen E, Schellenberg JR, et al. Quality of routine facility data for monitoring priority maternal and newborn indicators in DHIS2: a case study from Gombe state, Nigeria. PloS one. 2019;14(1):e0211265. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211265 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Lasim OU, Ansah EW, Apaak D. Maternal and child health data quality in health care facilities at the Cape Coast Metropolis, Ghana. BMC Health Services Research. 2022;22(1):1–15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Department of Health Services. Nepal Safe Motherhood and Newborn Health Roadmap 2030. Family Welfare Division, Department of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Population, Government of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Adane A, Adege TM, Ahmed MM, Anteneh HA, Ayalew ES, Berhanu D, et al. Routine health management information system data in Ethiopia: consistency, trends, and challenges. Global health action. 2021;14(1):1868961. doi: 10.1080/16549716.2020.1868961 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Nisingizwe MP, Iyer HS, Gashayija M, Hirschhorn LR, Amoroso C, Wilson R, et al. Toward utilization of data for program management and evaluation: quality assessment of five years of health management information system data in Rwanda. Global health action. 2014;7(1):25829. doi: 10.3402/gha.v7.25829 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Bhattacharya AA, Allen E, Umar N, Audu A, Felix H, Schellenberg J, et al. Improving the quality of routine maternal and newborn data captured in primary health facilities in Gombe State, Northeastern Nigeria: a before-and-after study. BMJ open. 2020;10(12):e038174. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038174 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Gimbel S, Micek M, Lambdin B, Lara J, Karagianis M, Cuembelo F, et al. An assessment of routine primary care health information system data quality in Sofala Province, Mozambique. Population health metrics. 2011;9(1):1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Mlambo MG, Peltzer K, Koivu A. Prevention of Mother-to-Child Transmission of HIV data completeness and accuracy assessment in health facilities of the Nkangala District. Health SA Gesondheid (Online). 2014;19(1):1–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Omoleke SA, Tadesse MG. A pilot study of routine immunization data quality in Bunza Local Government area: causes and possible remedies. The Pan African Medical Journal. 2017;27. doi: 10.11604/pamj.2017.27.239.11875 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Brouwer H, Bindels P, Weert H. Data quality improvement in general practice. Family practice. 2006;23(5):529–36. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cml040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Kanchan Thapa

12 Apr 2023

PONE-D-23-07291Quality of Routine Health Information for Monitoring Maternal, Newborn and Child Health Indicators: An Analysis of DHIS2 Data in Lumbini Province, NepalPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sanjel,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 27 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kanchan Thapa, MPH, MPhil

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Additional Editor comments: 

I enjoyed reading your paper. The paper adds news value in the field of Public Health in Nepal and also provides important information for global readers. The paper went through extensive reviews and has several comments from the reviewer, I request you improve your paper as per the reviewer's comments.

Furthermore, the paper relies on routine data information from a routine data source of the Ministry of Health. As the data is collected through the routine health information management system of the government of Nepal. I request you provide a letter from the government (Ministry of Health) stating that they have provided consent for the publication of their information.

At this stage, I echo all the reviewer comments for further action. Please take care of all four reviewers’ comments. 

Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript entitled “Quality of Routine Health Information for Monitoring Maternal, Newborn and Child Health Indicators: An Analysis of DHIS2 Data in Lumbini Province, Nepal” was interesting. The following comments can help the authors to improve it:

1- In the abstract, please use the full form of MNCH.

2- In the abstract, results and conclusion, it is not what MNCH datasets and indicators were and how they were compared. What were the data items? Which data were not consistent?

3- Please choose appropriate keywords based on the MeSH terms.

4- In the introduction section, there is no adequate information about data quality and related indicators. Moreover, studies related to evaluating data quality of health information systems need to be reviewed and added to the introduction section.

5- In the methods section, please provide a reference for lines 126-128.

6- The authors need to explain more about Table 1. For me, it is not still clear how the data elements and indicators have been selected.

7- In Table 2, did the authors look for data elements completeness or just the completeness of reporting on a monthly basis? This question is about timeliness and consistency, too.

8- About the consistency of the mean values, the authors need to explain why it was important for them.

9- What do the authors mean by the Indicator-pairs in and six-pairs of data items Table 2?

10- Please remove unnecessary tables.

11- I think in the current study, the quality of health information has not been evaluated. If the authors did that, more information about data elements and quality indicators should be provided in the manuscript. Instead they assessed quality of facility reporting. Therefore, I suggest the authors to revise the title and the content of the manuscript to focus on quality of facility reporting not health data or information quality.

12- Apart from the statistical analysis, what are the innovative side of the research?

13- Please re-check the referencing style.

Reviewer #2: The authors sought to assess the Quality of Routine Health Information for Monitoring Maternal, Newborn and

Child Health Indicators: An Analysis of DHIS2 Data in Lumbini Province, Nepal.

Authors did not thoroughly explain the research design deployed for their study. It is important for the scientific community to appreciate the research design deployed in order to draw appropriate links to the content of the study.

The dimensions of data quality that the authors focused on were only completeness of the data, timeliness of the data and lastly the consistency/reliability of the data. However, using the same WHO data quality toolkit Module1 that the authors relied on, important dimension of data quality was conspicuously missing in the whole study. This dimension is the accuracy/validity of the data which is very important in unraveling whether the data faithfully reflects the actual level of service delivery conducted in the various health facilities included in the study. The manuscript should be modified to incorporate this important element in the assessment of quality data.

