首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Emerging Themes in Epidemiology >Precision time and cost: a comparison of three sampling designs in an emergency setting
【2h】

Precision time and cost: a comparison of three sampling designs in an emergency setting

机译:精度时间和成本:紧急情况下三种采样设计的比较

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

The conventional method to collect data on the health, nutrition, and food security status of a population affected by an emergency is a 30 × 30 cluster survey. This sampling method can be time and resource intensive and, accordingly, may not be the most appropriate one when data are needed rapidly for decision making. In this study, we compare the precision, time and cost of the 30 × 30 cluster survey with two alternative sampling designs: a 33 × 6 cluster design (33 clusters, 6 observations per cluster) and a 67 × 3 cluster design (67 clusters, 3 observations per cluster). Data for each sampling design were collected concurrently in West Darfur, Sudan in September-October 2005 in an emergency setting. Results of the study show the 30 × 30 design to provide more precise results (i.e. narrower 95% confidence intervals) than the 33 × 6 and 67 × 3 design for most child-level indicators. Exceptions are indicators of immunization and vitamin A capsule supplementation coverage which show a high intra-cluster correlation. Although the 33 × 6 and 67 × 3 designs provide wider confidence intervals than the 30 × 30 design for child anthropometric indicators, the 33 × 6 and 67 × 3 designs provide the opportunity to conduct a LQAS hypothesis test to detect whether or not a critical threshold of global acute malnutrition prevalence has been exceeded, whereas the 30 × 30 design does not. For the household-level indicators tested in this study, the 67 × 3 design provides the most precise results. However, our results show that neither the 33 × 6 nor the 67 × 3 design are appropriate for assessing indicators of mortality. In this field application, data collection for the 33 × 6 and 67 × 3 designs required substantially less time and cost than that required for the 30 × 30 design. The findings of this study suggest the 33 × 6 and 67 × 3 designs can provide useful time- and resource-saving alternatives to the 30 × 30 method of data collection in emergency settings.
机译:收集有关受紧急情况影响的人群的健康,营养和食品安全状况数据的常规方法是30×30整群调查。这种采样方法可能会占用大量时间和资源,因此在快速需要数据进行决策时可能不是最合适的方法。在这项研究中,我们将30×30集群调查的精度,时间和成本与两种备选抽样设计进行了比较:33×6集群设计(33个集群,每个集群6个观测值)和67×3集群设计(67个集群) ,每个群集3个观察值)。在紧急情况下,于2005年9月至10月在苏丹西达尔富尔同时收集了每种抽样设计的数据。研究结果表明,对于大多数儿童级指标,采用30×30的设计比采用33×6和67×3的设计提供更精确的结果(即,狭窄的95%置信区间)。例外情况是免疫性和维生素A胶囊补充覆盖率的指标显示出较高的集群内相关性。尽管33×6和67×3设计提供的置信区间比儿童人体测量指标的30×30设计更宽,但33×6和67×3设计提供了进行LQAS假设检验以检测是否关键的机会。超过了全球急性营养不良患病率的阈值,而没有超过30×30设计。对于本研究中测试的家庭水平指标,67×3设计可提供最精确的结果。但是,我们的结果表明,33×6和67×3的设计都不适合评估死亡率指标。在此现场应用中,与30×30设计相比,用于33×6和67×3设计的数据收集所需的时间和成本大大减少。这项研究的结果表明,在紧急情况下,采用33×6和67×3的设计可以为30×30的数据收集方法提供节省时间和资源的替代方法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号