ArticleJournal of global health2025
Assessing courtesy reporting bias in facility-based surveys on person-centred maternity care: evidence from urban informal settlements in Nairobi and Lusaka.
Article in Journal of global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Experience of care is typically measured through client exit surveys administered in the facility. Evidence suggests that such measures suffer from courtesy reporting bias whereby respondents do not accurately report on their experiences while in the facility. We explored the presence of courtesy bias by comparing women's reported experience of person-centred maternity care (PCMC) from facility-based client exit surveys to mobile phone-based surveys out of the facility in Nairobi and Lusaka's urban informal settlements. Methods: We randomly and independently sampled women in the facilities for either a facility-based survey (n = 233 in Lusaka and n = 112 in Nairobi) or a mobile phone-based survey (n = 203 in Lusaka and n = 300 in Nairobi) within one to two weeks of facility discharge. The questionnaire included a validated PCMC scale. After adjusting for differences in women's characteristics across groups, we compared PCMC scores between facility and phone-based samples. We ran multilevel linear regression models to assess PCMC by survey modality in each city. Results: In both cities, over 70.0% of women were aged 20-34 years and were married, at least two thirds had secondary education, and over 95.0% were unaccompanied during labour/delivery. The overall PCMC score was 69.3% among women surveyed on the phone compared to 70.2% among those surveyed in the facility in Nairobi. In Lusaka, it was 57.5% on the phone compared to 56.8% in-facility. We found no statistically significant differences in PCMC scores between survey modalities in both cities, after adjusting for differences in women's characteristics. Conclusions: We did not detect significant courtesy reporting bias in PCMC in facility-based client exit surveys in the context of urban informal settlements in Nairobi and Lusaka. Experience of PCMC can be measured through in-facility client exit surveys or mobile phone surveys. However, it is critical to address challenges related to a mobile phone-based approach.
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.