The maternal indicators highlighted by the authors did not include HIV (with its attendant number of HIV positive mothers receiving ART), TB (with TB positive mothers receiving treatment) as well as mothers who tested positive for malaria either by microscopy or RDT) as these are very important maternal health indicators highlighted by the WHO data quality toolkit Module1. Once authors sourced their secondary data from the DHIS2, it is easier to retrieve the aforementioned variables.

Authors compared six pair of data in order to establish their relationship or association. The statistical basis of the comparison is defective as authors after their initial analysis as captured in table 9 ought to have deployed regression or other correlative statistical models to consolidate the association or otherwise observed.

Authors must correct the spelling of Ethical as captured in their Ethical Considerations.

Authors must modify their study to capture the comments highlighted above.

Reviewer #3: The paper is well written with interesting topic.

The last sample size and national coverage is outstanding. However, some comments might improve this manuscript.

The comment are as follows:

1- To reduce number of tables as it provides a distraction.

2- Add more advance analysis such as t test or Anova to assess the temporal change in the related indicators to check how significant is the difference in the KPI.

3- Add more reference to the discussion part.

4- Were this study follows any guidelines such as STROBE? If no try to adapt it to assure the study is conducted in acceptable scientific writing.

Reviewer #4: The specific aim of the study was not clear. The methodology used to assessed the quality of reports did not meet the WHO Data Quality Review (DQR) Standards. Data quality assessment by WHO methodology is in two major phases

1. Desk Review

2.Site Assessment

By this article, it was only phase 1 that was carried out. I therefore suggest the author should at least sample the facilities for site assessment to authenticate the reports entered into DHIMS2 since the WHO data quality toolkit is the refeenced tool used in the study

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: ANTWI JOSEPH BARIMAH

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer comments.docx

pone.0298101.s004.docx (12.8KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2024 Apr 1;19(4):e0298101. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298101.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


11 Jul 2023

Authors’ responses to review comments:

First of all, the authors are grateful to the editors and reviewers for taking their time and providing these interesting and constructive comments that help us improve the quality of our manuscript. With this, we have tried to address all the comments point-by-point in the revised manuscript as follows.

Responses to comments by Reviewer #1:

1- In the abstract, please use the full form of MNCH.

Response: By accepting the comment, we mentioned the full form of MNCH in the revised manuscript.

2- In the abstract, results and conclusion, it is not what MNCH datasets and indicators were and how they were compared. What were the data items? Which data were not consistent?

Response: Thank you for this comment. We assessed the completeness and timeliness of facility reporting (district wise) considering datasets as listed in DHIS2 (listed datasets relating to MNCH: Safe motherhood, Immunization, Nutrition and CBIMNCI). For the consistency, we selected key MNCH data items (as listed in Table 1). Based on the comment, we slightly modified the manuscript.

3- Please choose appropriate keywords based on the MeSH terms.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We revised the keywords and used appropriate keywords based on MeSH terms.

4- In the introduction section, there is no adequate information about data quality and related indicators. Moreover, studies related to evaluating data quality of health information systems need to be reviewed and added to the introduction section.

Response: This comment is well taken. Information about data quality and studies related to data quality assessments are further reviewed and added to the introduction section.

5- In the methods section, please provide a reference for lines 126-128.

Response: This is well taken, and references added for the lines 126-128.

6- The authors need to explain more about Table 1. For me, it is not still clear how the data elements and indicators have been selected.

Response: Thank you for this comment. Logic for selecting the data items listed in Table 1 are now clarified in the revised manuscript. Authors now mentioned: The selection of data items takes into account the MNCH continuum of care approach, their ability to cross-verify and measure data quality issues, as well as their importance in program monitoring and evaluation, as stated in national and provincial policy documents.

7- In Table 2, did the authors look for data elements completeness or just the completeness of reporting on a monthly basis? This question is about timeliness and consistency, too.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this valid comment. In Table 2, the authors assessed the timeliness and completeness of facility reporting of the MNCH-related datasets on a monthly basis. For consistency, the authors enrolled the data items (Table 1) and assessed the consistency over time, outliers in the current year, consistency between related data and external consistency of data. The Authors explicitly explained the measurement approaches in the revised manuscript.

8- About the consistency of the mean values, the authors need to explain why it was important for them.

Response: The importance of assessing consistency of the mean values is now well explained in the revised manuscript. The authors explicitly explained: the consistency of the time indicator was assessed to observe whether the differences in values are expected from one year to the next. In the case where there is an existence of larger difference, it suggests the need for further scrutiny. While large differences usually suggest some type of reporting error, it is also possible that the introduction of a new intervention might have contributed to a significant percentage increase in indicator values from one year to the next.

9- What do the authors mean by the indicator-pairs in and six-pairs of data items Table 2?

Response: Thank you for this valid question. Indicator-pairs in the Table 2 refer to a set of related data items or attributes that are expected to be consistent and maintain predictable relationship with each other. When assessing the quality of data, Authors examined indicator-pairs to identify any discrepancies that may exist within the two data items. By comparing the values of related data items, we can detect potential errors and inconsistencies. To analyze the consistency between related data, we enrolled six-pairs of data items and summarized if they exhibit the predicted relationship.

10- Please remove unnecessary tables.

Response: Thank you again for this valid suggestion. Unnecessary tables (Table 6 and 7 in the submitted manuscript) are transferred to supporting information section (named as S1 Table and S2 Table).

11- I think in the current study, the quality of health information has not been evaluated. If the authors did that, more information about data elements and quality indicators should be provided in the manuscript. Instead they assessed quality of facility reporting. Therefore, I suggest the authors to revise the title and the content of the manuscript to focus on quality of facility reporting not health data or information quality.

