Back to browse results
Comparing two survey methods of measuring health-relatedindicators: Lot Quality Assurance Sampling and DemographicHealth Surveys
Authors: Sarah C. Anoke, Paul Mwai, Caroline Jeffery, Joseph J. Valadez, and Marcello Pagano
Source: Tropical Medicine and International Health, 20(12): 1756–1770; DOI: 10.1111/tmi.12605
Topic(s): Data quality
Country: Africa
Published: DEC 2015
Abstract: objectivesTwo common methods used to measure indicators for health programme monitoring andevaluation are the demographic and health surveys (DHS) and lot quality assurance sampling (LQAS);each one has different strengths. We report on both methods when utilised in comparable situations.methodsWe compared 24 indicators in south-west Uganda, where data for prevalence estimationswere collected independently for the two methods in 2011 (LQAS:n=8876; DHS:n=1200). Datawere stratified (e.g. gender and age) resulting in 37 comparisons. We used a two-sample two-sidedZ-test of proportions to compare both methods.resultsThe average difference between LQAS and DHS for 37 estimates was 0.062 (SD=0.093;median=0.039). The average difference among the 21 failures to reject equality of proportions was0.010 (SD=0.041; median=0.009); among the 16 rejections, it was 0.130 (SD=0.010,median=0.118). Seven of the 16 rejections exhibited absolute differences of<0.10, which areclinically (or managerially) not significant; 5 had differences>0.10 and<0.20 (mean=0.137,SD=0.031) and four differences were>0.20 (mean=0.261, SD=0.083).conclusionThere is 75.7% agreement across the two surveys. Both methods yield regional results,but only LQAS provides information at less granular levels (e.g. the district level) where managerialaction is taken. The cost advantage and localisation make LQAS feasible to conduct more frequently,and provides the possibility for real-time health outcomes monitoring.keywordsmonitoring and evaluation, stratified sampling, cluster sampling, lot quality assurancesampling, demographic and health survey, Uganda