World Rural Health Conference
Home Print this page Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size
Users Online: 2630
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents 
LETTER TO EDITOR
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 7  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 647-648  

Cautious use of absolute and relative precision while calculating sample size


Department of Community and Family Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India

Date of Web Publication17-Jul-2018

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Ajeet Singh Bhadoria
Department of Community and Family Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_39_18

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Usha P, Bhadoria AS, Kishore S. Cautious use of absolute and relative precision while calculating sample size. J Family Med Prim Care 2018;7:647-8

How to cite this URL:
Usha P, Bhadoria AS, Kishore S. Cautious use of absolute and relative precision while calculating sample size. J Family Med Prim Care [serial online] 2018 [cited 2019 May 21];7:647-8. Available from: http://www.jfmpc.com/text.asp?2018/7/3/647/236859



Dear Editor,

Recently published article entitled “Locomotor problems among rural elderly population in a District of Aligarh, North India” has referred an extremely topical subject of locomotor problems among the most vulnerable geriatric population residing in a rural area.[1] Authors have rightly targeted sociodemographic risk factors to document their relationship with the presence of locomotor problems among the elderly population.

However, we have following concerns about this study and intend to highlight here to help readers to be cautious before drawing conclusions.

  1. Related to prevalence, the sample size calculated has some major concerns. It was calculated considering lowest prevalence and absolute precision. With any absolute precision, maximum sample size is attained with 50% prevalence.[2] The concept of lower the prevalence and higher the sample size is correct if relative precision is taken to calculate the sample size. Thus, the sample size of 225 was inadequate and study was underpowered to document the desired prevalence
  2. Authors have mentioned that a pilot study was done to get baseline information about the health problems. The findings of the pilot study should have been utilized to calculate the sample size using appropriate statistics
  3. The utilization of systematic random sampling to select 225 elderlies from total sampling frame of 1018 is well justifiable. However, how and why the probability proportionate to size (PPS) method was used is not clarified. PPS is used to select clusters in cluster sampling method.[3] If it is used, then authors should have shared the details of the clusters and should have considered the design effect in calculating the sample size to take care of intraclass correlation among the clusters
  4. Important sociodemographic components such as socioeconomic status including income and type of family in which elderlies were living and family size were not included in the study. Enough evidences are available to acknowledge their role with respect to locomotor and other disabilities among geriatric population [4]
  5. Multivariate regression analysis could have been utilized to document the adjusted odds ratio for working status after adjusting for the nonmodifiable significant risk factors such as age and gender
  6. Authors have excluded severely ill or moribund individuals which will lead to underestimation of prevalence of locomotor disability as the definition utilized itself includes those with loss or lack of normal ability to execute distinctive activities associated with day-to-day routine.[5] These people might also have locomotor and other problems related to old age.


Thus, the prevalence might be underestimated, study looks underpowered with inadequate sample size, and sociodemographic risk factor profile was incomplete. Therefore, readers need to be careful to reach to any conclusion.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Maroof M, Ahmad A, Khalique N, Ansari MA. Locomotor problems among rural elderly population in a district of Aligarh, North India. J Fam Med Prim Care 2017;6:522-5.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Lwanga SK, Lemeshow S. Sample Size Determination in Health Studies: A Practical Manual. Geneva: WHO; 1991.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Bennett S, Woods T, Liyanage WM, Smith DL. A simplified general method for cluster-sample surveys of health in developing countries. World Health Stat Q 1991;44:98-106.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Agrawal A. Disability among the elder population of India: A public health concern. J Med Soc 2016;30:15-9.  Back to cited text no. 4
  [Full text]  
5.
Disabled Persons in India Report. National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO) 58th Round (July-December 2002), Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation Government of India; December 2003 Report No: 485. Available from: http://www.mospi.nic.in/rept%20_%20pubn/485_final.pdf. [Last accessed on 2018 Feb 09].  Back to cited text no. 5
    




 

Top
   
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
   References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed461    
    Printed3    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded86    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal