Regina Tomie Ivata Bernal1, Betine Pinto Moehlecke Iser2, Deborah Carvalho Malta3, Rafael Moreira Claro4. 1. Universidade de São Paulo, Núcleo de Pesquisas Epidemiológicas em Nutrição e Saúde, São Paulo-SP, Brasil. 2. Universidade do Sul de Santa Catarina, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências da Saúde, Tubarão- SC, Brasil. 3. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Departamento Materno-Infantil e de Saúde Pública, Belo Horizonte-MG, Brasil. 4. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Departamento de Nutrição, Belo Horizonte-MG, Brasil.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: to introduce the methodology used to calculate post-stratification weights of the 2012 Surveillance System for Risk and Protective Factors for Chronic Diseases by Telephone Survey (Vigitel) and to compare the trends of indicators estimated by cell-by-cell weighting and raking methods. METHODS: in this panel of cross-sectional studies, the prevalences of smokers, overweight, and intake of fruits and vegetables from 2006 to 2012 were estimated using the cell-by-cell weighting and raking methods. RESULTS: there were no differences in time trends of the indicators estimated by both methods, but the prevalence of smokers estimated by the raking method was lower than the estimated by cell-by-cell weighting, whilst the prevalence of fruit and vegetable intake was higher; for overweight, there was no difference between the methods. CONCLUSION: raking method presented higher accuracy of the estimates when compared to cell-by-cell weighting method, proving to be most convenient, although it presents register coverage bias.
OBJECTIVE: to introduce the methodology used to calculate post-stratification weights of the 2012 Surveillance System for Risk and Protective Factors for Chronic Diseases by Telephone Survey (Vigitel) and to compare the trends of indicators estimated by cell-by-cell weighting and raking methods. METHODS: in this panel of cross-sectional studies, the prevalences of smokers, overweight, and intake of fruits and vegetables from 2006 to 2012 were estimated using the cell-by-cell weighting and raking methods. RESULTS: there were no differences in time trends of the indicators estimated by both methods, but the prevalence of smokers estimated by the raking method was lower than the estimated by cell-by-cell weighting, whilst the prevalence of fruit and vegetable intake was higher; for overweight, there was no difference between the methods. CONCLUSION: raking method presented higher accuracy of the estimates when compared to cell-by-cell weighting method, proving to be most convenient, although it presents register coverage bias.
Authors: Dalton Bertolim Précoma; Gláucia Maria Moraes de Oliveira; Antonio Felipe Simão; Oscar Pereira Dutra; Otávio Rizzi Coelho; Maria Cristina de Oliveira Izar; Rui Manuel Dos Santos Póvoa; Isabela de Carlos Back Giuliano; Aristóteles Comte de Alencar Filho; Carlos Alberto Machado; Carlos Scherr; Francisco Antonio Helfenstein Fonseca; Raul Dias Dos Santos Filho; Tales de Carvalho; Álvaro Avezum; Roberto Esporcatte; Bruno Ramos Nascimento; David de Pádua Brasil; Gabriel Porto Soares; Paolo Blanco Villela; Roberto Muniz Ferreira; Wolney de Andrade Martins; Andrei C Sposito; Bruno Halpern; José Francisco Kerr Saraiva; Luiz Sergio Fernandes Carvalho; Marcos Antônio Tambascia; Otávio Rizzi Coelho-Filho; Adriana Bertolami; Harry Correa Filho; Hermes Toros Xavier; José Rocha Faria-Neto; Marcelo Chiara Bertolami; Viviane Zorzanelli Rocha Giraldez; Andrea Araújo Brandão; Audes Diógenes de Magalhães Feitosa; Celso Amodeo; Dilma do Socorro Moraes de Souza; Eduardo Costa Duarte Barbosa; Marcus Vinícius Bolívar Malachias; Weimar Kunz Sebba Barroso de Souza; Fernando Augusto Alves da Costa; Ivan Romero Rivera; Lucia Campos Pellanda; Maria Alayde Mendonça da Silva; Aloyzio Cechella Achutti; André Ribeiro Langowiski; Carla Janice Baister Lantieri; Jaqueline Ribeiro Scholz; Silvia Maria Cury Ismael; José Carlos Aidar Ayoub; Luiz César Nazário Scala; Mario Fritsch Neves; Paulo Cesar Brandão Veiga Jardim; Sandra Cristina Pereira Costa Fuchs; Thiago de Souza Veiga Jardim; Emilio Hideyuki Moriguchi; Jamil Cherem Schneider; Marcelo Heitor Vieira Assad; Sergio Emanuel Kaiser; Ana Maria Lottenberg; Carlos Daniel Magnoni; Marcio Hiroshi Miname; Roberta Soares Lara; Artur Haddad Herdy; Cláudio Gil Soares de Araújo; Mauricio Milani; Miguel Morita Fernandes da Silva; Ricardo Stein; Fernando Antonio Lucchese; Fernando Nobre; Hermilo Borba Griz; Lucélia Batista Neves Cunha Magalhães; Mario Henrique Elesbão de Borba; Mauro Ricardo Nunes Pontes; Ricardo Mourilhe-Rocha Journal: Arq Bras Cardiol Date: 2019-11-04 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Mayara Maria Souza de Almeida; Rafael Alves Guimarães; Paulo César Brandão Veiga Jardim; Ana Luiza Lima Sousa; Márcia Maria de Souza Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-12-18 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Paula A Bracco; Edward W Gregg; Deborah B Rolka; Maria Inês Schmidt; Sandhi M Barreto; Paulo A Lotufo; Isabela Bensenor; Dora Chor; Bruce B Duncan Journal: J Glob Health Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 4.413
Authors: Paula A Bracco; Edward W Gregg; Deborah B Rolka; Maria Inês Schmidt; Sandhi M Barreto; Paulo A Lotufo; Isabela Bensenor; Bruce B Duncan Journal: J Glob Health Date: 2021-07-03 Impact factor: 7.664
Authors: Felippe Lazar-Neto; Andressa C Sposato Louzada; Ricardo Faé de Moura; Fernando Morelli Calixto; Marcia C Castro Journal: J Immigr Minor Health Date: 2018-08
Authors: Ana Zaira da Silva; Rosa Maria Salani Mota; Raimunda Hermelinda Maia Macena; Roberto da Justa Pires Neto; Marcelo José Monteiro Ferreira; Priscila França de Araújo; Thereza Maria Magalhães Moreira; David W Seal; Carl Kendall; Ligia Regina Franco Sansigolo Kerr Journal: J Occup Health Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 2.708