Bilukha Oleg O
International Emergency and Refugee Health Branch, Division of Emergency and Environmental Health Services, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA.
Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2008 Jul 8;5:7. doi: 10.1186/1742-7622-5-7.
Cluster surveys are frequently used to measure key nutrition and health indicators in humanitarian emergencies. The survey design of 30 clusters of 7 children (30 x 7) was initially proposed by the World Health Organization for measuring vaccination coverage, and later a design of 30 clusters of 30 children (30 x 30) was introduced to measure acute malnutrition in emergency settings. Recently, designs of 33 clusters of 6 children (33 x 6) and 67 clusters of 3 children (67 x 3) have been proposed as alternatives that enable measurement of several key indicators with sufficient precision, while offering substantial savings in time. This paper explores expected effects of using 67 x 3, 33 x 6, or 30 x 7 designs instead of a "standard" 30 x 30 design on precision and accuracy of estimates, and on time required to complete the survey.
The 67 x 3, 33 x 6, and 30 x 7 designs are expected to be more statistically efficient for measuring outcomes having high design effects (e.g., vaccination coverage, vitamin A distribution coverage, or access to safe water sources), and less efficient for measuring outcomes with more within-cluster variability, such as global acute malnutrition or anemia. Because of small sample sizes, these designs may not provide sufficient levels of precision to measure crude mortality rates. Given the small number (3 to 7) of survey subjects per cluster, it may be hard to select representative samples of subjects within clusters.The smaller sample size in these designs will likely result in substantial time savings. The magnitude of the savings will depend on several factors, including the average travel time between clusters. The 67 x 3 design will provide the least time savings. The 33 x 6 and 30 x 7 designs perform similarly to each other, both in terms of statistical efficiency and in terms of time required to complete the survey.
Cluster designs discussed in this paper may offer substantial time and cost savings compared to the traditional 30 x 30 design, and may provide acceptable levels of precision when measuring outcomes that have high intracluster homogeneity. Further investigation is required to determine whether these designs can consistently provide accurate point estimates for key outcomes of interest. Organizations conducting cluster surveys in emergency settings need to build their technical capacity in survey design to be able to calculate context-specific sample sizes individually for each planned survey.
整群抽样调查常用于衡量人道主义紧急情况下的关键营养与健康指标。世界卫生组织最初提议采用30个群组、每组7名儿童(30×7)的调查设计来衡量疫苗接种覆盖率,后来又引入了30个群组、每组30名儿童(30×30)的设计来衡量紧急情况下的急性营养不良情况。最近,有人提出采用33个群组、每组6名儿童(33×6)和67个群组、每组3名儿童(67×3)的设计作为替代方案,这些方案能够以足够的精度衡量多个关键指标,同时大幅节省时间。本文探讨了使用67×3、33×6或30×7设计而非“标准”的30×30设计对估计精度和准确性以及完成调查所需时间的预期影响。
对于测量具有高设计效应的结果(如疫苗接种覆盖率、维生素A分配覆盖率或安全水源获取情况),预计67×3、33×6和30×7设计在统计上更有效;而对于测量集群内变异性更大的结果,如全球急性营养不良或贫血,则效率较低。由于样本量较小,这些设计可能无法提供足够的精度来测量粗死亡率。鉴于每个群组的调查对象数量较少(3至7名),可能难以在群组内选取具有代表性的样本。这些设计中较小的样本量可能会大幅节省时间。节省时间的幅度将取决于几个因素,包括群组之间的平均出行时间。67×3设计节省的时间最少。33×6和30×7设计在统计效率和完成调查所需时间方面表现相似。
与传统的30×30设计相比本文讨论的整群抽样设计可能会大幅节省时间和成本,并且在测量集群内同质性较高的结果时可能提供可接受的精度水平。需要进一步研究以确定这些设计是否能够始终为感兴趣的关键结果提供准确的点估计。在紧急情况下进行整群抽样调查的组织需要增强其在调查设计方面的技术能力,以便能够为每项计划的调查单独计算特定背景下的样本量。