Abstract

BackgroundRobust household sampling, commonly applied for population-based investigations, requires sampling frames or household lists to minimize selection bias. We have applied Google Earth Pro satellite imagery to constitute structure-based sampling frames at sites in Pikine, Senegal; Pietermaritzburg, South Africa; and Wad-Medani, Sudan. Here we present our experiences in using this approach and findings from assessing its applicability by determining positional accuracy.MethodsPrintouts of satellite imagery combined with Global Positioning System receivers were used to locate and to verify the locations of sample structures (simple random selection; weighted-stratified sampling). Positional accuracy was assessed by study site and administrative subareas by calculating normalized distances (meters) between coordinates taken from the sampling frame and on the ground using receivers. A higher accuracy in conjunction with smaller distances was assumed. Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn multiple pairwise comparisons were performed to evaluate positional accuracy by setting and by individual surveyor in Pietermaritzburg.ResultsThe median normalized distances and interquartile ranges were 0.05 and 0.03–0.08 in Pikine, 0.09 and 0.05–0.19 in Pietermaritzburg, and 0.05 and 0.00–0.10 in Wad-Medani, respectively. Root mean square errors were 0.08 in Pikine, 0.42 in Pietermaritzburg, and 0.17 in Wad-Medani. Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn comparisons indicated significant differences by low- and high-density setting and interviewers who performed the presented approach with high accuracy compared to interviewers with poor accuracy.ConclusionsThe geospatial approach presented minimizes systematic errors and increases robustness and representativeness of a sample. However, the findings imply that this approach may not be applicable at all sites and settings; its success also depends on skills of surveyors working with aerial data. Methodological modifications are required, especially for resource-challenged sites that may be affected by constraints in data availability and area size.

Highlights

  • The median normalized distances and interquartile ranges were 0.05 and 0.03–0.08 in Pikine, 0.09 and 0.05–0.19 in Pietermaritzburg, and 0.05 and 0.00–0.10 in Wad-Medani, respectively

  • Methodological modifications are required, especially for resource-challenged sites that may be affected by constraints in data availability and area size

  • Though the analyses revealed only minor discrepancies in the statistical parameters by setting of Pietermaritzburg, Kruskal-Wallis

Read more

Summary

Methods

Printouts of satellite imagery combined with Global Positioning System receivers were used to locate and to verify the locations of sample structures (simple random selection; weighted-stratified sampling). Positional accuracy was assessed by study site and administrative subareas by calculating normalized distances (meters) between coordinates taken from the sampling frame and on the ground using receivers. Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn multiple pairwise comparisons were performed to evaluate positional accuracy by setting and by individual surveyor in Pietermaritzburg. The study was implemented at sites in Pikine, Senegal (September 2012–January 2013), Pietermaritzburg, South Africa (September–December 2013), and Wad-Medani, Sudan (August–September 2013). It was approved by the ethics committees of the collaborating institutions and the ethical review board of the International Vaccine Institute. Pietermaritzburg is the capital of the KwaZulu-Natal Province and located at the southeastern coast of South Africa. Wad-Medani is southeast of Sudan’s capital Khartoum and the capital of the Al Jazirah State

Results
Discussion
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