4.6 Article

How is the Lives Saved Tool (LiST) used in the global health community? Results of a mixed-methods LiST user study

期刊

BMC PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 17, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-017-4750-5

关键词

Lives saved tool; LiST; Spectrum; Avenir health

资金

  1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  2. Children's Investment Fund Foundation
  3. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [115,621, OPP1084423]
  4. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1084423] Funding Source: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The Lives Saved Tool (LiST) is a computer-based model that estimates the impact of scaling up key interventions to improve maternal, newborn and child health. Initially developed to inform the Lancet Child Survival Series of 2003, the functionality and scope of LiST have been expanded greatly over the past 10 years. This study sought to take stock of how LiST is now being used and for what purposes. Methods: We conducted a quantitative survey of LiST users, qualitative interviews with a smaller sample of LiST users and members of the LiST team at Johns Hopkins University, and a literature review of studies involving LiST analyses. Results: LiST is being used by donors, international organizations, governments, NGOs and academic institutions to assist program evaluation, inform strategic planning and evidenced-based decision-making, and advocate for high-impact interventions. Some organizations have integrated LiST into internal workflows and built in-house capacity for using LiST, while other organizations rely on the LiST team for support and to outsource analyses. In addition to being a popular stand-alone software, LiST is used as a calculation engine for other applications. Conclusions: The Lives Saved Tool has been reported to be a useful model in maternal, newborn, and child health. With continued commitment, LiST should remain as a part of the international health toolkit used to assess maternal, newborn and child health programs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据