↓ Skip to main content

Learning lessons from field surveys in humanitarian contexts: a case study of field surveys conducted in North Kivu, DRC 2006-2008

Overview of attention for article published in Conflict and Health, September 2009
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Learning lessons from field surveys in humanitarian contexts: a case study of field surveys conducted in North Kivu, DRC 2006-2008
Published in
Conflict and Health, September 2009
DOI 10.1186/1752-1505-3-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca F Grais, Francisco J Luquero, Emmanuel Grellety, Heloise Pham, Benjamin Coghlan, Pierre Salignon

Abstract

Survey estimates of mortality and malnutrition are commonly used to guide humanitarian decision-making. Currently, different methods of conducting field surveys are the subject of debate among epidemiologists. Beyond the technical arguments, decision makers may find it difficult to conceptualize what the estimates actually mean. For instance, what makes this particular situation an emergency? And how should the operational response be adapted accordingly. This brings into question not only the quality of the survey methodology, but also the difficulties epidemiologists face in interpreting results and selecting the most important information to guide operations. As a case study, we reviewed mortality and nutritional surveys conducted in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) published from January 2006 to January 2009. We performed a PubMed/Medline search for published articles and scanned publicly available humanitarian databases and clearinghouses for grey literature. To evaluate the surveys, we developed minimum reporting criteria based on available guidelines and selected peer-review articles. We identified 38 reports through our search strategy; three surveys met our inclusion criteria. The surveys varied in methodological quality. Reporting against minimum criteria was generally good, but presentation of ethical procedures, raw data and survey limitations were missed in all surveys. All surveys also failed to consider contextual factors important for data interpretation. From this review, we conclude that mechanisms to ensure sound survey design and conduct must be implemented by operational organisations to improve data quality and reporting. Training in data interpretation would also be useful. Novel survey methods should be trialled and prospective data gathering (surveillance) employed wherever feasible.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
United Kingdom 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 54 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 21%
Student > Master 10 17%
Other 9 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Professor 3 5%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 9 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 48%
Arts and Humanities 6 10%
Social Sciences 6 10%
Unspecified 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 9 16%
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 13 January 2014.
All research outputs
#20,265,771
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from Conflict and Health
#565
of 573 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,871
of 91,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conflict and Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 573 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 91,783 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them