Table 2.
Summary of study characteristics
| Study characteristics | No. of studies (n = 15) | % of total |
|---|---|---|
| Scale of study: | ||
| National | 8 | 53.3% |
| Sub-national |
7 |
46.7% |
| Indicators assessed: | ||
| Indicator 1 & 2 | 8 | 53.3% |
| Indicator 1 & 2 plus another | 1 | 6.7% |
| Five or more indicators |
6 |
40.0% |
| Assessment model | ||
| United Nations Emergency Obstetric Care assessment tool | 12 | 80.0% |
| United Nations Emergency Obstetric Care assessment tool + Geographic Information Systems |
3 |
20.0% |
| Level of care assessed: | ||
| Basic and Comprehensive Emergency Obstetric Care | 14 | 93.3% |
| Comprehensive Emergency Obstetric Care only |
1 |
6.7% |
| Type of facilities assessed: | ||
| Public facilities only | 1 | 6.7% |
| Public and private facilities only | 3 | 20.0% |
| Public, private and mission facilities | 9 | 60.0% |
| Could not tell type of facility classification |
2 |
13.3% |
| Data sources used indicator assessment: | ||
| Secondary population and primary facility data | 4 | 26.7% |
| Primary facility and geographical data | 1 | 6.7% |
| Secondary population, facility and geographical data | 4 | 26.7% |
| Secondary population, primary facility and primary geographical data |
6 |
40.0% |
| Geographical analysis and visualisation presented: | ||
| Yes | 9 | 60.0% |
| No |
6 |
40.0% |
| Use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS, n = 9): | ||
| Thematic mapping | 3 | 33.3% |
| Thematic mapping and spatial analysis | 3 | 33.3% |
| Thematic mapping and spatial modelling |
3 |
33.3% |
| Interpretation and implication of findings presented: | ||
| Yes | 8 | 53.3% |
| No | 7 | 46.7% |