Deitchler Megan, Deconinck Hedwig, Bergeron Gilles
Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project, Academy for Educational Development, 1825 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20009, USA.
Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2008 May 2;5:6. doi: 10.1186/1742-7622-5-6.
The conventional method to collect data on the health, nutrition, and food security status of a population affected by an emergency is a 30 x 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 x 30 cluster survey with two alternative sampling designs: a 33 x 6 cluster design (33 clusters, 6 observations per cluster) and a 67 x 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 x 30 design to provide more precise results (i.e. narrower 95% confidence intervals) than the 33 x 6 and 67 x 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 x 6 and 67 x 3 designs provide wider confidence intervals than the 30 x 30 design for child anthropometric indicators, the 33 x 6 and 67 x 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 x 30 design does not. For the household-level indicators tested in this study, the 67 x 3 design provides the most precise results. However, our results show that neither the 33 x 6 nor the 67 x 3 design are appropriate for assessing indicators of mortality. In this field application, data collection for the 33 x 6 and 67 x 3 designs required substantially less time and cost than that required for the 30 x 30 design. The findings of this study suggest the 33 x 6 and 67 x 3 designs can provide useful time- and resource-saving alternatives to the 30 x 30 method of data collection in emergency settings.
收集受紧急情况影响人群的健康、营养和粮食安全状况数据的传统方法是30×30整群抽样调查。这种抽样方法可能耗费大量时间和资源,因此,在需要迅速获取数据以进行决策时,可能并非最合适的方法。在本研究中,我们将30×30整群抽样调查的精度、时间和成本与另外两种抽样设计进行了比较:33×6整群设计(33个群,每个群6个观测值)和67×3整群设计(67个群,每个群3个观测值)。2005年9月至10月,在苏丹西达尔富尔的紧急情况下,同时收集了每种抽样设计的数据。研究结果表明,对于大多数儿童层面的指标,30×30设计比33×6和67×3设计能提供更精确的结果(即95%置信区间更窄)。免疫接种和维生素A胶囊补充覆盖率指标除外,这些指标显示群内相关性较高。虽然对于儿童人体测量指标,33×6和67×3设计比30×30设计提供的置信区间更宽,但33×6和67×3设计提供了进行LQAS假设检验的机会,以检测全球急性营养不良患病率是否超过临界阈值,而30×30设计则不能。对于本研究中测试的家庭层面指标,67×3设计提供了最精确的结果。然而,我们的结果表明,33×6和67×3设计都不适用于评估死亡率指标。在该实地应用中,33×6和67×3设计的数据收集所需时间和成本比30×30设计少得多。本研究结果表明,在紧急情况下,33×6和67×3设计可为30×30数据收集方法提供有用的节省时间和资源的替代方案。