Addressing Unintentional Exclusion of Vulnerable and Mobile Households in Traditional Surveys in Kathmandu, Dhaka, and Hanoi: a Mixed-Methods Feasibility Study.

The methods used in low- and middle-income countries' (LMICs) household surveys have not changed in four decades; however, LMIC societies have changed substantially and now face unprecedented rates of urbanization and urbanization of poverty. This mismatch may result in unintentional exclusion of vulnerable and mobile urban populations. We compare three survey method innovations with standard survey methods in Kathmandu, Dhaka, and Hanoi and summarize feasibility of our innovative methods in terms of time, cost, skill requirements, and experiences. We used descriptive statistics and regression techniques to compare respondent characteristics in samples drawn with innovative versus standard survey designs and household definitions, adjusting for sample probability weights and clustering. Feasibility of innovative methods was evaluated using a thematic framework analysis of focus group discussions with survey field staff, and via survey planner budgets. We found that a common household definition excluded single adults (46.9%) and migrant-headed households (6.7%), as well as non-married (8.5%), unemployed (10.5%), disabled (9.3%), and studying adults (14.3%). Further, standard two-stage sampling resulted in fewer single adult and non-family households than an innovative area-microcensus design; however, two-stage sampling resulted in more tent and shack dwellers. Our survey innovations provided good value for money, and field staff experiences were neutral or positive. Staff recommended streamlining field tools and pairing technical and survey content experts during fieldwork. This evidence of exclusion of vulnerable and mobile urban populations in LMIC household surveys is deeply concerning and underscores the need to modernize survey methods and practices.

From Rags to Riches: Assessing poverty and vulnerability in urban Nepal.

Urbanisation brings with it rapid socio-economic change with volatile livelihoods and unstable ownership of assets. Yet, current measures of wealth are based predominantly on static livelihoods found in rural areas. We sought to assess the extent to which seven common measures of wealth appropriately capture vulnerability to poverty in urban areas. We then sought to develop a measure that captures the characteristics of one urban area in Nepal. We collected and analysed data from 1,180 households collected during a survey conducted between November 2017 and January 2018 and designed to be representative of the Kathmandu valley. A separate survey of a sub set of households was conducted using participatory qualitative methods in slum and non-slum neighbourhoods. A series of currently used indices of deprivation were calculated from questionnaire data. We used bivariate statistical methods to examine the association between each index and identify characteristics of poor and non-poor. Qualitative data was used to identify characteristics of poverty from the perspective of urban poor communities which were used to construct an Urban Poverty Index that combined asset and consumption focused context specific measures of poverty that could be proxied by easily measured indicators as assessed through multivariate modelling. We found a strong but not perfect association between each measure of poverty. There was disagreement when comparing the consumption and deprivation index on the classification of 19% of the sample. Choice of short-term monetary and longer-term capital approaches accounted for much of the difference. Those who reported migrating due to economic necessity were most likely to be categorised as poor. A combined index was developed to capture these dimension of poverty and understand urban vulnerability. A second version of the index was constructed that can be computed using a smaller range of variables to identify those in poverty. Current measures may hide important aspects of urban poverty. Those who migrate out of economic necessity are particularly vulnerable. A composite index of socioeconomic status helps to capture the complex nature of economic vulnerability.

Improving household surveys and use of data to address health inequities in three Asian cities: protocol for the Surveys for Urban Equity (SUE) mixed methods and feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: As rapid urbanisation transforms the sociodemographic structures within cities, standard survey methods, which have remained unchanged for many years, under-represent the urban poorest. This leads to an overly positive picture of urban health, distorting appropriate allocation of resources between rural and urban and within urban areas. Here, we present a protocol for our study which (i) tests novel methods to improve representation of urban populations in household surveys and measure mental health and injuries, (ii) explores urban poverty and compares measures of poverty and 'slumness' and (iii) works with city authorities to understand, and potentially improve, utilisation of data on urban health for planning more equitable services. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct household surveys in Kathmandu, Hanoi and Dhaka to test novel methods: (i) gridded population sampling; (ii) enumeration using open-access online maps and (iii) one-stage versus two-stage cluster sampling. We will test reliability of an observational tool to categorise neighbourhoods as slum areas. Within the survey, we will assess the appropriateness of a short set of questions to measure depression and injuries. Questionnaire data will also be used to compare asset-based, consumption-based and income-based measures of poverty. Participatory methods will identify perceptions of wealth in two communities in each city. The analysis will combine quantitative and qualitative findings to recommend appropriate measures of poverty in urban areas. We will conduct qualitative interviews and establish communities of practice with government staff in each city on use of data for planning. Framework approach will be used to analyse qualitative data allowing comparison across city settings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approvals have been granted by ethics committees from the UK, Nepal, Bangladesh and Vietnam. Findings will be disseminated through conference papers, peer-reviewed open access articles and workshops with policy-makers and survey experts in Kathmandu, Hanoi and Dhaka.