Literature DB >> 36268137

Survey implementation process and interviewer effects on skipping sequence of maternal and child health indicators from National Family Health Survey: An application of cross-classified multilevel model.

Radhika Sharma1, Laxmi Kant Dwivedi2, Somnath Jana1, Kajori Banerjee3, Rakesh Mishra4, Bidhubhusan Mahapatra5, Damodar Sahu6, S K Singh2.   

Abstract

Implementing a large-scale survey involves a string of intricate procedures exposed to numerous types of survey errors. Uniform and systematic training protocols, comprehensive survey manuals, and multilayer supervision during survey implementation help reduce survey errors, providing a consistent fieldwork environment that should not result in any variation in the quality of data collected across interviewers and teams. With this background, the present study attempts to delineate the effect of field investigator (FI) teams and survey implementation design on the selected outcomes. Data on four of the bigger Empowered Action Group (EAG) states of India, namely Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, and Rajasthan, were obtained from the fourth round of the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4) for analysis. A fixed-effect binary logistic regression model was used to assess the effect of FI teams and survey implementation design on the selected outcomes. To study the variation in the outcome variables at the interviewer level, a cross-classified multilevel model was used. Since one interviewer had worked in more than one primary sampling unit (PSU) & district and did not follow a perfect hierarchical structure, the cross-classified multilevel model was deemed suitable. In addition, since NFHS-4 used a two-stage stratified sampling design, two-level weights were adjusted for the models to compute unbiased estimates. This study demonstrated the presence of interviewer-level variation in the selected outcomes at both inter- and intra-field agencies across the selected states. The interviewer-level intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) for women who had not availed antenatal care (ANC) was the highest for eastern Madhya Pradesh (0.23) and central Uttar Pradesh (0.20). For 'immunisation card not seen', Rajasthan (0.16) and western Uttar Pradesh (0.13) had higher interviewer-level ICC. Interviewer-level variations were insignificant for women who gave birth at home across all regions of Uttar Pradesh. Eastern Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Bihar showed higher interviewer-level variation across the selected outcomes, underlining the critical role of agencies and skilled interviewers in different survey implementation designs. The analysis highlights non-uniform adherence to survey protocols, which implies that not all interviewers and agencies performed in a similar manner in the field. This study recommends a refined mechanism for field implementation and supervision, including focused training on the challenges faced by FIs, random vigilance, and morale building. In addition, examining interviewer-level characteristics, field challenges, and field agency effects may also highlight the roots of interviewer-level variation in the data. However, based on the interviewer's performance in the field, the present study offers an intriguing insight into interviewer-level variations in the quality of data.
© 2022 The Authors.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ANC, antenatal care; CAPI, computer-assisted personal interviewing; Cross-classified multilevel model; EAG, empowered action group; FA, field agencies; FI, field investigator; ICC, intra-class correlation coefficient; Interviewer effect; Level weights; MP, Madhya Pradesh; Maternal and child health; NFHS, National Family Health Survey; PSU, primary sampling unit; SDGs, Sustainable Development Goals; Survey design; Survey implementation; Team level variation; UP, Uttar Pradesh

Year:  2022        PMID: 36268137      PMCID: PMC9576585          DOI: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2022.101252

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  SSM Popul Health        ISSN: 2352-8273


  11 in total

1.  An analysis of sampling errors for the Demographic Health Surveys.

Authors:  V Verma; T Le
Journal:  Int Stat Rev       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 2.217

2.  SKIP SEQUENCING: A DECISION PROBLEM IN QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN.

Authors:  Charles F Manski; Francesca Molinari
Journal:  Ann Appl Stat       Date:  2008-03-01       Impact factor: 2.083

3.  The Malawi Diffusion and Ideational Change Project 2004-06: Data collection, data quality, and analysis of attrition.

Authors:  Philip Anglewicz; Jimi Adams; Francis Obare; Hans-Peter Kohler; Susan Watkins
Journal:  Demogr Res       Date:  2009-05-05

4.  Disentangling the relative influence of schools and neighborhoods on adolescents' risk for depressive symptoms.

Authors:  Erin C Dunn; Carly E Milliren; Clare R Evans; S V Subramanian; Tracy K Richmond
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2015-02-25       Impact factor: 9.308

5.  How Interviewers Affect Responses to Sensitive Questions on the Justification for Wife Beating, the Refusal to have Conjugal Sex, and Domestic Violence in India.

Authors:  Abhishek Singh; Kaushalendra Kumar; Fred Arnold
Journal:  Stud Fam Plann       Date:  2022-03-16

6.  Depends Who's Asking: Interviewer Effects in Demographic and Health Surveys Abortion Data.

Authors:  Tiziana Leone; Laura Sochas; Ernestina Coast
Journal:  Demography       Date:  2021-02-01

7.  Quality of Health Management Information System for Maternal & Child Health Care in Haryana State, India.

Authors:  Atul Sharma; Saroj Kumar Rana; Shankar Prinja; Rajesh Kumar
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-02-12       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Evaluating concordance between government administrative data and externally collected data among high-volume government health facilities in Uttar Pradesh, India.

Authors:  Beth S Phillips; Shreya Singhal; Shambhavi Mishra; Fnu Kajal; Sun Yu Cotter; May Sudhinaraset
Journal:  Glob Health Action       Date:  2019       Impact factor: 2.640

9.  The use and significance of vaccination cards.

Authors:  Abram L Wagner
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2019-06-20       Impact factor: 3.452

10.  Indicators to examine quality of large scale survey data: an example through district level household and facility survey.

Authors:  Kakoli Borkotoky; Sayeed Unisa
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-03-05       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.