Home » Topics » Biomarkers » Adult Anemia (Anemia in men )
Adult Anemia [message #23045] |
Wed, 30 June 2021 12:47 ![Go to next message Go to next message](/theme/default/images/down.png) |
shivani
Messages: 11 Registered: March 2021
|
Member |
|
|
hi
I am trying to calculate anemia among adult men and women. I am using NFHS dataset (India) for 2015-16 and 1998-99. In doing so (for 2015-16), I used household member file and tried to calculate the statistic separately for men and women. It's ironic that my results match with the report for women, but not for men.
I used the variable HB57 and HA57 from the household member file and have used weights too. I even tried with both, household weights and men's sub-sample weights but none worked.
Data on men's anemia level isn't given in any other file, not even in men's file. I couldn't figure what I am doing wrong.
Can you please help.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Adult Anemia [message #23089 is a reply to message #23047] |
Mon, 12 July 2021 11:34 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](/theme/default/images/up.png) ![Go to next message Go to next message](/theme/default/images/down.png) |
Bridgette-DHS
Messages: 3151 Registered: February 2013
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Following is a response from DHS Research & Data Analysis Director, Tom Pullum:
Sorry for the delay with this reply. In the main report on the NFHS-4, I have checked tables 10.21.1 (for women) and 10.21.2 (for men) against the data files, using ha56 and hb56, respectively. Those variables give the Hb concentrations for women and men, adjusted for altitude and smoking. I get matches for both women and men.
The problem you encountered with 10.21.2 is due to an incorrect construction of hb57. That variable, and ha57, are constructed from ha56 and hb56, using specified ranges. For women, the threshold for mild anemia is Hb<12, for moderate is Hb<10, and for severe is <7. For men, those thresholds are supposed to be 13, 12, and 9. However, I see that we (DHS) incorrectly used the same thresholds for men as for women when constructing hb57. The minimum and maximum values from the Stata lines given below will confirm that.
Fortunately, however, as I said, table 10.21.2 was constructed using hb56, and correctly, rather than using hb57. The numbers in the report are correct. To match table 10.21.2, you will have to work from hb56, or else reconstruct hb57 using the correct thresholds for men and then use hb57.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
summarize ha56 if ha57==1
summarize ha56 if ha57==2
summarize ha56 if ha57==3
summarize ha56 if ha57==4
* For women, the ranges of ha56 within categories of ha57 are correct
* The lower ends for categories 2, 3, 4 are 70, 100, and 120, as they should be
summarize hb56 if hb57==1
summarize hb56 if hb57==2
summarize hb56 if hb57==3
summarize hb56 if hb57==4
* For men, the ranges of ha56 within categories of ha57 are NOT correct
* The lower ends for categories 2, 3, 4 are 70, 100, and 120, but should be 90, 120, and 130
* The Hb ranges for women were used in the recode for men, as well as for women
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Adult Anemia [message #23102 is a reply to message #23093] |
Tue, 13 July 2021 09:00 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](/theme/default/images/up.png) |
Bridgette-DHS
Messages: 3151 Registered: February 2013
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Following is a response from DHS Research & Data Analysis Director, Tom Pullum:
Just in case this helps.
I took a quick look at the data. The woman's Hb measurement is v902 in the IR file. (Before about 2000, biomarkers were part of the individual interview rather than the household interview.) I see that about 31% of the readings are below 11.0 (110) and about 53% are below 12.0 (120). So it looks like your estimate would be consistent with a cutoff of 11 for "any anemia" and the estimate in the report would be consistent with a cutoff of 12. It appears to me that the report used a cutoff of 12, which is the current cutoff, not 11.
In that survey I see a few very high readings and a few very low readings. They are probably data entry errors and may have been dropped. There is no way at this point in time to find out how they were handled. Good luck with the detective work. There's really nothing more we can do to help with it.
[Updated on: Tue, 13 July 2021 09:02] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Sep 1 05:34:28 Coordinated Universal Time 2024
|