A G Turner1, R J Magnani, M Shuaib. 1. Tulane University Medical Center, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, LA 70112, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI) cluster survey methodology has been successfully used for assessing levels of immunization programme coverage in developing country settings, certain features of the methodology, as it is usually carried out, make it less-than-optimal choice for large, national surveys and/or surveys with multiple measurement objectives. What is needed is a 'middle ground' between rigorous cluster sampling methods, which are seen as unfeasible for routine use in many developing country settings, and the EPI cluster survey approach. METHODS: This article suggests some fairly straightforward modifications to the basic EPI cluster survey design that put it on a solid probability footing and render it easily adaptable to differing and/or multiple measurement objectives, without incurring prohibitive costs or adding appreciably to the complexity of survey operations. The proposed modifications concern primarily the manner in which households are chosen at the second stage of sample selection. CONCLUSIONS: Because the modified sampling strategy maintains the scientific rigor of conventional cluster sampling methods while retaining many of the desirable features of the EPI survey methodology, the methodology is likely to be a preferred 'middle ground' survey design, relevant for many applications, particularly surveys designed to monitor multiple health indicators over time. The fieldwork burden in the modified design is only marginally higher than in EPI cluster surveys, and considerably lower than in conventional cluster surveys.
BACKGROUND: Although the Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI) cluster survey methodology has been successfully used for assessing levels of immunization programme coverage in developing country settings, certain features of the methodology, as it is usually carried out, make it less-than-optimal choice for large, national surveys and/or surveys with multiple measurement objectives. What is needed is a 'middle ground' between rigorous cluster sampling methods, which are seen as unfeasible for routine use in many developing country settings, and the EPI cluster survey approach. METHODS: This article suggests some fairly straightforward modifications to the basic EPI cluster survey design that put it on a solid probability footing and render it easily adaptable to differing and/or multiple measurement objectives, without incurring prohibitive costs or adding appreciably to the complexity of survey operations. The proposed modifications concern primarily the manner in which households are chosen at the second stage of sample selection. CONCLUSIONS: Because the modified sampling strategy maintains the scientific rigor of conventional cluster sampling methods while retaining many of the desirable features of the EPI survey methodology, the methodology is likely to be a preferred 'middle ground' survey design, relevant for many applications, particularly surveys designed to monitor multiple health indicators over time. The fieldwork burden in the modified design is only marginally higher than in EPI cluster surveys, and considerably lower than in conventional cluster surveys.
Keywords:
Delivery Of Health Care; Health; Health Services; Immunization; Methodological Studies; Organization And Administration; Primary Health Care; Program Evaluation; Programs; Research Methodology; Sampling Studies; Studies; Survey Methodology; Surveys
Authors: Laura C Steinhardt; Iqbal Aman; Iqbalshah Pakzad; Binay Kumar; Lakhwinder P Singh; David H Peters Journal: Health Policy Plan Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 3.344
Authors: Cristina Eusebio; Hannah Kuper; Sarah Polack; John Enconado; Noel Tongson; Donald Dionio; Anne Dumdum; Hans Limburg; Allen Foster Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2007-06-13 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Z Wadud; H Kuper; S Polack; R Lindfield; M R Akm; K A Choudhury; T Lindfield; H Limburg; A Foster Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2006-07-26 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Rebecca F Grais; Francisco J Luquero; Emmanuel Grellety; Heloise Pham; Benjamin Coghlan; Pierre Salignon Journal: Confl Health Date: 2009-09-10 Impact factor: 2.723
Authors: Sanoussi Bamani; Jonathan D King; Mamadou Dembele; Famolo Coulibaly; Dieudonne Sankara; Yaya Kamissoko; Jim Ting; Lisa A Rotondo; Paul M Emerson Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis Date: 2010-07-06
Authors: Don P Mathanga; Carl H Campbell; Jodi Vanden Eng; Adam Wolkon; Rachel N Bronzan; Grace J Malenga; Doreen Ali; Meghna Desai Journal: Malar J Date: 2010-04-21 Impact factor: 2.979