Browsing by Author "Bandoh, D.A.B."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2

Authorization of midwives to perform basic emergency obstetric and newborn care signal functions in Argentina, Ghana, and India: A multi-country validation study of a key global maternal and newborn health indicator
(PLOS ONE, 2023) Ramesh, S.; Adanu, R.M.; Bandoh, D.A.B.; et al.
Background Midwives’ authorization to deliver the seven basic emergency obstetric and newborn care (BEmONC) functions is a core policy indicator in global monitoring frameworks, yet little evidence supports whether such data are captured accurately, or whether authorization demonstrates convergence with midwives’ skills and actual provision of services. In this study, we aimed to validate the data reported in global monitoring frameworks (criterion validity) and to determine whether a measure of authorization is a valid indicator for BEmONC availability (construct validity). Methods We conducted a validation study in Argentina, Ghana, and India. To assess accuracy of the reported data on midwives’ authorization to provide BEmONC services, we reviewed national regulatory documents and compared with reported country-specific data in Countdown to 2030 and the World Health Organization Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health Policy Survey. To assess whether authorization demonstrates convergent validity with midwives’ skills, training, and performance of BEmONC signal functions, we surveyed 1257 midwives/midwifery professionals and assessed variance Results We detected discrepancies between data reported in the global monitoring frameworks and the national regulatory framework in all three countries. We found wide variations between midwives’ authorization to perform signal functions and their self-reported skills and actual performance within the past 90 days. The percentage of midwives who reported performing all signal functions for which they were authorized per country-specific regulations was 17% in Argentina, 23% in Ghana, and 31% in India. Additionally, midwives in all three countries reported performing some signal functions that the national regulations did not authorize. Conclusion Our findings suggest limitations in criterion and construct validity for this indicator in Argen tina, Ghana, and India. Some signal functions such as assisted vaginal delivery may be obsolete based on current practice patterns. Findings suggest the need to re-examine the emergency interventions that should be included as BEmONC signal functions.
Improving measures of access to legal abortion: A validation study triangulating multiple data sources to assess a global indicator
(PLOS ONE, 2023) Williams, C.R.; Va´zquez, P.; Nigri, C.; Adanu, R.M.; Bandoh, D.A.B.; Berrueta, M.; Chakraborty, S.; Gausman, J.; Kenu, E.; Khan, N.; Langer, A.; Odikro, M.A.; Ramesh, S.; Saggurti, N.; Pingray, V.; Jolivet, R.R.
Background Global mechanisms have been established to monitor and facilitate state accountability regarding the legal status of abortion. However, there is little evidence describing whether these mechanisms capture accurate data. Moreover, it is uncertain whether the “legal status of abortion” is a valid proxy measure for access to safe abortion, pursuant to the global goals of reducing preventable maternal mortality and advancing reproductive rights. Therefore, this study sought to assess the accuracy of reported monitoring data, and to determine whether evidence supports the consistent application of domestic law by health care professionals such that legality of abortion functions as a valid indicator of access. Methods and findings We conducted a validation study using three countries as illustrative case examples: Argen tina, Ghana, and India. We compared data reported by two global monitoring mechanisms (Countdown to 2030 and the Global Abortion Policies Database) against domestic source documents collected through in-depth policy review. We then surveyed health care professionals authorized to perform abortions about their knowledge of abortion law in their countries and their personal attitudes and practices regarding provision of legal abortion. We compared professionals’ responses to the domestic legal frameworks described in the source documents to establish whether professionals consistently applied the law as written. This analysis revealed weaknesses in the criterion validity and construct validity of the “legal status of abortion” indicator. We detected discrepancies between data reported by the global monitoring and accountability mechanisms and the domestic policy reviews, even though all referenced the same source documents. Further, provider surveys unearthed important context-specific barriers to legal abortion not captured by the indicator, including conscientious objection and imposition of restrictions at the provider’s discretion. Conclusions Taken together, these findings denote weaknesses in the indicator “legal status of abortion” as a proxy for access to safe abortion, as well as inaccuracies in data reported to global monitoring mechanisms. This information provides important groundwork for strengthening indicators for monitoring access to abortion and for renewed advocacy to assure abortion rights worldwide.