Adjustment of Truncation Effect in First Birth Interval using Current Status Data Technique
,
Abstract
Background: Estimating the First Birth Interval (FBI) from cross-sectional data often presents challenges related to truncation effects. These challenges stem from the data’s inability to capture the enough exposure for a event, resulting in potential biases and inaccuracies in FBI estimates. Recognizing and addressing truncation effects is essential for obtaining more precise and meaningful fertility parameter estimates in a cross-sectional survey.
Objective: This study seeks to mitigate truncation effects in the estimation of the FBI by utilizing the Current Status Data Technique. This approach involves focusing on women with specific marital durations, providing a means to counteract the bias caused by truncation and thereby yielding more accurate and reliable FBI estimates.
Methodology: Data from the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-IV) are employed for this study. The Current Status Data Technique is applied to the dataset, considering exclusively those women with marital durations less than 120 months. This methodology enables the adjustment of truncation effects and facilitates a more precise estimation of the FBI. Statistical analysis is conducted to determine the FBI distribution and ascertain the necessary sample size.
Results: The application of the Current Status Data Technique yields an FBI estimate of 30.70 months. To achieve reliable estimations of the FBI using Current Status Techniques, a minimum sample size exceeding ”5000” observations is required.
Conclusion: Truncation effect in FBI is address and some non parametric adjustment is used for estimating the duration of FBI. The Current Status Data Technique emerges as a valuable tool for mitigating these effects and enhancing the precision of FBI estimates. This research contributes to an improved understanding of fertility dynamics and provides valuable insights for future studies on the First Birth Interval.
[2] Nancy Brandon Tuma and Michael T Hannan. Approaches to the censoring problem in analysis of event histories. Sociological methodology, 10:209–240, 1979.
[3] Kwan-Moon Leung, Robert M Elashoff, and Abdelmonem A Afifi. Censoring issues in survival analysis.
Annual review of public health, 18(1):83–104, 1997.
[4] Rahmat Hidayat, Hadi Sumarno, Endar H Nugrahani, et al. Survival analysis in modeling the birth interval of the first child in indonesia. Open Journal of Statistics, 4(03):198, 2014.
[5] Anup Kumar, RC Yadava, and U Srivastava. Analysing the impact of marital duration on first birth interval.
Journal of Statistics and Applications, 5(3/4):195, 2010.
[6] Mindel C Sheps, Mindel S Sheps, Jane A Menken, and Annette P Radick. Mathematical models of concep- tion and birth. University of Chicago Press, 1973.
[7] W Kenneth Poole. Fertility measures based on birth interval data. Theoretical Population Biology, 4(3): 357–387, 1973.
[8] Mindel C Sheps and Jane A Menken. Distribution of birth intervals according to the sampling frame. Theo- retical Population Biology, 3(1):1–26, 1972.
[9] SN Singh, BN Bhattacharya, and RC Yadava. An adjustment of a selection bias in postpartum amenorrhea from follow-up studies. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(368):916–920, 1979.
[10] Rolf Ulrich and Jeff Miller. Effects of truncation on reaction time analysis. Journal of Experimental Psy- chology: General, 123(1):34, 1994.
[11] David Wolfers. Determinants of birth intervals and their means. Population Studies, 22(2):253–262, 1968.
[12] Anup Kumar and RC Yadava. Usual closed birth interval versus most recent closed birth interval. Journal of Data Science, 13(1):73–93, 2015.
[13] Joseph Molitoris. Heterogeneous effects of birth spacing on neonatal mortality risks in bangladesh. Studies in Family Planning, 49(1):3–21, 2018.
[14] Amusan Ajitoni Simeon, Zarina Mohd Khalid, and Bahru Malaysia. Survival modeling of first birth interval after marriage. Life Sci J, 11:11–14, 2014.
[15] Fan Yang and Peng Ding. Using survival information in truncation by death problems without the mono- tonicity assumption. Biometrics, 74(4):1232–1239, 2018.
[16] SS Sharma. A study on some mathematical models for birth intervals. PhD thesis, PhD thesis, Banaras Hindu University, India, 2004.