12- Apart from the statistical analysis, what are the innovative side of the research?

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The authors made slight revisions to both the title and content of the manuscript, clearly stating that the review focuses on the quality of facility reporting. In the context of Nepal, there is limited evidence indicating that data quality assurance processes have been implemented for health facility data. At the sub-national level, specifically in Lumbini Province, multiple interventions for data quality assurance were carried out by both provincial and local authorities. However, the level of data quality remained unknown to the data generation and supervising authorities. Therefore, this assessment provides evidence to sub-national governments regarding the data quality status of health facilities. Additionally, this study aims to promote the practice of routine data quality reviews at the data generation level.

13- Please re-check the referencing style.

Response: Thank you for this valid comment. We re-checked and managed the referencing style as per the guideline.

Responses to comments by Reviewer #2:

1- Authors did not thoroughly explain the research design deployed for their study. It is important for the scientific community to appreciate the research design deployed in order to draw appropriate links to the content of the study.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. Authors now mentioned the research design for the study. In the methods section, the Authors also elaborated the basis for indicator selection and analysis processes.

2- The dimensions of data quality that the authors focused on were only completeness of the data, timeliness of the data and lastly the consistency/reliability of the data. However, using the same WHO data quality toolkit Module1 that the authors relied on, important dimension of data quality was conspicuously missing in the whole study. This dimension is the accuracy/validity of the data which is very important in unraveling whether the data faithfully reflects the actual level of service delivery conducted in the various health facilities included in the study. The manuscript should be modified to incorporate this important element in the assessment of quality data.

Response: We fully agree with the fact that we solely focused on the completeness and timeliness of MNCH datasets, as well as the consistency and reliability of key MNCH data items. We clearly mentioned in the study that it was based on a desk review of DHIS2 data. Due to the limitations of time and resources, it appears to be impossible to measure the accuracy of the data since it requires visits to health facilities and verification of data in multiple stages. This limitation was therefore mentioned in the discussion section of the manuscript.

3- The maternal indicators highlighted by the authors did not include HIV (with its attendant number of HIV positive mothers receiving ART), TB (with TB positive mothers receiving treatment) as well as mothers who tested positive for malaria either by microscopy or RDT) as these are very important maternal health indicators highlighted by the WHO data quality toolkit Module1. Once authors sourced their secondary data from the DHIS2, it is easier to retrieve the aforementioned variables.

Response: While we did refer to the WHO DQA module for selecting DQA indicators and assessing the consistency of reported data, this review was not entirely based on the WHO Data Quality Review (DQR) Standards. For example, we were unable to assess the timeliness and completeness of specific data items because DHIS2 does not have a function to measure this. Instead, we evaluated the completeness and timeliness of dataset-specific information as reflected in the DHIS2 platform. We selected the indicators take into account the MNCH continuum of care approach, their ability to cross-verify and measure data quality issues (as specified in data verification guide and DHIS2 data quality app), as well as their importance in program monitoring and evaluation, as stated in national and provincial policy documents.

4- Authors compared six pair of data in order to establish their relationship or association. The statistical basis of the comparison is defective as authors after their initial analysis as captured in table 9 ought to have deployed regression or other correlative statistical models to consolidate the association or otherwise observed.

Response: We analyzed six pairs of data to measure the consistency between related data. In order to review this, we defined the metrics according to the WHO's module on discrete desk review of data quality, and these metrics align with the data quality review practices utilized at the province and local levels in Lumbini province. Advanced statistical analysis was not employed in the assessment to ensure the manuscript remains understandable at the data generation level. The inability to utilize advanced analysis for this review is mentioned in the limitation section of the manuscript as well.

5- Authors must correct the spelling of Ethical as captured in their Ethical Considerations.

Response: Thank you. We corrected the spelling.

Responses to comments by Reviewer #3:

1- To reduce number of tables as it provides a distraction.

Response: Thank you, we reduced the number of tables as suggested.

2- Add more advance analysis such as t test or Anova to assess the temporal change in the related indicators to check how significant is the difference in the KPI.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We analyzed the three data quality dimensions (timeliness of facility reporting, consistency of facility reporting and the consistency of data). We relied on DHIS2 Pivot Table for the timeliness and completeness analysis, as this is the way that all the level of health system relies on defining HMIS reporting status. To review the consistency of data, we defined the metrics as per the WHO’s Module on Discrete desk review of data quality and these metrics are consistent with the data quality review practices employed by province and local levels in Lumbini province. More advance statistical analysis was not employed in the assessment to make the manuscript understandable up to health facility level. The unavailability to employ advanced analysis for this review are therefore mentioned in the limitation section of the manuscript as well.

3- Add more reference to the discussion part.

Response: Thank you for the feedback. We tried to review more studies and included references in the discussion section. Nevertheless, due to the limited availability of studies on routine MNCH data quality review, the authors may not be fully able to add more references to the pre-existing literature to demonstrate how the findings either align with or differ from previous research in some of the findings.

4- Were this study follows any guidelines such as STROBE? If no try to adapt it to assure the study is conducted in acceptable scientific writing.

Response: We followed the submission guideline developed by PLOS One journal. Referring to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline also, we assure that the review is conducted in acceptable scientific writing.

