A nationwide mobile phone survey for tobacco use in Tanzania: Sample quality and representativeness compared to a household survey
We investigated the feasibility of an interactive voice response (IVR) survey in Tanzania and compared its prevalence estimates for tobacco use to the estimates of the 'Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS) 2018′. IVR participants were enrolled by random digit dialing. Quota sampling was employed...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Preventive medicine reports 2024-02, Vol.38, p.102609-102609, Article 102609 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | We investigated the feasibility of an interactive voice response (IVR) survey in Tanzania and compared its prevalence estimates for tobacco use to the estimates of the 'Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS) 2018′. IVR participants were enrolled by random digit dialing. Quota sampling was employed to achieve the required sample sizes of age-sex strata: sex (male/female) and age (18–29-, 30–44-, 45–59-, and ≥60-year-olds). GATS was a nationally representative survey and used a multistage stratified cluster sampling design. The IVR sample’s weights were generated using the inverse proportional weighting (IPW) method with a logit model and the standard age-sex distribution of Tanzania. The IVR and GATS had 2362 and 4555 participants, respectively. Compared to GATS, the unweighted IVR sample had a higher proportion of males (58.7 % vs. 43.2 %), educated people (secondary/above education: 43.3 % vs. 21.1 %), and urban residents (56.5 % vs. 40 %). The weighted prevalence (95 % confidence interval (CI)) of current smoking was 4.99 % (4.11–6.04), 5.22 % (4.36–6.24), and 7.36 % (6.51–8.31) among IVR (IPW), IVR (age-sex standard), and GATS samples, respectively; the weighted prevalence (95 % CI) of smokeless tobacco use was similar: 3.54 % (2.73–4.57), 3.58 % (2.80–4.56), and 2.43 % (1.98–2.98), respectively. Most differences in point estimates for tobacco indicators were small ( |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2211-3355 2211-3355 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.pmedr.2024.102609 |