ArticleBMJ global health2026
Evaluating global health programmes targeting under-5 mortality: problems and recommendations.
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.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.