Menu ENN Search
Language: English Français

Mass screening in a district

This question was posted the Assessment forum area and has 5 replies. You can also reply via email – be sure to leave the subject unchanged.

» Post a reply

Anonymous 684

Nutrition officer

Normal user

15 Oct 2014, 07:32

Hi All
I have conducted a mass screening using both MUAC and WH In 11 sites(villages) which we are working. out of 1010 screened we found out 67 SAM cases and 265 MAM case. help to interpret this . thanks..

Mark Myatt

Consultant Epideomiologist

Frequent user

15 Oct 2014, 14:34

The simplest interpretation of this data is that you have an immediate need of at least 67 SAM cases (urgent treatment required) and 265 MAM cases (SFP, watch-listed for SAM, or ...), screening should be continued, preventative measured should be identified and implemented.

I assume that you want to be able to take this data and produce a prevalence estimate. That is possible but you have to be aware that "mass" screening can often be biased samples. In some cases the healthy refuse or do not turn up. This gives an upward bias to the prevalence estimate. In other cases the unwell infants are "hidden". This gives a downward bias to the prevalence estimate. I saw both of these effects when we tested case-finding methods for SAM coverage surveys.

That said, you can produce an estimate:

    P(SAM) = 67/1010 = 6.6%
    P(MAM) = 265/1010 = 26.2%
    P(GAM) = (67 + 265) / 1010 = 32.9%

These look very hight to me.

If you report these then you should say that hey refer to your 11 villages (which you may have selected because you suspected a very poor situation) and that the data came from screening not survey. Some estimate of the direction and magnitude of bias should be made.

Also see here and here.

I hope this is of use.

Severine

Normal user

15 Oct 2014, 14:41

Hello,
Could you specify whether you used MUAC or WFH to estimate SAM and MAM?
Severine

Monsurul

Statistican

Normal user

17 Oct 2014, 08:44

If you are interested in further analysis, I would recommend that you analyze the data by measurement. Like how many of the SAM are identified by MUAC < 115mm or by WHZ < -3 or both. Similarly for MAM.

You can also look at rate of SAM and MAM by age groups (6 - 23m vs 24 - 59m) or by Sex. In general, do you think distribution of age and sex is acceptable?

Since you have screened more than 1000 Under five children from 11 sites, you can also look at the rate of SAM and MAM by sites, is there any village which is contributing more compared to others.

Anonymous 684

Nutrition officer

Normal user

17 Oct 2014, 11:51

Thanks so much Guys.. Thank you Mark I really appreciate.

Mark Myatt

Consultant Epideomiologist

Frequent user

17 Oct 2014, 12:01

Happy to help.

Back to top

» Post a reply