Surveys about attended births appear to be deceptive in CAR: are the population saying what they think NGO’s want to hear?

Author:

Wol Philippe,Kay Christina,Roberts Leslie

Abstract

Abstract Background Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and donors often promote certain practices to a community, such as in-facility births and then evaluate the efficacy of those interventions, in part, by surveying those populations. Methods A project to assess the accuracy of birth and death monitoring by local community-based monitors was undertaken with a partner health agency in areas (pop. 94,000) where they supported medical facilities. Thirty clusters of 30 households each were selected at random, probability proportional to size. Half of those households were enrolled for a monthly visitation surveillance process. To gain insights into the effects of the agency’s services, an additional 240 households were selected at random and interviewed from 8 nearby “matched villages” not serviced by any NGO as a comparison sample. Results The 896 households with 4243 living residents within the NGO service area were interviewed about household births and deaths within the past 8 months. They reported an annualized birth rate of 5.6% (95% CI: 4.5–6.7) with only 3% of those births occurring at home. The reported death rate was 4.2/1000/month (95% CI: 3.3–5.0). In the “matched villages,” the population reported a similar birth and death rate, but they reported 29% of births occurring within the home. The monthly surveillance data found over the year that followed that 32% of births occurred at the home. Clinic and hospital birth attendance data suggested an attended annual birth rate of only 2.8%, consistent with the surveillance data implication that a huge fraction of births occur at home. Conclusion It is believed that because the baseline interviews occurred with a stranger, this induced interviewees to say what they thought the interviewers wanted to hear. This calls into question the validity of household surveys when agencies have a known agenda or position, and highlights the need for external validation or triangulation of survey findings.

Funder

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Health (social science)

Reference15 articles.

1. Parsons N. The pipeline: Botswana’s reception of refugees, 1956–68. Social Dynamics. J Afr Stud. 2008;34(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/02533950802078897.

2. Wessells M. Psychosocial Issues in Reintegrating Child Soldiers. Cornell Int'l Law J. 2004;32(3) https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cilj/vol32/iss3/14/.

3. The Congo We Listen To. Rough Translation. Aug. 28, 2017 https://www.npr.org/transcripts/545879897. Accessed 8 June 2021.

4. United Nations Development Programme. Human Development Data (1990–2018): UNDP http://hdr.undp.org/en/data. Accessed 9 Dec 2020.

5. Oxfam. The Future of the Central African Republic is Still at Risk; 2018. p. 2017. https://www.oxfamamerica.org/static/media/files/The_future_of_Central_African_Republic_is_still_at_risk.pdf

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3