Toward a Principled Workflow for Prevalence Mapping Using Household Survey Data

Jon Wakefield; Qianyu Dong; Yunhan Wu; Zehang Richard Li

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 12 references

Toward a Principled Workflow for Prevalence Mapping Using Household Survey Data

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a four-stage pipeline—design check, model fitting, evaluation, mapping—makes small-area prevalence mapping from sparse household surveys reproducible and defensible.

desk verdict A practical workflow for prevalence mapping that fills a real gap, but the 'robust' claim needs simulation evidence or a softer claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16435 v1 pith:A2KQ6VJM submitted 2025-04-23 stat.AP

Qianyu Dong , Yunhan Wu , Zehang Richard Li , Jon Wakefield This is my paper · ORCID

classification stat.AP

keywords smallareaestimationprevalencemappinghouseholdsurveyscluster-levelmodelsbeta-binomialmodelFay-Herriotspatialrandomeffectsantenatalcarecoverage

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish a principled, reproducible, end-to-end workflow for mapping the prevalence of binary health indicators in low- and middle-income countries, where household surveys are often the only data source and small-area sample sizes are tiny. It argues that a default pipeline—check the sampling design, fit several models, evaluate and compare them, then visualize—can produce dependable subnational prevalence estimates, with the choice between direct, area-level, and cluster-level models made explicit at every step. If the workflow is right, analysts in data-limited settings can produce and defend small-area maps themselves instead of relying on externally generated estimates. The claim is demonstrated on antenatal-care coverage in Kenya, with reproducible code.

What carries the argument

The workhorse is the cluster-level beta-binomial model: for each sampled cluster, the count of positive outcomes follows a BetaBinomial(n_c, p_c, d) distribution, with logit(p_c) linked to area-level intercepts, an urban/rural fixed effect, and spatial random effects. The spatial prior is BYM2, a scaled intrinsic conditional autoregressive model mixed with independent noise, and hyperparameters receive penalized-complexity priors. Around this, the workflow wraps direct design-weighted estimation and an area-level Fay-Herriot model using the same spatial prior, all fitted with integrated nested Laplace approximation for speed. Aggregation from clusters to areas uses gridded population data and a density threshold to reconstruct the urban population fraction, so that stratified estimates can be combined into area-level prevalence.

What would settle it

Take a country where a recent census provides true small-area prevalences, repeatedly draw DHS-style cluster samples from that population, run the full workflow on each replicate, and check whether the reported 95% intervals cover the census values in close to 95% of Admin-2 areas; systematic under-coverage in sparse areas would refute the claim that the workflow generates a dependable set of estimates.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a robust default workflow for binary prevalence mapping can be specified and taught: first understand the survey design and data availability; then fit direct estimates, an area-level Fay-Herriot model, and a cluster-level beta-binomial model; then evaluate them with checks for data sufficiency, consistency with coarser estimates, over-smoothing, and uncertainty; finally summarize and map the results. In the Kenya case study, the workflow shows that unstratified models overestimate ANC4+ coverage because urban clusters are over-sampled, that the stratified nested cluster-level model is preferred, and that Admin-2 estimates are strongly shrunk toward Admin-1 averages yet still retain more spatial variation than an Admin-1-only model. The paper also reports that adding the four tested covariates changed the final Admin-2 estimates little, suggesting that the spatial random effects absorb most of the explainable variation.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the cluster-level beta-binomial likelihood, including its overdispersion parameter d, being a close enough description of how the survey cluster counts were generated, and the paper admits this fit cannot be easily checked.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At Admin-1 resolution, direct estimates usually have acceptable uncertainty, so smoothing models add little; the workflow says to default to simpler models when they are precise enough.
Ignoring urban/rural stratification is materially wrong when urban areas are over-sampled: in the Kenya example the estimated urban/rural log odds ratio is -0.453, and unstratified models produce higher, biased estimates.
Cluster-level beta-binomial models remain usable in Admin-2 areas where direct estimators have zero variance or missing values, while the Fay-Herriot model needed a variance-supplementing 'phantom cluster' for 12 of 300 areas.
Adding the four available covariates changed the final Admin-2 estimates very little, so the workflow's default spatial models can be run without covariate collection when covariates are unavailable.
Posterior exceedance probabilities, such as the probability that ANC4+ coverage exceeds 70%, give policymakers a direct way to identify areas falling short of targets despite noisy point estimates.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The aggregation step's reliance on gridded population rasters and a density threshold means stale or inaccurate urban/rural classifications would propagate into area estimates; a natural sensitivity test is to compare this thresholding approach with classification-based urban fraction estimates.
The same four stages should extend to multiple-survey and space-time prevalence mapping, borrowing strength across years; the paper notes this direction but does not develop it.
A decisive validation experiment would run the entire workflow on a country with recent census microdata and compare Admin-2 model-based estimates against census tabulations, testing the whole pipeline rather than any single model.
Because the authors explicitly leave model choice context-specific, the workflow could be operationalized as a decision rule that stops at direct estimates when uncertainty is acceptable and only adds smoothing when needed.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Useful, practical workflow paper, not new math. The real contribution is bringing Fay-Herriot, beta-binomial cluster models, and BYM2/INLA together into a four-stage pipeline that an LMIC analyst can actually follow, with explicit attention to urban/rural stratification and aggregation weights. The reproducible code is a genuine asset.

