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%) |