Al Kibria Gulam Muhammed, Kagoro Frank, Pariyo George, Ali Joseph, Hassan Farida, Kilambo John W, Petro Irene, Maniar Vidhi, Kaufman Michelle R, Vecino-Ortiz Andres, Ahmed Saifuddin, Masanja Honorati, Gibson Dustin G
Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States.
Ifakara Health Institute, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Prev Med Rep. 2024 Jan 12;38:102609. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2024.102609. eCollection 2024 Feb.
We investigated the feasibility of an interactive voice response (IVR) survey in Tanzania and compared its prevalence estimates for tobacco use to the estimates of the 'Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS) 2018'. IVR participants were enrolled by random digit dialing. Quota sampling was employed to achieve the required sample sizes of age-sex strata: sex (male/female) and age (18-29-, 30-44-, 45-59-, and ≥60-year-olds). GATS was a nationally representative survey and used a multistage stratified cluster sampling design. The IVR sample's weights were generated using the inverse proportional weighting (IPW) method with a logit model and the standard age-sex distribution of Tanzania. The IVR and GATS had 2362 and 4555 participants, respectively. Compared to GATS, the unweighted IVR sample had a higher proportion of males (58.7 % vs. 43.2 %), educated people (secondary/above education: 43.3 % vs. 21.1 %), and urban residents (56.5 % vs. 40 %). The weighted prevalence (95 % confidence interval (CI)) of current smoking was 4.99 % (4.11-6.04), 5.22 % (4.36-6.24), and 7.36 % (6.51-8.31) among IVR (IPW), IVR (age-sex standard), and GATS samples, respectively; the weighted prevalence (95 % CI) of smokeless tobacco use was similar: 3.54 % (2.73-4.57), 3.58 % (2.80-4.56), and 2.43 % (1.98-2.98), respectively. Most differences in point estimates for tobacco indicators were small (<2%). Overall, the odds of tobacco smoking indicators were lower in IVR than in GATS; however, the odds of smokeless tobacco use were reversed. Although we found under-/over-estimation of the prevalence of tobacco use in IVR than GATS, the estimates were close. Further research is required to increase the representativeness of IVR.
我们调查了在坦桑尼亚开展交互式语音应答(IVR)调查的可行性,并将其对烟草使用流行率的估计与“2018年全球成人烟草调查(GATS)”的估计进行了比较。IVR参与者通过随机数字拨号招募。采用配额抽样以达到年龄 - 性别分层所需的样本量:性别(男/女)和年龄(18 - 29岁、30 - 44岁、45 - 59岁和≥60岁)。GATS是一项具有全国代表性的调查,采用多阶段分层整群抽样设计。IVR样本的权重使用逆比例加权(IPW)方法及logit模型和坦桑尼亚的标准年龄 - 性别分布生成。IVR和GATS的参与者分别有2362人和4555人。与GATS相比,未加权的IVR样本中男性比例更高(58.7%对43.2%)、受过教育的人比例更高(中等教育及以上:43.3%对21.1%)以及城市居民比例更高(56.5%对40%)。当前吸烟的加权流行率(95%置信区间(CI))在IVR(IPW)、IVR(年龄 - 性别标准化)和GATS样本中分别为4.99%(4.11 - 6.04)、5.22%(4.36 - 6.24)和7.36%(6.51 - 8.31);无烟烟草使用的加权流行率(95%CI)相似:分别为3.54%(2.73 - 4.57)、3.58%(2.80 - 4.56)和2.43%(1.98 - 2.98)。烟草指标点估计的大多数差异较小(<2%)。总体而言,IVR中吸烟指标的比值低于GATS;然而,无烟烟草使用的比值则相反。尽管我们发现IVR中烟草使用流行率的估计低于/高于GATS,但估计值接近。需要进一步研究以提高IVR的代表性。