Responses to comments by Reviewer #4:

1- The specific aim of the study was not clear. The methodology used to assessed the quality of reports did not meet the WHO Data Quality Review (DQR) Standards. Data quality assessment by WHO methodology is in two major phases

1. Desk Review

2.Site Assessment

By this article, it was only phase 1 that was carried out. I therefore suggest the author should at least sample the facilities for site assessment to authenticate the reports entered into DHIMS2 since the WHO data quality toolkit is the referenced tool used in the study

Response: We specified the aim of the study as a review of facility reported MNCH data. We conducted a desk review for this purpose and explicitly stated in the limitations section that we did not verify the paper based HMIS reports with DHIS2 data. While we did refer to the WHO DQA module for selecting DQA indicators and assessing the consistency of reported data, this review was not entirely based on the WHO Data Quality Review (DQR) Standards. For example, we were unable to assess the timeliness and completeness of specific data items because DHIS2 does not have a function to measure this. Instead, we evaluated the completeness and timeliness of dataset-specific information as reflected in the DHIS2 platform. Additionally, due to time and resource constraints, we did not conduct site visits, and these limitations are clearly discussed in the corresponding section.

Additional Editor comments:

Furthermore, the paper relies on routine data information from a routine data source of the Ministry of Health. As the data is collected through the routine health information management system of the government of Nepal. I request you provide a letter from the government (Ministry of Health) stating that they have provided consent for the publication of their information.

Response: As already mentioned in the manuscript, we received consent to access DHIS2 platform and publish the data from provincial Health Directorate under Ministry of Health, Lumbini Province. The Health Directorate in Lumbini Province is responsible for the overall information management in the province including DHIS2 user management. The authors also attached a letter from the government mentioning that they have provided consent for the publication of DHIS2 stored data.

Furthermore, changes have been made to the order of authors and are reflected in the Authorship Change Form. Please find the form attached under the "Others" category.

Thank you so much!

The Authors

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0298101.s005.docx (29.1KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Kanchan Thapa

12 Sep 2023

PONE-D-23-07291R1Quality of Routine Health Facility Data for Monitoring Maternal, Newborn and Child Health Indicators: A Desk Review of DHIS2 Data in Lumbini Province, NepalPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sanjel,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Thank you for improving your paper significantly. You are suggested to work further on your paper based on comments of reviewer. Please address the comments from the reviewers which they have provided in .doc file. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 27 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

 

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kanchan Thapa, MPH, MPhil

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for improving your paper significantly. You are suggested to work further on your paper based on comments of reviewer.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

Reviewer #6: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #7: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #8: (No Response)

Reviewer #9: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #6: (No Response)

Reviewer #7: Yes

Reviewer #8: Yes

Reviewer #9: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #6: I Don't Know

Reviewer #7: I Don't Know

Reviewer #8: No

Reviewer #9: No

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

Reviewer #7: Yes

Reviewer #8: Yes

Reviewer #9: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: No

Reviewer #7: Yes

Reviewer #8: Yes

Reviewer #9: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #5: Although the authors have made considerable efforts to ensure the precision and rigor of this manuscript, I find myself not entirely satisfied with the methodology and analysis sections. Specifically, I would like to see more robust statistical analyses in the results section. For instance, incorporating powerful statistical tools like Bland-Altman Analysis for continuous numerical measurements in both datasets and employing the Kappa Statistic to measure agreement between the two systems (paper-based and digital) could strengthen the findings significantly. I kindly request the authors to enhance the analysis using these powerful statistical methods to achieve more robust and compelling results.

Reviewer #6: MORE DESCRIPTION OF THE MANUFACTURING PROGRAM WILL ADD INFORMATION TO THE READER FOR PEOPLE IN OTHER COUNTRIES

Reviewer #7: the author has adjusted the manuscript according to the suggestions of the previous reviewer's input and corrected the manuscript. well done

Reviewer #8: (No Response)

Reviewer #9: The study conducted is a quality assessment of maternal and child health indicators in Lumbini Province, Nepal. Factors considered were timeliness, completeness, and consistency of the data available, accessed through the District Health Information Software (DHIS2).

Reviewer Comments:

1. Abstract:

a) Methods section: My suggestion is to not label the study as cross-sectional. The study is ecological in nature since monthly aggregated data is utilized and there is no access to individual data. Another option is to use the term “descriptive study”.

b) Methods section: In a sentence, please mention the number of data elements selected for each objective. Readers might first assume that all 23 data items were used for all objectives, which isn’t the case.

2. Main Text:

a) Methods: Same comment as 1a regarding study design.

b) Line 138: Please add a comma before “and Safe Motherhood”. Otherwise, “Nutrition and Safe Motherhood” is interpreted as a single dataset.

c) For all tables, please add footnotes explaining the abbreviations used in them. Readers will find it cumbersome to search for the abbreviations in the main text. For example, in Table 1 please explain ANC, PNC, what is the meaning of ‘x’ in the column etc. Also, mention the relevant years for each table.

d) Table 2: While assessing outliers the authors have selected ±2SD. This method is apt for normally distributed data. No tests of normality or graphical visualizations were conducted and selecting ±2SD as the benchmark could be problematic. It would be better to conduct some basic tests to verify normality which isn’t complex. Additionally, please mention if selecting ±33% and ±10% as the benchmark for other metrics of consistency is specifically mentioned in the WHO data quality report card (or any other reference). If not, wjhat was the reasoning behind the criteria?

