LiST: Lives Saved Tool

BMCVictora, C.G., et al., How within-country inequalities and co-coverage may affect LiST estimates of lives saved by scaling up interventions. BMC Public Health, 2013. 13 Suppl 3: p. S24.

 Abstract

Lives-saved estimates calculated by LiST include the implicit assumptions that there are no inequalities among different socioeconomic groups, and also that the likelihood of a mother or child receiving a given intervention is independent from the probability of receiving any other interventions. It is reasonable to assume that, as a consequence of these assumptions, LiST estimates may exaggerate the numbers of lives saved in a population, by ignoring the fact that coverage is likely to be lower and mortality higher among the poor than the rich, and also by failing to take into account that coverage with different interventions may be clustered at individual mothers and children – a phenomenon described as co-coverage. We used data from 127 DHS surveys to estimate how much these two assumptions may bias estimates produced by LiST, and conclude that under real-life conditions bias occurred in both directions, with LiST results either over or underestimating the more complex estimates. With few exceptions, bias tended to be small (less than 10% in either direction).

Go to Article

Featured News

LiST Used to Estimate Impact of Interventions on Intrapartum-Related Deaths

September 21, 2016 – Intrapartum-related deaths (those taking place during delivery) represent a large proportion of neonatal deaths overall.

Read more ...
Go to top