[17] Anup Kumar, Abhishek Bharti, and RC Yadava. An adjustment of truncation and selection effect for esti- mating conception rate from first birth interval data. Journal of Data Science, 17(4):756–767, 2019.
[18] Anup Kumar and RC Yadava. Analysing censored data on first birth interval for heterogeneous group of females. J. Comb. Inf. Syst. Sci., 39(4):149–165, 2014.
[19] Wei-Yann Tsai and Cun-Hui Zhang. Asymptotic properties of nonparametric maximum likelihood estimator for interval-truncated data. Scandinavian journal of statistics, pages 361–370, 1995.
[20] Niels Keiding, Oluf K HøJbjerg Hasen, Ditte Nørbo Sørensen, and Rémy Slama. The current duration approach to estimating time to pregnancy. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 39(2):185–204, 2012.
[21] Chunjie Wang, Bo Zhao, Linlin Luo, and Xinyuan Song. Regression analysis of current status data with latent variables. Lifetime Data Analysis, 27(3):413–436, 2021.
[22] Anup Kumar, Sachin Kumar, Jai Kishun, Uttam Singh, and Pushpraj Pushpraj. Estimation of the distribution of duration of breastfeeding from cross-sectional data: Some methodological issue. Journal of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, 6(4):290–304, 2020.
[23] Jianguo Sun and John D Kalbfleisch. The analysis of current status data on point processes. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 88(424):1449–1454, 1993.
[24] Chunjie Wang, Jianguo Sun, Liuquan Sun, Jie Zhou, and Dehui Wang. Nonparametric estimation of current status data with dependent censoring. Lifetime data analysis, 18(4):434–445, 2012.
[25] Mindel C Sheps, Jane A Menken, Jeanne Clare Ridley, and Joan W Lingner. Truncation effect in closed and open birth interval data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 65(330):678–693, 1970.
[26] Ian D Diamond, John W McDonald, and Iqbal H Shah. Proportional hazards models for current status data: application to the study of differentials in age at weaning in pakistan. Demography, pages 607–620, 1986.
[27] David A Schoenfeld. Sample-size formula for the proportional-hazards regression model. Biometrics, pages 499–503, 1983.
[28] Alan B Cantor. Sample size calculations for the log rank test: a gompertz model approach. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 45(10):1131–1136, 1992.
[29] John M Williamson, Hung-Mo Lin, and Hae-Young Kim. Power and sample size calculations for current status survival analysis. Statistics in medicine, 28(15):1999–2011, 2009.
[30] Ian C Marschner. Determining the size of a cross-sectional sample to estimate the age-specific incidence of an irreversible disease. Statistics in medicine, 13(22):2369–2381, 1994.
[31] DY Lin, David Oakes, and Zhiliang Ying. Additive hazards regression with current status data. Biometrika, 85(2):289–298, 1998.
[32] Janice M Morse. Determining sample size, 2000.
[33] Niels Keiding. Age-specific incidence and prevalence: a statistical perspective. Journal of the Royal Statis- tical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, 154(3):371–396, 1991.
[34] A Meredith John, Jane A Menken, and James Trussell. Estimating the distribution of interval length: Current status and retrospective history data. Population Studies, 42(1):115–127, 1988.
[35] Cosma Shalizi. Advanced data analysis from an elementary point of view. pages 177–192, 2013.
[36] Miriam Ayer, H Daniel Brunk, George M Ewing, William T Reid, and Edward Silverman. An empirical distribution function for sampling with incomplete information. The annals of mathematical statistics, pages 641–647, 1955.
[37] International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS) and ICF. National family health survey (nfhs-4), india, 2015-16. Data, 2017. https://dhsprogram.com/data/available-datasets.cfm.
| Files | ||
| Issue | Vol 10 No 2 (2024) | |
| Section | Articles | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.18502/jbe.v10i2.17644 | |
| Keywords | ||
| Spline Smoothing Truncation Effect Selection Bias Current Status Data Ayer Method | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
