|
|
Volume 5:
No. 4, October 2008
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Reproductive Health Surveillance
in the US-Mexico Border Region, 2003-2006: The Brownsville-Matamoros Sister
City Project for Women’s Health
This flowchart consists of 4 boxes, which are arranged 1 on top of the other and
read from top to bottom. Each box is connected to the box below it with a
downward-pointing arrow. The first box says, “Target Population: All women who
delivered live infants in Cameron County and Matamoros during the study period
(August 21st-November 9th, 2005).” The second box says, “Study Population: Women
who delivered live infants during the study period in Cameron County and
Matamoros in hospitals with 100 or more deliveries in 2004 (4 hospitals in
Cameron County and 6 hospitals in Matamoros).” The third box says, “Sampling: 84
blocks of 2 consecutive days selected during the study period (36 blocks in
Cameron County [9 in each study hospital] and 48 blocks in Matamoros [8 in each
study hospital]).” The fourth box says, “Women Chosen for the Study: All women
who delivered live infants during each of the selected blocks of 2 consecutive days
(n = 999) (sample size for Cameron County = 525; sample size for Matamoros =
474).”
Figure 2. Sampling Design of the Surveillance
System Used for the Brownsville-Matamoros Sister City Project for Women’s Health, August 21-November 9, 2005.
Return to article
This flowchart depicts the flow of data during the pilot project. The flowchart
consists of several boxes that are connected to one another with downward-,
right-, and left-pointing arrows. The text in the boxes indicates how data were
collected and input into the computer system. After the birth of the infant in
the hospital, data were recorded on paper in the delivery log, which was then
screened by interviewers (this part of the process took approximately 1 day).
The interviewers created a respondent contact sheet and a sample key. The sample
key was converted into a delivery log review form and was used to generate an
identification number. Interviewers used the respondent contact sheet and the
identification number when conducting interviews with patients. Interviewers
collected data using laptop computers and analyzed the data with computer
software (CSPro, 2.6, International Programs Center, US Census Bureau,
Washington, District of Columbia) (this part of the process took <1 week). Data
were transferred to field coordinators, then to United States-Mexico Border
Health Association data managers, and finally to a statistician at the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (this part of the process took <1
week). The CDC statistician created a report that summarized the data, and this
report was provided to stakeholders (this part of the process took <2 weeks).
Figure 3. Data Flow in the Brownsville-Matamoros Sister
City Project for Women’s Health, August 21-November 9, 2005.
Return to article
|
|