e) In the first paragraph of the results section (lines 183-184), it is mentioned that “5 out of 12 districts have 100% completeness for nutrition and IMNCI datasets (in each) and 4 out of 10 districts have 100% completeness for safe motherhood datasets”. However, in Table 3, I count 7 provinces with 100% completion for nutrition and IMNCI individually. Similarly, the results for safe motherhood do not match. Table 3 shows 8 out of 12 districts with 100% completion (and not 4 out of 10). If the total districts for safe motherhood were 10, identify the dropped districts in the table/text and provide a brief explanation as to the reason for exclusion. Please correct/verify the results.

f) While reporting timeliness the authors mention “By district, 9 out of 12 districts have more than 90% reporting rate on time for the selected datasets.” By my calculations, all districts, except Rukum East, have an average above 90%, i.e. 11 out of 12 have more than a 90% score. Please correct/verify.

g) Table 6: It wasn’t clear to me how the results reported in the final row were arrived at after calculating the total outliers in every district. Provide a brief footnote with an explanation.

h) Line 331: The sentence mentions “no one of the coverage rates are flagged” instead of “none”.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #5: Yes: Laxman Datt Bhatt

Reviewer #6: No

Reviewer #7: No

Reviewer #8: No

Reviewer #9: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: comment_LB.docx

pone.0298101.s006.docx (16.8KB, docx)
Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS ONE Article Review_PONE-D-2307291R1.docx

pone.0298101.s007.docx (19.7KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2024 Apr 1;19(4):e0298101. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298101.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


29 Nov 2023

Authors’ responses to review comments:

At first, the authors are grateful to the editors and reviewers for taking their time and providing these interesting and constructive comments that help us improve the quality of our manuscript. With this, we have tried to address all the comments point-by-point in the revised manuscript as follows.

Abstract

Conclusion:

1. Line 48 – Do not lead your readers wondering at this point. What specifically can be done to maintain consistency of data over time?

Response: Thank you for this question. Specific recommendations to maintain the consistency of data over time was mentioned in the revised manuscript as suggested.

Main Body

Introduction:

2. Line 90 - consider inserting ……..reported data might be subjected……

3. Line 96 - I suggest review should be changed to assess.

Response: Updated the manuscript as suggested.

Study setting:

4. Line 108 – why is skilled birth attendant in caps? Consider changing it to lower case.

5. Line 109 – change first letter of incidence to lower case.

Response: Revised as suggested

Study design and data sources:

6. Line 124 – indicate the previous years you are referring to. This should be applicable to the entire document.

Response: Indicated previous years: FY 2018/19 to 2020/21 clearly in the revised manuscript.

Data analysis:

7. Kindly expatiate on how data analysis was carried out.

8. Could authors provide the mean values for the preceding years?

9. The authors’ response to reviewer 1 comments 8 and 9 should be captured under the current heading (data analysis) for better clarity of how you proceeded with data analysis.

10. In addition to the authors’ explanation to the importance of the consistency of the mean values, you could also allude to the fact that consistency of the mean values is an indicator of reliability-meaning the greater probability that data source is trustworthy.

Response:

Metrics for data analysis of each domain are clearly mentioned in the Table 2 of manuscript. Analysis process employed are also mentioned in the narrative.

Mean values of preceding years are not separately mentioned in the manuscript, but the ratio of Year 4 to mean of Year 1-3 ((2021/22 to mean of 2018/19- 2020/21) was mentioned to analyze consistency over time. As per the comment, we would also like to mention the mean values of preceding years hereunder:

Organisation unit / data items Mean values for the preceding years (2018/19- 2020/21)

4ANC as per protocol Institutional delivery Received incentive on transportation 4 PNC as per protocol Children immunized with BCG MR2 coverage Diarrhoea cases treated with ORS and Zinc New growth monitoring visit (0-11) Exclusive breastfeeding

RUKUM EAST 561.67 616.0 581.3 416.0 1192.0 1127.0 1758.0 1610.0 550.0

ROLPA 3172.33 3479.3 3377.3 1973.0 5190.3 4821.0 6116.0 5532.3 3164.0

PYUTHAN 3189.33 3936.7 3936.3 1737.7 4959.3 4677.7 5280.0 6075.7 3592.0

GULMI 3486.67 2568.3 3214.7 1447.0 4269.3 4469.7 3560.3 6286.0 3032.7

ARGHAKHANCHI 2056.33 1377.3 1212.3 490.7 3105.0 3178.3 1638.0 4419.3 2204.0

PALPA 4415.67 5447.0 2700.3 1352.0 4127.0 4023.3 3212.7 4997.3 2719.7

NAWALPARASI WEST 4848.67 3189.0 2989.0 1155.3 5916.0 6364.0 3377.3 7618.7 6522.7

RUPANDEHI 16898.67 27621.3 17260.3 5877.3 26254.0 18448.3 7423.3 21447.0 9683.7

KAPILBASTU 7865.00 7477.3 6593.0 1870.3 13507.3 11614.7 11131.7 12312.3 7457.7

DANG 7666.00 8566.7 9492.0 2778.7 12425.0 11300.3 5509.0 10425.3 4356.0

BANKE 8506.00 19194.3 16671.3 3741.0 13391.3 10253.0 6826.0 9217.7 3719.7

BARDIYA 6181.33 5456.7 5205.0 3193.3 7911.7 7580.0 4385.3 8177.7 4072.0

Lumbini Province 68847.67 88930.0 73233.0 26032.3 102248.3 87857.3 60217.7 98119.3 51074.0

The authors’ response to reviewer 1 comments 8 and 9 are clearly mentioned under the data analysis heading in the revised manuscript.

Authors also included the recommended fact by the reviewer that the consistency of the mean values is an indicator of reliability, meaning a greater probability that the data source is trustworthy.

