Comparison of household socioeconomic status classification methods and effects on risk estimation: lessons from a natural experimental study, Kisumu, Western Kenya.
Inequalities inequity socioeconomic status classification methods hypermarket
Journal
International journal for equity in health
ISSN: 1475-9276
Titre abrégé: Int J Equity Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101147692
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 04 2022
09 04 2022
Historique:
received:
01
01
2022
accepted:
16
03
2022
entrez:
10
4
2022
pubmed:
11
4
2022
medline:
13
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Low household socioeconomic status is associated with unhealthy behaviours including poor diet and adverse health outcomes. Different methods leading to variations in SES classification has the potential to generate spurious research findings or misinform policy. In low and middle-income countries, there are additional complexities in defining household SES, a need for fieldwork to be conducted efficiently, and a dearth of information on how classification could impact estimation of disease risk. Using cross-sectional data from 200 households in Kisumu County, Western Kenya, we compared three approaches of classifying households into low, middle, or high SES: fieldworkers (FWs), Community Health Volunteers (CHVs), and a Multiple Correspondence Analysis econometric model (MCA). We estimated the sensitivity, specificity, inter-rater reliability and misclassification of the three methods using MCA as a comparator. We applied an unadjusted generalized linear model to determine prevalence ratios to assess the association of household SES status with a self-reported diagnosis of diabetes or hypertension for one household member. Compared with MCA, FWs successfully classified 21.7% (95%CI = 14.4%-31.4%) of low SES households, 32.8% (95%CI = 23.2-44.3) of middle SES households, and no high SES households. CHVs successfully classified 22.5% (95%CI = 14.5%-33.1%) of low SES households, 32.8% (95%CI = 23.2%-44.3%) of middle SES households, and no high SES households. The level of agreement in SES classification was similar between FWs and CHVs but poor compared to MCA, particularly for high SES. None of the three methods differed in estimating the risk of hypertension or diabetes. FW and CHV assessments are community-driven methods for SES classification. Compared to MCA, these approaches appeared biased towards low or middle SES households and not sensitive to high household SES. The three methods did not differ in risk estimation for diabetes and hypertension. A mix of approaches and further evaluation to refine SES classification methodology is recommended.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35397583
doi: 10.1186/s12939-022-01652-1
pii: 10.1186/s12939-022-01652-1
pmc: PMC8994881
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
47Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
JMIR Res Protoc. 2020 Dec 21;9(12):e17814
pubmed: 33346736
Rev Bras Epidemiol. 2015 Apr-Jun;18(2):341-56
pubmed: 26083507
Milbank Q. 1993;71(2):279-322
pubmed: 8510603
J Natl Med Assoc. 2007 Sep;99(9):1013-23
pubmed: 17913111
Soc Indic Res. 2017;133(3):1047-1073
pubmed: 28931968
Pediatrics. 1997 Jun;99(6):791-6
pubmed: 9164770
Indian J Med Res. 2012 Mar;135:432-4
pubmed: 22561634
Malar J. 2018 Apr 16;17(1):166
pubmed: 29661245
PM R. 2011 Mar;3(3):263-7
pubmed: 21402371
Am J Public Health. 2016 Mar;106(3):557-62
pubmed: 26794159
J Glob Health. 2018 Dec;8(2):020409
pubmed: 30140435
Malar J. 2014 Nov 21;13:449
pubmed: 25416303
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14 Suppl 1:S3
pubmed: 25079378
Am Econ Rev. ;92(5):1308-34
pubmed: 29058397
Glob Health Sci Pract. 2016 Mar 25;4(1):141-54
pubmed: 27016550
J Nutr Educ Behav. 2012 May-Jun;44(3):217-24
pubmed: 22236496
BMJ Open. 2017 Jul 20;7(7):e014896
pubmed: 28729309
Public Health Nutr. 2010 Jul;13(7):1022-30
pubmed: 20082745
Am J Prev Med. 2007 Oct;33(4 Suppl):S301-7
pubmed: 17884578
Am J Public Health. 1997 May;87(5):805-10
pubmed: 9184510
Health Policy. 2010 May;95(2-3):166-73
pubmed: 20022657
Int J Epidemiol. 2012 Jun;41(3):871-86
pubmed: 22438428
Lancet. 2018 May 19;391(10134):2036-2046
pubmed: 29627160
Prev Med. 2004 Nov;39(5):869-75
pubmed: 15475018
Psychol Bull. 1968 Oct;70(4):213-20
pubmed: 19673146
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014 Mar 21;11(3):3387-406
pubmed: 24662998
Lancet Glob Health. 2017 Mar;5(3):e277-e289
pubmed: 28193397
Health Econ. 2006 Jun;15(6):639-44
pubmed: 16416405