↓ Skip to main content

Using remote, spatial techniques to select a random household sample in a dispersed, semi-nomadic pastoral community: utility for a longitudinal health and demographic surveillance system

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Health Geographics, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Using remote, spatial techniques to select a random household sample in a dispersed, semi-nomadic pastoral community: utility for a longitudinal health and demographic surveillance system
Published in
International Journal of Health Geographics, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12942-015-0026-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amber L. Pearson, Amanda Rzotkiewicz, Adam Zwickle

Abstract

Obtaining a random household sample can be expensive and challenging. In a dispersed community of semi-nomadic households in rural Tanzania, this study aimed to test an alternative method utilizing freely available aerial imagery. We pinned every single-standing structure or boma (compound) in Naitolia, Tanzania using a 'placemark' in Google Earth Pro (version 7.1.2.2041). Next, a local expert assisted in removing misclassified placemarks. A random sample was then selected using a random number generator. The random sample points were mapped and used by survey enumerators to navigate. We created a spatial sample frame and a random sample in 34.5 student working hours, 3 local expert hours and 1.5 academic working hours. Challenges included determining whether homes were occupied or abandoned, developing a protocol for placemark inclusion and quality issues with the aerial imagery itself. In the field, 175 sample points were visited and 170 of these (97 %) were actual households. The primary advantages of this method were the: (a) ability to generate a robust random sample in a rural and remote area; (b) lack of reliance on existing, external population data sources; and (c) relatively low levels of funding and time required. This method to develop a spatial sample frame was efficient and cost-effective when compared to in-field generation of a household inventory or GPS tracking of households. Utilizing a local expert to review the sample frame prior to field testing greatly increased accuracy. Overall, this method is a promising alternative to expensive and possibly biased household inventories or in-field GPS data collection for all households.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 2%
Unknown 56 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 21%
Student > Master 8 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 4 7%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 14 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 19%
Social Sciences 8 14%
Environmental Science 6 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 17 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 November 2015.
All research outputs
#19,902,159
of 24,457,696 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Health Geographics
#528
of 642 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,576
of 286,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Health Geographics
#6
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,457,696 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 642 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 286,875 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.