Results:

Completeness of maternal, newborn and child health datasets &Timeliness of maternal, newborn and child health datasets:

11. Since the report is disaggregated by district, (refer to tables 3 and 4) you should consider reporting the variations based on the districts. These variations could give an indication as to where the error is or source of data limitations within the province.

12. Provide plausible reasons for the variations observed.

13. Please indicate the sources of data for all your tables at the bottom of each table.

14. Make the province result distinct by separating it with a thick line or write the values in bold.

Response:

The authors accepted the comments and revised the manuscript as suggested. In the narrative of reporting completeness and timeliness, the variations between the districts are clearly mentioned. Additionally, plausible reasons for the variations are also included, specifically in the discussion section. The authors clearly indicated the sources of data for all figures and tables. Province results are written in bold to separate the values from district values.

Consistency over time:

15. Move Lines 188 - 192 to the data analysis section.

16. Line 195-196 – the sentence should be preceded or end with at the province level to ensure a distinction between province and district level information.

Response: Addressed the comments

Accuracy of event reporting: outliers in the reference year:

17. Line 210 – Authors should consider inserting values from the table to show your results. This is also applicable to the entire result section. Where necessary, insert some values from the result table as illustration so that your readers can follow you well.

Response: Thank you for this valid comment. Authors now inserted the results from tables in the narrative as relevant.

Discussion:

18. Line 240 – The authors should consider changing reviewed to assessed

Response: Addressed

19. Line 255 – Authors should check the spelling if you are referring to the country in Africa called Rwanda and throughout the entire document.

Response: Checked and corrected

20. Line 275 – there is an omission in the sentence, kindly check and revise accordingly.

Response: Checked and corrected

21. Lines 280-282: At this point of your study, we expect the authors to be emphatic about what is happening in the province. It will be great and interesting to find this out and report it in your study findings.

Response: Thank you for this valid comment. Authors mentioned the programmatic implication of the introduction of the PNC home visit program in not maintaining consistency over time for the data item - PNC visits as per protocol.

22. Line 288 - …..significant variations in these districts need further assessment……..This could be a very good point for your recommendation section.

Response: This point has been added in the recommendation section.

23. Lines 312-313: Do the authors consider these tests relevant for the study? If yes, why did they not perform the tests and if no why were they not done or why did the authors bring it up as a limitation? It is not appropriate to just indicate that you did not do it, provide justification for it.

Response: Authors do not actually consider these tests compulsory for such a review. The authors added this limitation based on suggestions from the first reviewers. In fact, the authors want this document to remain understandable at the data generation level (i.e., health facility and first-level data managers), where complex statistical tests are less relevant. The reason is now clearly mentioned in the manuscript.

24. Lines 315-317: If this not the gold standard, what is the gold standard and why was is not used in this study. Justify why you had to use the data regardless of the shortfalls (not meeting the gold standard)?

Response: Authors wanted to make it clear that two sources of data were compared to provide relevant references for assessing the external consistency of routine data, even though DHS is a household sample survey and DHIS2 reported data are facility-reported data. For the comparison, there could also be space to compare the DHIS2 data with other facility-based survey data. However, in the case of Nepal, no such surveys were conducted, allowing for the comparison of MNCH-related indicators.

Reviewer #5: Although the authors have made considerable efforts to ensure the precision and rigor of this manuscript, I find myself not entirely satisfied with the methodology and analysis sections. Specifically, I would like to see more robust statistical analyses in the results section. For instance, incorporating powerful statistical tools like Bland-Altman Analysis for continuous numerical measurements in both datasets and employing the Kappa Statistic to measure agreement between the two systems (paper-based and digital) could strengthen the findings significantly. I kindly request the authors to enhance the analysis using these powerful statistical methods to achieve more robust and compelling results.

Response: As suggested by the reviewer, the analysis section has been made more comprehensive by including measurement metrics and additional information in the analysis tables. The authors aimed to simplify the analysis to ensure understanding at the data generation level (i.e., health facility and first-level data managers), where complex statistical tests are less relevant. The study's objective was specified as a review of facility-reported MNCH data. To achieve this, a desk review was conducted. It is explicitly stated in the limitations section that the paper-based HMIS reports were not verified with DHIS2 data.

In line 17-19

DHIS2 is predominantly utilized by low and middle-income countries, making the statement more specific and targeted to its primary user base would be good.

Response: Ay accepting the comment, the authors revised the manuscript.

Line 67-69

While your sentence effectively highlights specific data quality issues in information systems, I recommend a slight revision for clarity and conciseness. Consider rephrasing it as follows:

Specific data quality issues may arise, including incomplete, inconsistent, and irrelevant data, as well as imprecise estimates of the target population for coverage. These issues could limit the usefulness of the data for decision-makers.

Response: This comment is well taken and revised as suggested.

Line 69-79

The authors pointed out that discrepancies between paper-based report findings and routine health information system findings. However, they did not provide any background information about the limitations of both systems and the existing gaps between them. I encourage them to explore and elaborate on the existing gaps between these two systems. This will significantly enhance the depth and credibility of their research, enabling readers to better understand the implications of the observed discrepancies.

Response: Authors mentioned about the observed discrepancies between the coverage estimated derived from routine information systems and population based surveys. To further elaborate, Authors discussed more in discussion section of the manuscript.

Line 75-78

It is important to ensure proper referencing for the statement regarding Nepal's involvement in the mentioned initiatives, the development of action plans to reduce preventable deaths among mothers and children, and the considerable investment in strengthening information systems for performance management and service delivery. Adding appropriate references will not only provide credibility to the information but also give readers the opportunity to explore the sources and evidence supporting these claims.

