Table 1.
Estimates of Intervention’s Coverage Among Pregnant Women
| Method | Description | Numerator | Denominator |
Estimate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (95% CI) | ||||
|
1 |
Direct measurement of proxy indicator |
Deliveries to women who report participation in the women’s group intervention |
Total number of deliveries where an interview was carried out |
31% |
| (29% -32%) | ||||
|
2 |
Direct measurement among participants and modelled extrapolation based on routine surveillance of births |
Average number of participants in the women’s group intervention who reported being pregnant each month from Oct 2009 to May 2010 |
Average number of deliveries per month from Oct 2009 to May 2010 multiplied by 5.5 |
30% |
| (30%-31%) | ||||
| |
· Minimum coverage |
Average number of participants in the women’s group intervention who reported being pregnant each month from Oct 2009 to May 2010 |
Average number of deliveries per month from Oct 2009 to May 2010 multiplied by 8 (i.e. assuming a pregnancy concealment time of one month) |
21% |
| (21%-24%) | ||||
| |
· Maximum coverage |
Average number of participants in the women’s group intervention who reported being pregnant each month from Oct 2009 to May 2010 |
Average number of deliveries per month from Oct 2009 to May 2010 multiplied by 4 (i.e. assuming a pregnancy concealment time of 5 months) |
42% |
| (41%-43%) | ||||
|
3 |
Direct measurement among participants and modelled extrapolation based on cross-sectional measurements and nationaldata |
Average number of participants in the women’s group intervention who reported being pregnant each month from Oct 2009 to May 2010 |
Local household census-based number of women of reproductive-age (WRA) multiplied by BDHS estimate of the proportion of WRA who are currently pregnant, which is 5.6% in rural areas. |
33% |
| (31%-35%) | ||||
| |
· Maximum coverage |
Average number of participants in the women’s group intervention who reported being pregnant each month from Oct 2009 to May 2010 |
Local household census-based number of women of reproductive-age (WRA) multiplied by the lower BDHS estimate of the proportion of WRA who are currently pregnant, which is 4.9% (Khulna and Dhaka divisions) |
38% |
| (36%-40%) | ||||
| |
· Minimum coverage |
Average number of participants in the women’s group intervention who reported being pregnant each month from Oct 2009 to May 2010 |
Local household census-based number of women of reproductive-age (WRA) multiplied by the lower BDHS estimate of the proportion of WRA who are currently pregnant, which is 6.9% (Sylhet division) |
27% |
| (25%-28%) | ||||
|
4 |
Direct measurement among participants and modelled extrapolation based national data |
Average number of participants in the women’s group intervention who reported being pregnant each month from Oct 2009 to May 2010 |
2001 National census reported number of women of reproductive-age multiplied by the 2001 BMMS estimate of the proportion of WRA who are currently pregnant, which is 5.5% (rural areas). |
34% |
| (33%-36%) | ||||
| |
· Maximum coverage |
Average number of participants in the women’s group intervention who reported being pregnant each month from Oct 2009 to May 2010 |
2001 National census reported number of women of reproductive-age multiplied by the lower 2001 BMMS estimate of the proportion of WRA who are currently pregnant, which is 4.6% (Khulna division). |
41% |
| (39%-43%) | ||||
| · Minimum coverage | Average number of participants in the women’s group intervention who reported being pregnant each month from Oct 2009 to May 2010 | 2001 National census reported number of women of reproductive-age multiplied by the upper 2001 BMMS estimate of the proportion of WRA who are currently pregnant, which is 6.4% (Sylhet division). | 30% |
|
| (28% -31%) |
Notes:
Total number of women in reproductive age: National Census 2001:44,662. Intervention’s Household Census 2009: 45,820.
Percentage currently pregnant in rural areas: BMMS 2001: 5.5 and BDHS 2007: 5.6.