↓ Skip to main content

Coverage and inequalities in maternal and child health interventions in Afghanistan

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
232 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Coverage and inequalities in maternal and child health interventions in Afghanistan
Published in
BMC Public Health, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3406-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nadia Akseer, Zaid Bhatti, Arjumand Rizvi, Ahmad S. Salehi, Taufiq Mashal, Zulfiqar A. Bhutta

Abstract

Afghanistan has made considerable gains in improving maternal and child health and survival since 2001. However, socioeconomic and regional inequities may pose a threat to reaching universal coverage of health interventions and further health progress. We explored coverage and socioeconomic inequalities in key life-saving reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health (RMNCH) interventions at the national level and by region in Afghanistan. We also assessed gains in child survival through scaling up effective community-based interventions across wealth groups. Using data from the Afghanistan Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) 2010/11, we explored 11 interventions that spanned all stages of the continuum of care, including indicators of composite coverage. Asset-based wealth quintiles were constructed using standardised methods, and absolute inequalities were explored using wealth quintile (Q) gaps (Q5-Q1) and the slope index of inequality (SII), while relative inequalities were assessed with ratios (Q5/Q1) and the concentration index (CIX). The lives saved tool (LiST) modeling used to estimate neonatal and post-neonatal deaths averted from scaling up essential community-based interventions by 90 % coverage by 2025. Analyses considered the survey design characteristics and were conducted via STATA version 12.0 and SAS version 9.4. Our results underscore significant pro-rich socioeconomic absolute and relative inequalities, and mass population deprivation across most all RMNCH interventions studied. The most inequitable are antenatal care with a skilled attendant (ANCS), skilled birth attendance (SBA), and 4 or more antenatal care visits (ANC4) where the richest have between 3.0 and 5.6 times higher coverage relative to the poor, and Q5-Q1 gaps range from 32 % - 65 %. Treatment of sick children and breastfeeding interventions are the most equitably distributed. Across regions, inequalities were highest in the more urbanised East, West and Central regions of the country, while they were lowest in the South and Southeast. About 7700 newborns and 26,000 post-neonates could be saved by scaling up coverage of community outreach interventions to 90 %, with the most gains in the poorest quintiles. Afghanistan is a pervasively poor and conflict-prone nation that has only recently experienced a decade of relative stability. Though donor investments during this period have been plentiful and have contributed to rebuilding of health infrastructure in the country, glaring inequities remain. A resolution to scaling up health coverage in insecure and isolated regions, and improving accessibility for the poorest and marginalised populations, should be at the forefront of national policy and programming efforts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 232 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 231 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 45 19%
Researcher 23 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 9%
Student > Bachelor 20 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 6%
Other 30 13%
Unknown 79 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 37 16%
Social Sciences 21 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 9 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 3%
Other 29 13%
Unknown 87 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 January 2022.
All research outputs
#2,335,907
of 22,788,370 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,681
of 14,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,115
of 322,092 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#77
of 353 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,788,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,854 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 322,092 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 353 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.