ArticleBMC medical research methodology2017
Programme Reporting Standards (PRS) for improving the reporting of sexual, reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health programmes.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Do Quality Improvement Initiatives Improve Outcomes for Patients in Antiretroviral Programs in Low- and Middle-Income Countries? A Systematic Review.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2019Pooled it
- Practice patterns, barriers, and attitudes toward urotherapy for pediatric lower urinary tract symptoms: A societies for pediatric urology survey.Journal of pediatric urology · 2025Article
- Assessing unConventional Evidence (ACE) tool: development and content of a tool to assess the strengths and limitations of 'unconventional' source materials.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- Exploring the feasibility of establishing a core set of sexual, reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health indicators in humanitarian settings: results from a multi-methods assessment in Jordan.Reproductive health · 2023Article
- What's in a name? Unpacking 'CommunityBMJ global health · 2023Article
- Strategies to improve interpersonal communication along the continuum of maternal and newborn care: A scoping review and narrative synthesis.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- What Drives Knowledge Seeking, Sharing, and Use Among Family Planning Professionals? Behavioral Evidence From Africa, Asia, and the United States.Global health, science and practice · 2022Article
- Feasibility of establishing a core set of sexual, reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health indicators in humanitarian settings: results from a multi-methods assessment in the Democratic Republic of Congo.Reproductive health · 2022Article
- Community mobilization to strengthen support for appropriate and timely use of antenatal and postnatal care: A review of reviews.Journal of global health · 2021Review
- Global research priorities for social, behavioural and community engagement interventions for maternal, newborn and child health.Health research policy and systems · 2020Article
- Quality of Pregnancy Dating and Obstetric Interventions During Labor: Retrospective Database Analysis.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2020Article
- A forgotten group during humanitarian crises: a systematic review of sexual and reproductive health interventions for young people including adolescents in humanitarian settings.Conflict and health · 2019Review
- Quality improvement in maternal and newborn healthcare: lessons from programmes supported by the German development organisation in Africa and Asia.BMJ global health · 2019Review
- Characterising innovations in maternal and newborn health based on a common theory of change: lessons from developing and applying a characterisation framework in Nigeria, Ethiopia and India.BMJ global health · 2019Review
- Taking account of context in systematic reviews and guidelines considering a complexity perspective.BMJ global health · 2019Article
- Developing an implementation strategy for a digital health intervention: an example in routine healthcare.BMC health services research · 2018Article
- The "hot potato" topic: challenges and facilitators to promoting respectful maternal care within a broader health intervention in Tanzania.Reproductive health · 2018Article
- Doing What We Do, Better: Improving Our Work Through Systematic Program Reporting.Global health, science and practice · 2018Article
- Improving implementation of health promotion interventions for maternal and newborn health.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInformation about design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation is central to understand the impact of programmes within the field of sexual, reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health (SRMNCAH). Existing reporting guidelines do not orient on reporting of contextual and implementation issues in sufficient detail. We therefore developed Programme Reporting Standards (PRS) to be used by SRMNCAH programme implementers and researchers.
methodsBuilding on the first step of the PRS development (a systematic review to identify reporting items), we conducted a three-round online Delphi consensus survey with experts. Consensus was defined a-priori as 80% agreement of items as essential. This was followed by a technical consultation with a group of experts to refine the items, definitions and their structuring. The revised PRS was piloted to assess its relevance to current SRMNCAH programme reports and identify key issues regarding the use of the PRS.
resultsOf the 81 participants invited to the Delphi survey, 20 responded to all three rounds. In the final round, 27 items received consensus as essential; three items were ranked as "borderline" essential; 20 items as supplementary. The items were subsequently revised, followed by a technical consultation with 29 experts to further review and refine the PRS. The feedback resulted in substantial changes to the structure and content of the PRS into 24 items across five domains: Programme overview; Programme components and implementation; Monitoring of Implementation; Evaluation and Results; and Synthesis. This version was used in a piloting exercise, where questions regarding how much information to report and how to comment on the quality of the information reported were addressed. All items were kept in the PRS following the pilot although minor changes were made to the flow and description of items.
conclusionsThe PRS 1.0 is the result of a structured, collaborative process, including methods to incorporate input from SRMNCAH stakeholders. The World Health Organization will develop a document that explains the items in greater detail, and will also apply the PRS to on-going initiatives. We welcome continuous input from the field, while it is being used, to improve its relevance and usefulness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.