Table 2 Comparison of comprehensive and delivery-only indices using Tanzania (including Zanzibar) Round 1 dataa
Comprehensive index | Delivery-only index | |
|---|---|---|
Score distribution | ||
Mean (% of maximum achievable) | 12.12 (57.71%) | 7.48 (57.54%) |
Maximum (% of maximum achievable) | 21 (100.00%) | 13 (100.00%) |
Minimum (% of maximum achievable) | 0 (0.00%) | 0 (0.00%) |
Validation domains and benchmarks | ||
1. Representation of QoPIIPC dimensions: | ||
- # of dimensions (out of 5) | 4 | 3 |
2. Association of index with overall QoC performance: | ||
- B coefficient from SLR of total QoC score (p-value) | 8.91b (< 0.001) | 8.20 (< 0.001) |
3. Association of individual items with overall QoC performance: | ||
- # items without significant relationship to total QoC score | 1 | 0 |
- # items without significant relationship to good QoC score (absolute) | 4 | 3 |
- # items without significant relationship to poor QoC score (relative) | 3 | 1 |
4. Ability to distinguish between good and poor performance: | ||
- AUROC good total QoC score - absolute | 0.976c | 0.924 |
- AUROC good total QoC score – relative | 0.935 | 0.918 |
- AUROC poor total QoC score - relative | 0.940c | 0.900 |
- OR good total QoC score – absolute (p-value) | 51.33 (p < 0.001) | 10.00 (p < 0.001) |
- OR good total QoC score – relative (p-value) | 34.08d (p < 0.001) | 16.43 (p < 0.001) |
- OR poor total QoC score – relative (p-value) | 0.029d (p < 0.001) | 0.072 (p < 0.001) |
5. Range of performance frequency: | ||
- # of items performed in < 30% of cases | 3 | 2 |
- # of items performed in < 40% of cases | 5 | 3 |
- # of items performed in > 90% of cases | 3 | 2 |
6. Distribution of index score: | ||
- Coefficient of variation | 28.52 | 30.73 |
- % of deliveries with minimum index score | 0.35% | 0.71% |
- % of deliveries with maximum index score | 0.71% | 1.77% |