Abstract

BackgroundModel-based small area estimation methods can help generate parameter estimates at the district level, where planned population survey sample sizes are not large enough to support direct estimates of HIV prevalence with adequate precision. We computed district-level HIV prevalence estimates and their 95% confidence intervals for districts in Uganda.MethodsOur analysis used direct survey and model-based estimation methods, including Fay-Herriot (area-level) and Battese-Harter-Fuller (unit-level) small area models. We used regression analysis to assess for consistency in estimating HIV prevalence. We use a ratio analysis of the mean square error and the coefficient of variation of the estimates to evaluate precision. The models were applied to Uganda Population-Based HIV Impact Assessment 2016/2017 data with auxiliary information from the 2016 Lot Quality Assurance Sampling survey and antenatal care data from district health information system datasets for unit-level and area-level models, respectively.ResultsEstimates from the model-based and the direct survey methods were similar. However, direct survey estimates were unstable compared with the model-based estimates. Area-level model estimates were more stable than unit-level model estimates. The correlation between unit-level and direct survey estimates was (β1 = 0.66, r2 = 0.862), and correlation between area-level model and direct survey estimates was (β1 = 0.44, r2 = 0.698). The error associated with the estimates decreased by 37.5% and 33.1% for the unit-level and area-level models, respectively, compared to the direct survey estimates.ConclusionsAlthough the unit-level model estimates were less precise than the area-level model estimates, they were highly correlated with the direct survey estimates and had less standard error associated with estimates than the area-level model. Unit-level models provide more accurate and reliable data to support local decision-making when unit-level auxiliary information is available.

Highlights

  • Model-based small area estimation (SAE) methods can help monitor the impact of public health interventions and appropriately allocate resources in small geographical areas where the domain-specific sample is not large enough to support direct estimates of adequate precision

  • Direct survey estimates were unstable compared with the model-based estimates

  • The error associated with the estimates decreased by 37.5% and 33.1% for the unit-level and arealevel models, respectively, compared to the direct survey estimates

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Model-based small area estimation (SAE) methods can help monitor the impact of public health interventions and appropriately allocate resources in small geographical areas where the domain-specific sample is not large enough to support direct estimates of adequate precision. SAE methods link a study/outcome variable with auxiliary data from other sources to produce more precise indicator estimates than direct-survey estimates (i.e., design-based estimates based on survey data alone) for the target local area. Annual HIV risk factor surveys with adequate level of precision, such as in the community Lot Quality Assurance Surveys (LQAS) conducted annually in Uganda districts, help generate timely and reliable estimates of districtlevel HIV prevalence. Model-based small area estimation methods can help generate parameter estimates at the district level, where planned population survey sample sizes are not large enough to support direct estimates of HIV prevalence with adequate precision. We computed district-level HIV prevalence estimates and their 95% confidence intervals for districts in Uganda

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call