Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRose, A
dc.contributor.authorGrais, R
dc.contributor.authorCoulombier, D
dc.contributor.authorRitter, H
dc.date.accessioned2008-02-21T12:49:24Z
dc.date.available2008-02-21T12:49:24Z
dc.date.issued2006-04
dc.identifier.citationA Comparison of Cluster and Systematic Sampling Methods for Measuring Crude Mortality. 2006, 84 (4):290-6 Bull. World Health Organ.en
dc.identifier.issn0042-9686
dc.identifier.pmid16628302
dc.identifier.doi/S0042-96862006000400013
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10144/18813
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVE: To compare the results of two different survey sampling techniques (cluster and systematic) used to measure retrospective mortality on the same population at about the same time. METHODS: Immediately following a cluster survey to assess mortality retrospectively in a town in North Darfur, Sudan in 2005, we conducted a systematic survey on the same population and again measured mortality retrospectively. This was only possible because the geographical layout of the town, and the availability of a good previous estimate of the population size and distribution, were conducive to the systematic survey design. RESULTS: Both the cluster and the systematic survey methods gave similar results below the emergency threshold for crude mortality (0.80 versus 0.77 per 10,000/day, respectively). The results for mortality in children under 5 years old (U5MR) were different (1.16 versus 0.71 per 10,000/day), although this difference was not statistically significant. The 95% confidence intervals were wider in each case for the cluster survey, especially for the U5MR (0.15-2.18 for the cluster versus 0.09-1.33 for the systematic survey). CONCLUSION: Both methods gave similar age and sex distributions. The systematic survey, however, allowed for an estimate of the town's population size, and a smaller sample could have been used. This study was conducted in a purely operational, rather than a research context. A research study into alternative methods for measuring retrospective mortality in areas with mortality significantly above the emergency threshold is needed, and is planned for 2006.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherPublished by WHO
dc.relation.urlhttp://www.who.int/bulletin/en
dc.rightsArchived on this site with permission of WHOen
dc.subject.meshAdolescenten
dc.subject.meshAdulten
dc.subject.meshAgeden
dc.subject.meshChilden
dc.subject.meshChild, Preschoolen
dc.subject.meshCluster Analysisen
dc.subject.meshConfidence Intervalsen
dc.subject.meshFemaleen
dc.subject.meshHumansen
dc.subject.meshInfanten
dc.subject.meshInfant, Newbornen
dc.subject.meshMaleen
dc.subject.meshMiddle Ageden
dc.subject.meshMortalityen
dc.subject.meshRetrospective Studiesen
dc.subject.meshSampling Studiesen
dc.subject.meshSudanen
dc.titleA Comparison of Cluster and Systematic Sampling Methods for Measuring Crude Mortality.en
dc.contributor.departmentEpicentre, Paris, France. angela.rose@epicentre.msf.orgen
dc.identifier.journalBulletin of the World Health Organizationen
refterms.dateFOA2019-03-04T09:27:08Z
html.description.abstractOBJECTIVE: To compare the results of two different survey sampling techniques (cluster and systematic) used to measure retrospective mortality on the same population at about the same time. METHODS: Immediately following a cluster survey to assess mortality retrospectively in a town in North Darfur, Sudan in 2005, we conducted a systematic survey on the same population and again measured mortality retrospectively. This was only possible because the geographical layout of the town, and the availability of a good previous estimate of the population size and distribution, were conducive to the systematic survey design. RESULTS: Both the cluster and the systematic survey methods gave similar results below the emergency threshold for crude mortality (0.80 versus 0.77 per 10,000/day, respectively). The results for mortality in children under 5 years old (U5MR) were different (1.16 versus 0.71 per 10,000/day), although this difference was not statistically significant. The 95% confidence intervals were wider in each case for the cluster survey, especially for the U5MR (0.15-2.18 for the cluster versus 0.09-1.33 for the systematic survey). CONCLUSION: Both methods gave similar age and sex distributions. The systematic survey, however, allowed for an estimate of the town's population size, and a smaller sample could have been used. This study was conducted in a purely operational, rather than a research context. A research study into alternative methods for measuring retrospective mortality in areas with mortality significantly above the emergency threshold is needed, and is planned for 2006.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
crude mortality.pdf
Size:
148.8Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record