Measuring what the record leaves out.
The Research Coverage Index is a 0–25 framework for scoring how well a country's published evidence base represents midlife women's health. It measures the evidence, not the women.
What RCI measures.
RCI measures the coverage and usefulness of the existing evidence base. It does not measure the health of women in the country directly.
The score asks a single question: if a clinician, policymaker, funder, or researcher wanted to understand midlife women's health in this country, how complete, representative, and actionable is the available evidence?
That distinction matters. A low score is a statement about the published record — not about the women it fails to describe, and not about the clinicians working without it.
Five dimensions, each scored 0–5.
Each dimension is scored 0–5. Total possible score: 25.
Reading a score.
Higher scores reflect evidence that is population-representative, methodologically rigorous, inclusive of relevant subgroups, clinically translated, and visible in policy. Lower scores reflect evidence that is sparse, narrowly sampled, dated, or not yet locally adapted — for example, cohorts representing only a small share of the midlife female population, symptom instruments not yet validated in the national language, or guidelines overdue for revision.
Because the index scores evidence coverage rather than outcomes, it is independent of health status and clinical capability. It identifies where additional data, validation, and translation would add the most value. Every score is reported with the underlying coverage facts that produce it, so it is transparent and replicable.
How a country brief is built.
A score is never final on desk research alone. Local-language sources and country clinician review routinely change both the number and its rationale.
What RCI does not claim.
RCI gives DFV a disciplined basis to choose countries, explain evidence gaps, and compare published research coverage across Asia Pacific without defaulting to anecdote or opportunistic travel. It also serves as a translation tool: funders and clinicians can understand where the evidence gap is most severe before a full field study exists.
Research independence.
Data.Faces.Voices. accepts support for public translation, education, and storytelling. Research independence is non-negotiable. Sponsors do not influence protocol, participant access, data, analysis, findings, or publication decisions.
Research protocol, participant recruitment, consent, data, analysis, publication conclusions, and country selection remain independent of any funding relationship.