Sarah C Anoke1, Paul Mwai1, Caroline Jeffery2, Joseph J Valadez2, Marcello Pagano1. 1. Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Department of International Public Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Two common methods used to measure indicators for health programme monitoring and evaluation are the demographic and health surveys (DHS) and lot quality assurance sampling (LQAS); each one has different strengths. We report on both methods when utilised in comparable situations. METHODS: We compared 24 indicators in south-west Uganda, where data for prevalence estimations were collected independently for the two methods in 2011 (LQAS: n = 8876; DHS: n = 1200). Data were stratified (e.g. gender and age) resulting in 37 comparisons. We used a two-sample two-sided Z-test of proportions to compare both methods. RESULTS: The average difference between LQAS and DHS for 37 estimates was 0.062 (SD = 0.093; median = 0.039). The average difference among the 21 failures to reject equality of proportions was 0.010 (SD = 0.041; median = 0.009); among the 16 rejections, it was 0.130 (SD = 0.010, median = 0.118). Seven of the 16 rejections exhibited absolute differences of <0.10, which are clinically (or managerially) not significant; 5 had differences >0.10 and <0.20 (mean = 0.137, SD = 0.031) and four differences were >0.20 (mean = 0.261, SD = 0.083). CONCLUSION: There is 75.7% agreement across the two surveys. Both methods yield regional results, but only LQAS provides information at less granular levels (e.g. the district level) where managerial action is taken. The cost advantage and localisation make LQAS feasible to conduct more frequently, and provides the possibility for real-time health outcomes monitoring.
OBJECTIVES: Two common methods used to measure indicators for health programme monitoring and evaluation are the demographic and health surveys (DHS) and lot quality assurance sampling (LQAS); each one has different strengths. We report on both methods when utilised in comparable situations. METHODS: We compared 24 indicators in south-west Uganda, where data for prevalence estimations were collected independently for the two methods in 2011 (LQAS: n = 8876; DHS: n = 1200). Data were stratified (e.g. gender and age) resulting in 37 comparisons. We used a two-sample two-sided Z-test of proportions to compare both methods. RESULTS: The average difference between LQAS and DHS for 37 estimates was 0.062 (SD = 0.093; median = 0.039). The average difference among the 21 failures to reject equality of proportions was 0.010 (SD = 0.041; median = 0.009); among the 16 rejections, it was 0.130 (SD = 0.010, median = 0.118). Seven of the 16 rejections exhibited absolute differences of <0.10, which are clinically (or managerially) not significant; 5 had differences >0.10 and <0.20 (mean = 0.137, SD = 0.031) and four differences were >0.20 (mean = 0.261, SD = 0.083). CONCLUSION: There is 75.7% agreement across the two surveys. Both methods yield regional results, but only LQAS provides information at less granular levels (e.g. the district level) where managerial action is taken. The cost advantage and localisation make LQAS feasible to conduct more frequently, and provides the possibility for real-time health outcomes monitoring.
Authors: Lavinia Bianco; Salvatore Raffa; Paolo Fornelli; Rita Mancini; Angela Gabriele; Francesco Medici; Claudia Battista; Stefania Greco; Giuseppe Croce; Aldo Germani; Simona Petrucci; Paolo Anibaldi; Valerio Bianco; Mario Ronchetti; Giorgio Banchieri; Christian Napoli; Maria Piane Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-25 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Daniel A Sprague; Caroline Jeffery; Nadine Crossland; Thomas House; Gareth O Roberts; William Vargas; Joseph Ouma; Stephen K Lwanga; Joseph J Valadez Journal: Emerg Themes Epidemiol Date: 2016-06-14
Authors: Elizabeth Harding; Colin Beckworth; Jean-Francois Fesselet; Annick Lenglet; Richard Lako; Joseph J Valadez Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2017-08-08 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Milika Rinamalo; Lorenzo Pezzoli; Mike Kama; Eric Rafai; Ilisapeci Kubuabola; Mosese Salusalu; Sung Hye Kim Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-09-18 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Joseph James Valadez; Sima Berendes; Jackline Odhiambo; William Vargas; Baburam Devkota; Richard Lako; Caroline Jeffery Journal: BMJ Glob Health Date: 2020-04-15