Population weighted raster maps can communicate findings of social audits: examples from three continents.

BACKGROUND

Maps can portray trends, patterns, and spatial differences that might be overlooked in tabular data and are now widely used in health research. Little has been reported about the process of using maps to communicate epidemiological findings.

METHOD

Population weighted raster maps show colour changes over the study area. Similar to the rasters of barometric pressure in a weather map, data are the health occurrence--a peak on the map represents a higher value of the indicator in question. The population relevance of each sentinel site, as determined in the stratified last stage random sample, combines with geography (inverse-distance weighting) to provide a population-weighted extension of each colour. This transforms the map to show population space rather than simply geographic space.

RESULTS

Maps allowed discussion of strategies to reduce violence against women in a context of political sensitivity about quoting summary indicator figures. Time-series maps showed planners how experiences of health services had deteriorated despite a reform programme; where in a country HIV risk behaviours were improving; and how knowledge of an economic development programme quickly fell off across a region. Change maps highlighted where indicators were improving and where they were deteriorating. Maps of potential impact of interventions, based on multivariate modelling, displayed how partial and full implementation of programmes could improve outcomes across a country. Scale depends on context. To support local planning, district maps or local government authority maps of health indicators were more useful than national maps; but multinational maps of outcomes were more useful for regional institutions. Mapping was useful to illustrate in which districts enrolment in religious schools--a rare occurrence--was more prevalent.

CONCLUSIONS

Population weighted raster maps can present social audit findings in an accessible and compelling way, increasing the use of evidence by planners with limited numeracy skills or little time to look at evidence. Maps complement epidemiological analysis, but they are not a substitute. Much less do they substitute for rigorous epidemiological designs, like randomised controlled trials.