Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42229972›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2026

Evaluating global health programmes targeting under-5 mortality: problems and recommendations.

Avi Kenny, Mark J Siedner, John D Kraemer, Matthew H Bonds, Kevin Fiori, David Citrin, Adesola Z Musa, Hobisoa Razanadranaivo, Osondu Ogbuoji, Gavin Yamey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Avi KennyDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA avi.kenny@duke.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-9465-7307
Mark J SiednerDivision of Infectious Diseases, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
John D KraemerDepartment of Health Management and Policy, Georgetown University School of Health, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8769-3393
Matthew H BondsDepartment of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Kevin FioriIntegrate Health, Kara, Togo.
David CitrinDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Adesola Z MusaNigerian Institute of Medical Research, Lagos, Nigeria.
Hobisoa RazanadranaivoPIVOT, Ranomafana, Madagascar.
Osondu OgbuojiGlobal Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2472-6861
Gavin YameyGlobal Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8390-7382

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reducing the under-5 mortality rate (U5MR) is a key public health priority and remains a persistent challenge in low- and middle-income countries. Many interventions have been developed in attempts to lower U5MR through partnerships between governments, funding partners, researchers, product developers and non-governmental organisations. The well-intentioned desire to use data to set priorities has led to many large-scale evaluations that specify U5MR as a primary outcome. The results of these evaluations are then used to inform investments, policies and advocacy efforts. While important insights can be gained from tracking U5MR at the population level, these evaluations often present serious scientific, pragmatic and ethical challenges. In this article, we outline six problems associated with evaluations targeting a U5MR outcome. We describe why U5MR is primarily informative as an outcome measure for trials of new clinical procedures or treatments designed to cure a life-threatening condition. For interventions that aim to lower U5MR by preventing disease or other potentially fatal events at the population level, or by improving implementation of existing evidence-based interventions, we recommend evaluations that specify intermediate outcomes that offer timelier information and more reliable causal inference. We present limitations to using results of a single study as the basis for policy or funding decisions about an intervention or implementing partner. Finally, we reinforce the need for rigorous methodology, national periodic U5MR measurement, verbal and social autopsies, strong mixed-methods implementation research and reliance on local implementer knowledge.

Indexed as

Child MortalityGlobal HealthInfant MortalityProgram EvaluationChild, PreschoolDeveloping CountriesHumansInfantChild healthGlobal HealthHealth policyHealth systems evaluation

Identifiers

PMID42229972
PMCPMC13239553

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.