Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Getting suitable data range of data sources surveys: sampling strategies, questionnaires reporting systems: forms, outputs sentinel sites: clinics, programmes,

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Getting suitable data range of data sources surveys: sampling strategies, questionnaires reporting systems: forms, outputs sentinel sites: clinics, programmes,"— Presentation transcript:

1 Getting suitable data range of data sources surveys: sampling strategies, questionnaires reporting systems: forms, outputs sentinel sites: clinics, programmes, survey clusters Ctown4.ppt

2

3 Surveys sampling strategy – general (see next slide) o multi-stage, PPS, known probability of individual selection o small-scale: 30*30 (or 33*6, or …); segmentation vs spin-a-bottle match earlier surveys o sample same population o match age-bands o keep same measures/questions (don’t change questionnaire lightly) o match seasons

4

5

6

7 DHS anthropometric questionnaire module Source: DHS Kenya report 1994

8 DHS feeding practices questionnaire module Source: DHS Kenya report 1994

9 Example of reference standards Source: WHO ‘Measuring Change in Nutritional Status’ (1983)

10 FSAU nutrition question- naire module (1) Source: FSAU

11 FSAU nutrition question- naire module(2) Source: FSAU

12 UNICEF model question- naire module Source: UNICEF MICS Manual (1995)

13 UNICEF model question- naire module Source: UNICEF MICS Manual (1995)

14 Reporting systems (clinics, programmes) need to be useful at all levels provide information on trends not levels use all, or select by convenience stepwise aggregation (district, province …) preferably should have validation surveys/capacity Sentinel sites (clinics, programmes) same principles plus: select sites usually for early change focus on good data quality, training, data flow, supervision use as signal of change in that area (but note not representative, by design) capacity to follow up, validate, important

15 Sentinel sites – survey resample same clusters at regular intervals issue of if same hhds/kids, replacement, etc otherwise much the same as for sentinel clinics etc see examples of Zimbabwe, ALRMP-Kenya, Namibia plan.

16 Reporting form Source: FSAU

17 Reporting form. Source: EOS, Ethiopia

18 FSAU Integrated Phase Classification (IPC). Source: FSAU, Tech Manual V 1, Table 1, May 2006

19 FSAU IPC: General Interpretation Source: FSAU, Tech Manual V 1, Table 2, May 2006

20 FSAU IPC: Wasting Source: FSAU, Tech Manual V 1, Table 4, May 2006

21 FSAU IPC: Response framework Source: FSAU, Tech Manual V 1, Table 16, May 2006

22 Equivalent wasting level Uganda 10% Somalia 15% Ethiopia 20% Kenya & Sudan pastoralists 25%

23 Eh?

24 1.1 Malnutrition by area Wasting was highest in Mudzi (9%). A verification exercise using clinic data was done for Mudzi and there was an indication of sharp increase in malnutrition in January 2005. Results from the 2005 vulnerability assessments done in May 2005 revealed that Mudzi district was among the districts that were food insecure. Comparison with data collected in November 2004 shows that wasting rates are higher in all the 10 sites. This is an indication of worsening of nutritional situation as it is expected that nutrition should improve during this time (March) as people start eating food from their agricultural produce. Source: Zimbabwe Pilot Food and Nutrition Sentinel Site Surveillance Report March 2005 Food and Nutrition Council in collaboration with Epidemiology Dept, Nutrition Unit, Ministry of Health and Child Welfare

25 Region 20022003200420052006 Turkana Kaleng, Kibish, Lapur, Lokitaung 11% (9-13.3) 27.6% (23.8-29.8) 34.4% (31.3-37.4) 22.1% (18.5-26.2) 24% (20-27.9) Kakuma, Oropoi, Lokichoggio 11.4% (9.4-13.7) 18.9% (15.8-21) 23.3% (20.7-26.2) 19.2% (15.8-23.1) 26.6% (22.4-30.7) Kalanuk, Katilu 12.7% (10.6-15.1) 24% (21.2-27.1) 20.1% (17.6-22.9) 21.3% (18.8-24.1) 1.2% (17.3-25.1) Loima, Turkwell 11.8% (9.8-14.4) 22.4% (19.7-25.3) 23.3% (20.7-26.2) 21.4% (18.8-24.1) 23.6% (19.6-27.7) Lokichar, Lokori 19.4% (16.9-22.2) 32.8% (30-35.7) 25.5% (22.9-28.3) 25.9% (21.7-30) Central, Kerio, Kalokol 21.3% (18.7-24.2) 37.3% (34.3-40.3) 25% (22.3-27.8) 26.6% (21.7-30) Isiolo Merti, Sericho 15.6% (13.5-18) 28.5% (25.6-31.6) Kina, Garbatulla, Oldoniyro and Central 13.2% (11.2-15.6) Kwale 5.8% (4.48-7.28) 5.9% (4.6-7.4) West Pokot 10.9% (9.1-13.1) Makeuni 2.3% (1.4-3.7) 4% (2.8-5.4) Taita Taveta Wundanvi Mwambi 3% (1.7-4.1) JanFebMar Ap r MayJunJulAugSeptOctNovDec Pastoralists Agro-Pastoralists = Hunger Season = Post Rains/Harvest = Moderate

26 Source: Small scale survey dataset SEMmrge10_21B.sav Results of area-level surveys, Kenya

27 Source: Small scale survey dataset SEMmrge10_21B.sav

28

29 Source: CHANIS Report, Oct 2006

30

31 Source: FSAU Nutrition Update September 2006 IPC Survey Results, Sool Plateau, Somalia June 2006

32 Sentinel site surveillance results, Bakool, Somalia August 2006 Source: FSAU Nutrition Update September 2006

33 Source: Small scale survey dataset SEMmrge10_21B.sav

34 Program data

35


Download ppt "Getting suitable data range of data sources surveys: sampling strategies, questionnaires reporting systems: forms, outputs sentinel sites: clinics, programmes,"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google