Response: Authors made proper referencing for the statement regarding Nepal’s involvement in initiatives to reduce preventable deaths among mothers and children, as well as related investments in strengthening information systems.

Line 81-82

Is this claim made by the authors or by DHIS2? Proper referencing for this statement is necessary to clarify the source of the information and to ensure its accuracy and legitimacy.

Response: This is the claim based on a literature review. The authors supported this statement, ensuring accuracy and legitimacy through proper citation.

Line 84-86

To prevent redundancy, kindly integrate this sentence with lines 82-84, for example: "The Ministry of Health and Population (MoHP) in Nepal introduced DHIS2 nationally as an electronic platform for Health Management Information System (HMIS) data management since 2016. Additionally, authors are encouraged to verify whether IHIMS and HMIS refer to the same system. If IHIMS represents recent changes to HMIS, please adjust the wording accordingly. Proper referencing for this information is also essential to ensure transparency and accuracy."

Response: This comment is well taken and addressed as suggested.

Line 105-107

Supporting reference for the statement required.

Response: Reference provided for the status of specific SDG indicators.

Line 105-111

I recommend that the authors incorporate these paragraphs into the introduction section. This is because the provided information pertains to provincial health indicators, which can be seamlessly linked with the section discussing the current gaps and the significance of the study in the introduction part. By doing so, the authors can create a cohesive and contextually relevant introduction, highlighting the importance of these indicators in framing the research objectives and addressing the study's significance.

Response: Incorporated the lines 105-111 in introduction section as suggested.

Line 120

Kindly ensure uniformity throughout the entire manuscript by consistently using either "MCH" or "MNCH" terminology. The authors have used "MCH" in some sections and "MNCH" in others, creating inconsistency. It is essential to pick one term and apply it consistently across the entire document to maintain clarity and coherence

Response: Comment addressed.

Line 121:

The authors mentioned that in 2021/22, DHIS2 contained a total of 12,509 reports. However, there is uncertainty regarding the definition of one report. Is it specified as one Maternal and Child Health (MCH) report submitted by one health facility on a monthly basis? To ensure clarity, the authors are requested to provide further clarification on the definition of a single report within DHIS2.

Response: Report in the manuscript refers to the monthly report submitted by each health facility (HMIS 9.3/9.4/9.5). This report includes individual sections for immunization, safe motherhood, nutrition, and IMNCI.

Line 125-126

Referencing (20) not required since its general statement.

Response: Removed the reference as suggested.

Line 164-165

Authors explain completeness was approximately 100% but they didn’t mention what was the exact figure.It is recommended to mention exact figure in scientific studies.

Response: Authors addressed the comment by mentioning exact figures.

Rather than displaying the dataset completeness results in a table, it is recommended for authors to present them using bar diagrams or other visual methods. This approach facilitates easier comparison of completeness levels across different datasets for readers.

Response: Authors presented the completeness and timeliness related data in bar diagram as recommended.

Line 218

Please provide the full form of vaccines to make it easier to understand. For example, Penta 1 refers to the first dose of the Pentavalent Vaccine. Provide information on annex section.

Response: Addressed the comment

Line 223

unit required for iron for e.g. Tablet/Capsule

Response: Addressed the comment

Line 255-256

The authors have highlighted that the challenges faced in achieving completeness of DHIS2 reporting are not unique and have been documented in other studies as well. It is important to delve deeper into this issue to explore whether the difficulties are attributed to end users' discomfort with the system. Additionally, it is crucial to examine whether similar challenges exist in other countries, apart from Nepal.

Response: By accepting the suggestion, the authors explored the presence of similar challenges in other countries and cited them in the manuscript. However, this study has a limitation: conducting an in-depth analysis of challenges related to the completeness of data in Nepal based on a review of DHIS2 data would not be relevant.

Line 259-260

The authors asserted that the assessment result of timeliness is higher in this province compared to other provinces of Nepal; however, no specific reference data was provided in the entire manuscript. To support this claim, it is crucial to cite the relevant sources or present evidence within the manuscript to validate the statement.

Response: Yes, result of timeliness is higher in Lumbini province compared to other provinces of Nepal as reflected in HMIS online platform (DHIS2). To support this statement, the Authors now provided the reference.

Line 333-334

Please check the citation is well maintained as pr journal guideline.

Response: Corrected, thank you

Reviewer #6: MORE DESCRIPTION OF THE MANUFACTURING PROGRAM WILL ADD INFORMATION TO THE READER FOR PEOPLE IN OTHER COUNTRIES.

Response: By accepting the comment, authors tried to add additional information about the program as relevant.

Reviewer #7: the author has adjusted the manuscript according to the suggestions of the previous reviewer's input and corrected the manuscript. well done

Reviewer #8: (No Response)

Reviewer #9

1. Abstract:

a) Methods section: My suggestion is to not label the study as cross-sectional. The study is ecological in nature since monthly aggregated data is utilized and there is no access to individual data. Another option is to use the term “descriptive study”.

b) Methods section: In a sentence, please mention the number of data elements selected for each objective. Readers might first assume that all 23 data items were used for all objectives, which isn’t the case.

Response:

a) Revised the study as descriptive.

b) Mentioned the number of data elements selected for each objective as suggested.

