linking data with action part 2: understanding data discrepancies

19
Linking Data with Action Part 2: Understanding Data Discrepancies

Upload: darcy-alan-knight

Post on 08-Jan-2018

225 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

What contributes to data discrepancies? Population – understand study population  Who is in the study?  Where are they located?  How were they selected?  How do they compare with the greater population?

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Linking Data with Action Part 2: Understanding Data Discrepancies

Linking Data with ActionPart 2: Understanding Data Discrepancies

Page 2: Linking Data with Action Part 2: Understanding Data Discrepancies

What are data discrepancies?

Different data sources with different estimates for the same indicators

Example – HIV prevalence among men and women of reproductive age, 2007 DHS, 4.1% Sentinel surveillance, 6.4%

Does the difference matter?

Which estimate should I use?

?

Page 3: Linking Data with Action Part 2: Understanding Data Discrepancies

What contributes to data discrepancies?Population – understand study populationWho is in the study?Where are they located?How were they selected?How do they compare with the greater population?

Page 4: Linking Data with Action Part 2: Understanding Data Discrepancies

How are study samples selected?

1. Probability Sampling - each individual has an equal chance of being chosen because they are randomly selected.

2. Non-probability Sampling – chance of selecting any individual is not known because they are NOT randomly selected.

Page 5: Linking Data with Action Part 2: Understanding Data Discrepancies

Study Populations – RDHS: 4.1% HIV prevalenceANC Surveillance: 6.4% HIV prevalence

Questions DHS 2007 Antenatal Surveillance 2007

Who is in the study? 6,641 Men & women of repro age

13,321 Pregnant women attending ANC

How do they compare? Not all are sexually active, variable contraceptive use

All are sexually active, none using contraception

How were they selected?

Random sample All women attending ANC

Where are they located?

Nationally representative household sample

30/359 health centers – 2 capital, 12 other urban, 16 rural

Page 6: Linking Data with Action Part 2: Understanding Data Discrepancies

What contributes to data discrepancies? Error

Random Systematic

Definitions Indicators Terminology

Data Quality

Page 7: Linking Data with Action Part 2: Understanding Data Discrepancies

2 Studies – Same indicator:No. of women who complete PMTCT

servicesStudy A: 95%

Criteria:CounseledTestedReceived test result

Study B: 75%

Criteria:CounseledTestedReceived test resultPositive women & babies treated

Page 8: Linking Data with Action Part 2: Understanding Data Discrepancies

What contributes to data discrepancies?Terminology2010 Behavioral Surveillance Survey: 51% HIV prevalence

(n = 1,338 FCSW)‘High Burden of Prevalent & Recently Acquired HIV among Sex Workers & Female HIV VCT clients in Kigali, Rwanda’ by Braunstein, et al.: 24% HIV prevalence

(n = 800 FCSW)

Page 9: Linking Data with Action Part 2: Understanding Data Discrepancies

What contributes to data discrepancies? Bias

Random Systematic

Definitions Indicators Terminology

Data Quality

Page 10: Linking Data with Action Part 2: Understanding Data Discrepancies

ValidityAccuracy: Does the data reflect what it is intended to measure?

ReliabilityConsistency: Does the data measure a concept or characteristic consistently?

CompletenessComplete: Is all the data collected and considered?

PrecisionPrecise: Is the data described in sufficient detail?

TimelinessCurrent: Is the data current? Does it reflect actual program activities?

IntegrityData are protected from deliberate bias or manipulation for political or personal reasons.

Dimensions of Data Quality

Slide 5 of 18

Page 11: Linking Data with Action Part 2: Understanding Data Discrepancies

Program Outcome Errors

“False Positive”: program had an effect when it did not (linked to significance level or p-value)

“False Negative”: failing to detect a true program effect (linked to significance level or p-value)

“Implementation Error”: No program effect due to lack of or inappropriate implementation.

Page 12: Linking Data with Action Part 2: Understanding Data Discrepancies

What can help you interpret data discrepancies? Probe, question, investigate

Confidence Intervals Amount of uncertainty of an estimate, example –

3% (1%, 5%), 95% confidence intervals

OR 3% (±2%), p ≥ .05

Compare to other data sources

Ask an expert

Page 13: Linking Data with Action Part 2: Understanding Data Discrepancies

Confidence intervals

Study Estimate 95% Confidence intervalStudy A 53% 49-57

Study B 61% 59-63

Page 14: Linking Data with Action Part 2: Understanding Data Discrepancies

Confidence intervals

Study Estimate 95% Confidence intervalStudy A 53% 48-58

Study B 61% 57-65

Page 15: Linking Data with Action Part 2: Understanding Data Discrepancies

What can help you interpret data discrepancies? Probe, question, investigate Confidence Intervals Comparison to other data sources Ask an expert

Page 16: Linking Data with Action Part 2: Understanding Data Discrepancies

Small Group Exercise: Data Discrepancies

2005 Demographic Health Survey (DHS)

2005 Priorities for Local AIDS Control Efforts (PLACE) assessment

Page 17: Linking Data with Action Part 2: Understanding Data Discrepancies

Small Group Exercise: Data Discrepancies Who is in the study? Where are they located? How were they selected? How does each study group compare to the greater

population? How are the 2 studies different? What is the use of each type of data for program

planners? For policy makers?

Page 18: Linking Data with Action Part 2: Understanding Data Discrepancies

Small Group Exercise: Data Discrepancies Who is in the study? Where are they located? How were they selected? How does each study group compare to the

greater population? How is the data in the 2 studies different? What is the use of each type of data for program

planners? For policy makers?

Page 19: Linking Data with Action Part 2: Understanding Data Discrepancies

This research has been supported by the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under the terms of MEASURE Evaluation cooperative agreement GHA-A-00-08-00003-00 which is implemented by the Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill with Futures Group, ICF International, John Snow, Inc., Management Sciences for Health, and Tulane University. Views expressed are not necessarily those of PEPFAR, USAID, or the United States government.