In your opinion, which article has the strongest/most appropriate sampling approach relative to the research question? Why? In your opinion, which article has the weakest/least appropriate s
Read the sampling approach in the “methods” section of the three articles below. In the discussion forum, post your answers to the following questions:
In your opinion, which article has the strongest/most appropriate sampling approach relative to the research question? Why?
In your opinion, which article has the weakest/least appropriate sampling approach relative to the research question? Why? What would you do to strengthen the sampling approach?
The methods sections have been excerpted below, but the references have been left out. Each article title is linked.
Cultural epidemiology of pandemic influenza in urban and rural Pune, India: a cross-sectional, mixed-methods studyLinks to an external site.
Setting and study sites
The study was conducted in Pune district, western Maharashtra, India. The district has a population of 9.43 million, of which 5.75 million live in urban areas and 3.68 million in rural areas. The district headquarters is Pune city, which has recently experienced rapid growth. One of two major laboratories in India where virological testing was carried out during the pandemic, the National Institute of Virology,15Links to an external site. and a large manufacturer of influenza vaccines, the Serum Institute of India, are located in Pune.
Two urban study sites were densely-populated informal settlements in an area known as Sangamwadi and the middle-income neighbourhoods in an area called Erandawane in Pune city.16Links to an external site. The rural sites were in two subdistricts, Velhe and Mawal. Selection was based on their relative accessibility to Pune city. Of 17 villages in Velhe that were designated as relatively inaccessible, 10 were randomly selected for our study. Of 24 villages that were identified as accessible due to the presence of a road adjacent to the village, 10 were randomly selected. The number of persons selected from each village was proportionate to the village population.
Study design and sampling
The cross-sectional study required a minimum sample of 328. The sample size calculation is based on the ability to detect a difference of 0.5 in prominence means (calculated for cultural epidemiological variables described in the ‘data management and analysis’ section) with 95% significance and 80% power for urban-rural comparisons. An additional 20% of interviews were planned to compensate for a possible shortfall in completed interviews.
Approximately 100 EMIC interviews were planned at each of the two urban and two rural sites.16Links to an external site. Households were randomly selected from the local registry of voters. Of the available records, voters’ lists were the most comprehensive. However, they do not include persons or households not registered as voters. Thus, to avoid selection bias, the household of the person identified on the voters’ list was located (but not interviewed) and the adjacent household to the right was approached for interview. Inclusion criteria were ages between 18 and 65?years, residency in Pune, conversational fluency in Marathi and ability to physically and mentally withstand an interview. If no member in the household satisfied the inclusion criteria or if there were no willing respondents, the neighbouring household to the right was approached, until a suitable respondent was found. An equal balance of men and women, and younger and older adults was maintained.
EMIC interview respondents who indicated having personal or household experience with influenza during the 2009 pandemic were approached for in-depth interviews. These in-depth interviews with directly affected persons supplemented the EMIC interview survey to elaborate findings with narrative accounts of the subgroup of respondents with personal pandemic illness experience.
Research assistants received extensive training in sampling procedures, obtaining informed consent, interviewing and data management during a 2-week workshop. They worked in teams of two, one conducting the interview and the other maintaining data records. Two supervisors reviewed data for accuracy and quality. Interviews were voice recorded with permission.
Results
Sample characteristics
Field data were collected between July 2012 and February 2013. Among the community members approached for interview, 50 in urban areas and 10 in rural areas did not satisfy the inclusion criteria and were excluded. A total of 822 persons approached refused to participate, and the refusal rate was higher in urban (76%, n=681) compared to rural areas (36%, n=141). The reason for refusal indicated by the majority was that they were too busy to participate in the interview. Incomplete interviews (n=35) were excluded from the analysis.
Of the 436 completed interviews, approximately half were with women and half were from urban and rural sites (table 1Links to an external site.). More urban residents were postgraduates, graduates or had higher secondary school education, and more rural respondents had no education. Urban household incomes were higher than rural household incomes and more were reported as reliable and dependable. The most commonly reported occupation was agriculture among rural respondents. Self-employment or employment with a private organisation was most frequently reported by urban respondents.
Influenza Vaccine Uptake, Hand Hygiene Practices, and Perceived Barriers in Decision Making: A Mixed Methods ApproachLinks to an external site.
Method
A voluntary online survey was administered via Survey Monkey to a random sample of 1,600 employees at a Midwestern public university. The survey was developed to better understand baseline behaviors and attitudes regarding daily hand hygiene practices and influenza vaccine uptake among employees in this work setting. The survey was administered from March 7 to April 2, 2012. Questions were constructed to elicit information for qualitative and quantitative analyses. Items generated categorical responses through a 5-point Likert-type scale (always, usually, sometimes, rarely, never); bivariate, yes/no responses; and open-ended qualitative perceptions. An email was sent announcing the study with a link to an informed-assent page followed by the survey. At the end of the survey, a link took participants to a separate website where they could register for a drawing to receive a free US$10 gift card. The study was approved by the university institutional review board.
Results
A total of 1,600 surveys were randomly distributed via email from a potential 5,504 employees. From these, 47 emails were either non-functional or had blocked all internally sent surveys via Survey Monkey. Approximately, 23% participated (361 / 1,553).
What influences elderly peoples’ decisions about whether to accept the influenza vaccination? A qualitative studyLinks to an external site.
Methods
In March 2000, 216 patients aged 75 years and over who had been eligible for the influenza vaccine for the winter of 1999-2000 were identified from a computer search. The clinical records of the study population were scrutinized to identify those who had accepted and refused the vaccine in order to identify potential patients eligible for inclusion into the study. After applying the exclusion criteria as shown in Table I, a sample of 118 remained. A purposeful sampling strategy was adopted and participants were recruited by means of a personalized letter of invitation from R. T. Twenty patients were subsequently interviewed, 10 who had accepted influenza vaccine and 10 who had refused. (Interviews were discontinued once saturation of the themes was achieved.) The characteristics of the sample are shown in Table II. During inspection of the records it became evident that in addition to those who accepted and refused the vaccination, there were a further two groups; those who had initially accepted the vaccination, but then subsequently refused it and those who initially refused the vaccination, but then changed their minds to accept it.
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