2. Main Text:

a) Methods: Same comment as 1a regarding study design.

b) Line 138: Please add a comma before “and Safe Motherhood”. Otherwise, “Nutrition and Safe Motherhood” is interpreted as a single dataset.

c) For all tables, please add footnotes explaining the abbreviations used in them. Readers will find it cumbersome to search for the abbreviations in the main text. For example, in Table 1 please explain ANC, PNC, what is the meaning of ‘x’ in the column etc. Also, mention the relevant years for each table.

d) Table 2: While assessing outliers the authors have selected ±2SD. This method is apt for normally distributed data. No tests of normality or graphical visualizations were conducted and selecting ±2SD as the benchmark could be problematic. It would be better to conduct some basic tests to verify normality which isn’t complex. Additionally, please mention if selecting ±33% and ±10% as the benchmark for other metrics of consistency is specifically mentioned in the WHO data quality report card (or any other reference). If not, wjhat was the reasoning behind the criteria?

e) In the first paragraph of the results section (lines 183-184), it is mentioned that “5 out of 12 districts have 100% completeness for nutrition and IMNCI datasets (in each) and 4 out of 10 districts have 100% completeness for safe motherhood datasets”. However, in Table 3, I count 7 provinces with 100% completion for nutrition and IMNCI individually. Similarly, the results for safe motherhood do not match. Table 3 shows 8 out of 12 districts with 100% completion (and not 4 out of 10). If the total districts for safe motherhood were 10, identify the dropped districts in the table/text and provide a brief explanation as to the reason for exclusion. Please correct/verify the results.

f) While reporting timeliness the authors mention “By district, 9 out of 12 districts have more than 90% reporting rate on time for the selected datasets.” By my calculations, all districts, except Rukum East, have an average above 90%, i.e. 11 out of 12 have more than a 90% score. Please correct/verify.

g) Table 6: It wasn’t clear to me how the results reported in the final row were arrived at after calculating the total outliers in every district. Provide a brief footnote with an explanation.

h) Line 331: The sentence mentions “no one of the coverage rates are flagged” instead of “none”.

Response: Thank you for the in-depth review and comments. Authors have addressed all the comments in the revised manuscript and summary of responses are also mentioned hereunder:

a) Addressed the comment as suggested

b) Added comma before “and Safe Motherhood”.

c) Mentioned the footnotes mentioning the meaning of symbols used, as well as explained the abbreviations where needed.

d) Extreme or moderate outliers (i.e. moderate outliers if values are ± 2–3 SD from the mean or > 3.5 on modified z-score method) are identified based on the criteria set by WHO Data Quality Assurance: Framework and Metrics 2022. As suggested by reviewer, we also performed normality test that showed that the data followed symmetrical distribution and this process is now clearly mentioned in the revised manuscript. Reference for selecting ±33% and ±10% as the benchmark for other metrics of consistency is mentioned in the WHO Data Quality Assurance: Framework and Metrics 2022 and also cited in the manuscript (reference number 21).

e) Thank you for pointing the mistake. We now corrected the error with careful observation of data.

f) Verified the data and made a minor update in the narrative, written as “By district, 9 out of 12 districts have more than a 90% reporting rate on time for each of the selected datasets.

g) Footnote with explanation of calculating Average % of moderate outliers was clearly mentioned in the revised manuscript.

h) Corrected as suggested.

Thank you

Attachment

Submitted filename: Authors Response to Reviewers_Nov 2023.docx

pone.0298101.s008.docx (31.3KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Kanchan Thapa

20 Jan 2024

Quality of Routine Health Facility Data for Monitoring Maternal, Newborn and Child Health Indicators: A Desk Review of DHIS2 Data in Lumbini Province, Nepal

PONE-D-23-07291R2

Dear Dr. Sanjel,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Kanchan Thapa, MPH, MPhil

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear All Authors,

Thank you for revising your paper based on a series of peer reviews. I now believe the paper is worthy of publication. The paper highlights the significant use of DHIS-2 data, which has been collected over the years and is limited in current literature. It serves as an example of how accumulated data over the years can be utilized for scientific publications.

Please review my additional comments regarding authorship and formatting.

Comments on Authorship: Please ensure that all the authors meet the criteria for authorship and revise your author's contribution section accordingly. For detailed information, refer to the following link: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/authorship. If any of the authors do not meet the above criteria, please acknowledge them in the acknowledgment section.

Issues on Formatting: While reading your paper, on line number 200, I found a statement that reads, "Key dimensions included for assessing internal consistency include:…". Please clearly indicate what the key dimensions are, or this can be resolved during the final stage of formatting. Therefore, I request you to correct this issue at this stage to ensure accuracy up to the final publication. Also, ensure all the table, figures and referencing are as per the PLOS One guidelines. 

At this stage, I would like to thank all the reviewers for their wonderful contribution to review this paper. 

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Kanchan Thapa

21 Mar 2024

PONE-D-23-07291R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sanjel,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Mr. Kanchan Thapa

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Outlier analysis of maternal health indicators.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0298101.s001.docx (26.9KB, docx)
    S2 Table. Outlier analysis of child health indicators.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0298101.s002.docx (26.7KB, docx)
    S1 File. Data analysis results.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0298101.s003.xlsx (103.1KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer comments.docx

    pone.0298101.s004.docx (12.8KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0298101.s005.docx (29.1KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: comment_LB.docx

    pone.0298101.s006.docx (16.8KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLOS ONE Article Review_PONE-D-2307291R1.docx

    pone.0298101.s007.docx (19.7KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Authors Response to Reviewers_Nov 2023.docx

    pone.0298101.s008.docx (31.3KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES