Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40158185›Full record

ArticlePopulation health metrics2025

A scoping review of the methods used to estimate health facility catchment populations for child health indicators in sub-Saharan Africa.

Matthew Johnson, Wole Ademola Adewole, Victor Alegana, C Edson Utazi, Nuala McGrath, James Wright

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Population health metrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Matthew JohnsonSchool of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Southampton, Building 44, University Road, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK. mjj1e15@soton.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-5597-6615
Wole Ademola AdewoleSchool of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Southampton, Building 44, University Road, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7538-9781
Victor AleganaSchool of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Southampton, Building 44, University Road, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5177-9227
C Edson UtaziWorldPop, School of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0534-5310
Nuala McGrathDepartment of Social Statistics and Demography, Faculty of Social, Human and Mathematical Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1039-0159
James WrightSchool of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Southampton, Building 44, University Road, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8842-2181

Funding

Economic and Social Research Council ES/P000673/1National Institute for Health and Care Research RP-2017-08-ST2-008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence indicating persistent geographic inequalities in health outcomes signifies a need for routine subnational monitoring of health-related Sustainable Development Goal targets in sub-Saharan Africa. Health facilities may be an appropriate subnational unit for monitoring purposes, but a lack of suitable demographic data complicates the production of baseline facility-level population denominators against which progress can be reliably measured. This scoping review aimed to map the methods and data sources used to estimate health facility catchment areas and translate them to population denominators for child health indicators in the region.

methodsPeer-reviewed research publications and grey literature reports were identified by searching bibliographic databases and relevant organisational websites. The inclusion criteria required that studies were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa since January 2000, described quantitative method(s) for estimating health facility catchment areas and/or population denominators, and focussed on children as the population of interest. Following title/abstract then full text screening of search results, relevant data were extracted using a standard form. Thematic analysis was undertaken to extract themes and present a narrative synthesis.

resultsOverall, 33 research publications and 3 grey literature reports were included. Of these, only 7 research studies and 1 technical guidance document outlined aims explicitly framed around methods development and/or evaluation. Studies increasingly estimated catchment areas using complex geostatistical or travel time-based modelling approaches rather than simpler proximity metrics, and produced denominators by intersecting catchment boundaries with gridded population surfaces rather than aggregating area-based administrative counts. Few studies used data produced by or describing health facilities to link estimation methods to service utilisation patterns, inter-facility competition or facility characteristics.

conclusionThere is a need for catchment population estimation methods that can be scaled to national-level facility networks and replicated across the region. This could be achieved by leveraging routinely collected health data and other readily available and nationally consistent data sources. Future methodological development should emphasise modern geostatistical approaches drawing upon the relative strengths of multiple data sources and capturing the range of spatial, supply-side, individual-level and environmental factors with potential to influence catchments' extent, shape and demographic composition.

Indexed as

Catchment Area, HealthChild HealthHealth FacilitiesHealth Status IndicatorsAfrica South of the SaharaChildHumansCatchment areaChild healthDemographyDenominatorHealth facilityPopulationScoping reviewSpatialSub-Saharan Africa

Identifiers

PMID40158185
PMCPMC11955140

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.