RESUMEN
Good quality health, nutrition and demographic survey data are vital for evidence-based decision-making. Existing literature indicates system specific, data collection and reporting gaps that affect quality of health, nutrition and demographic survey data, thereby affecting its usability and relevance. To mitigate these, the National Data Quality Forum (NDQF), under the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) - National Institute of Medical Statistics (NIMS) developed the National Guidelines for Data Quality in Surveys delineating assurance mechanisms to generate standard quality data in surveys. The present article highlights the principles from the guidelines for informing survey researchers/organizations in generating good quality survey data. It describes the process of development of the national guidelines, principles for each of the survey phases listed in the document and applicability of them to data user for ensuring data quality. The guidelines may be useful to a broad-spectrum of audience such as data producers from government and non-government organizations, policy makers, research institutions, as well as individual researchers, thereby playing a vital role in improving quality of health, nutrition and demographic data ecosystem.
RESUMEN
Background & objectives: COVID-19 pandemic has triggered social stigma towards individuals affected and their families. This study describes the process undertaken for the development and validation of scales to assess stigmatizing attitudes and experiences among COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 participants from the community. Methods: COVID-19 Stigma Scale and Community COVID-19 Stigma Scale constituting 13 and six items, respectively, were developed based on review of literature and news reports, expert committee evaluation and participants’ interviews through telephone for a multicentric study in India. For content validity, 61 (30 COVID-19-recovered and 31 non-COVID-19 participants from the community) were recruited. Test–retest reliability of the scales was assessed among 99 participants (41 COVID-19 recovered and 58 non-COVID-19). Participants were administered the scale at two-time points after a gap of 7-12 days. Cronbach’s alpha, overall percentage agreement and kappa statistics were used to assess internal consistency and test–retest reliability. Results: Items in the scales were relevant and comprehensible. Both the scales had Cronbach’s ? above 0.6 indicating moderate-to-good internal consistency. Test–retest reliability assessed using kappa statistics indicated that for the COVID-19 Stigma Scale, seven items had a moderate agreement (0.4-0.6). For the Community COVID-19 Stigma Scale, four items had a moderate agreement. Interpretation & conclusions: Validity and reliability of the two stigma scales indicated that the scales were comprehensible and had moderate internal consistency. These scales could be used to assess COVID-19 stigma and help in the development of appropriate stigma reduction interventions for COVID-19 infected, and mitigation of stigmatizing attitudes in the community.