Comparison of household socioeconomic status classification methods and effects on risk estimation: lessons from a natural experimental study, Kisumu, Western Kenya

Abstract

Introduction Low household socioeconomic status is associated with unhealthy behaviours including poor diet and adverse health outcomes. Different methods leading to variations in SES classification has the potential to generate spurious research findings or misinform policy. In low and middle-income countries, there are additional complexities in defining household SES, a need for fieldwork to be conducted efficiently, and a dearth of information on how classification could impact estimation of disease risk. Methods Using cross-sectional data from 200 households in Kisumu County, Western Kenya, we compared three approaches of classifying households into low, middle, or high SES: fieldworkers (FWs), Community Health Volunteers (CHVs), and a Multiple Correspondence Analysis econometric model (MCA). We estimated the sensitivity, specificity, inter-rater reliability and misclassification of the three methods using MCA as a comparator. We applied an unadjusted generalized linear model to determine prevalence ratios to assess the association of household SES status with a self-reported diagnosis of diabetes or hypertension for one household member. Results Compared with MCA, FWs successfully classified 21.7% (95%CI = 14.4%-31.4%) of low SES households, 32.8% (95%CI = 23.2–44.3) of middle SES households, and no high SES households. CHVs successfully classified 22.5% (95%CI = 14.5%-33.1%) of low SES households, 32.8% (95%CI = 23.2%-44.3%) of middle SES households, and no high SES households. The level of agreement in SES classification was similar between FWs and CHVs but poor compared to MCA, particularly for high SES. None of the three methods differed in estimating the risk of hypertension or diabetes. Conclusions FW and CHV assessments are community-driven methods for SES classification. Compared to MCA, these approaches appeared biased towards low or middle SES households and not sensitive to high household SES. The three methods did not differ in risk estimation for diabetes and hypertension. A mix of approaches and further evaluation to refine SES classification methodology is recommended.

Socioeconomic inequalities in food purchasing practices and expenditure patterns: Results from a cross-sectional household survey in western Kenya

“…We used this list which had about 2,000 households in each of the two sites. From the list, we asked CHVs to classify the households into three SES groups poor, middle or rich based on methods described by Foley et al and Were et al ( 19 , 22 ). We also classified these households into three clusters based on the distance from a central predetermined landmark (2, 1.0, and 0.5 km) and further classified the households into four quadrants (NW, NE, SW, and SE).…”

“…We proportionately divided the 50 households between three levels of household SES (low, moderate, and high) and distance to a central landmark (2, 1, and 0.5 km). At the individual levels, we aimed at a maximum of five adults per household ( 19 , 22 ). At the end of the survey, we achieved a higher number of 376 households in both sites (196 in Kisumu and 180 in Homabay).…”

“…The first quintile was labeled as the poorest, and the fifth quintile as the least poor (wealthiest). The household heads reported the ownership of the assets and utilities of the households as was asked by the research assistants ( 22 ). The ownership of assets and utilities was self, or proxy-reported.…”

Navigating the local foodscape: qualitative investigation of food retail and dietary preferences in Kisumu and Homa Bay Counties, western Kenya

“…This was a cross-sectional qualitative study involving members of households who participated in the initial quantitative household survey [ 16 ], purposively sampled for follow on qualitative data collection.…”

Risk assessment of Sanitation and water Infrastructure in informal settlements of Kisumu: Implications for Hygiene and Public Health

“…Informal settlements are residential areas where the residents lack security of both the land tenure and housing (Were et al, 2022). In law the occupancy and the settlements are illegal.…”