The paper does several things well. The stages are sensible. I especially appreciate the evaluation section: checking whether smoothed estimates are over-smoothed by comparing variation against an Admin-1 model, and the caution about ranking areas with overlapping posterior intervals. The authors are also candid about the weaknesses — they explicitly say the beta-binomial likelihood 'cannot be easily checked', and they flag the ad hoc nature of the urban/rural threshold and the phantom cluster imputation. That honesty matters.

The soft spot is the load-bearing claim that the workflow generates a 'robust set of prevalence estimates.' That is not established. The stress-test is right: for the sparse Admin-2 data that the finer-resolution claims depend on, the cluster-level beta-binomial is the workhorse, and its within-cluster correlation structure is an assumption that WAIC and likelihood-ratio tests — which compare models in the same family — cannot validate. There is no design-based simulation, no external truth comparison, and no sensitivity analysis for the phantom cluster choice or the density threshold. The authors themselves say the sampling model cannot be easily checked, which is honest but also the reason 'robust' is too strong.

This is not fatal. The workflow is a reasonable baseline, and the authors present it as such in the Discussion. But a serious editor should send this to reviewers with a request: either add a design-based simulation that generates data from a plausible mechanism with spatial variation in overdispersion and informative sampling, or soften the claims to 'a workflow that performs well in the Kenya example.' I would bet the workflow survives a simulation, but it needs to be shown.

Who is this for? Applied statisticians and analysts in LMICs who need to produce prevalence maps without reinventing the pipeline. It could also serve as a teaching reference for SAE and model-based geostatistics. I would cite it as a practical guide. It deserves peer review — desk rejection would be wrong.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a four-stage workflow for small-area prevalence mapping from household surveys in low- and middle-income countries: (1) understand the sampling design and data availability, (2) fit a range of models (direct, Fay-Herriot, and cluster-level beta-binomial with spatial random effects), (3) evaluate and compare estimates, and (4) summarize and visualize. The workflow is demonstrated on 2022 Kenya DHS data for the proportion of pregnant women with four or more antenatal care visits, at both Admin-1 and Admin-2 levels, with reproducible R code built on the surveyPrev package. The authors emphasize accounting for the urban/rural stratification and provide an aggregation procedure based on gridded population data when stratification is included in cluster-level models.

Significance. If the robustness claim is established, the workflow would fill a practical gap by giving analysts in data-limited settings an accessible, design-conscious pipeline for prevalence mapping. The case study is instructive, the model descriptions are clear, and the provision of reproducible code is a concrete strength. However, the paper's headline claim that the workflow 'generates a robust set of prevalence estimates' is not yet backed by simulation or external validation, and the key cluster-level model assumption is explicitly acknowledged as uncheckable. The paper is a useful guide, but the load-bearing robustness claim needs additional evidence.

major comments (3)

[Abstract, Statement of Significance, Section 3.2.3] The central claim that the workflow is 'robust' for a wide range of binary indicators is not validated in the sparse-data settings for which the workflow is designed. The cluster-level beta-binomial model, which is the workhorse for the sparse Admin-2 analysis (median 5 clusters per area), rests on the assumption that the within-cluster sampling mechanism is well approximated by exchangeable trials with a single overdispersion parameter. The authors themselves state in Section 3.2.3 that this sampling model 'cannot be easily checked.' The model-evaluation tools used in Section 3.3 (WAIC, likelihood-ratio tests, scatter plots) only compare models within the same beta-binomial family, so they cannot detect departures such as spatially varying within-cluster correlation, informative sampling beyond the urban/rural fixed effect, or outcome-dependent nonresponse. To substantiate the robustness claim, I recommend adding a design-based simulation study that resamples clusters from the 2022 Kenya DHS or from a synthetic population and evaluates the root mean squared error and 95% credible-interval coverage of the proposed cluster-level models. This is load-bearing because the significance statement asserts the workflow 'can be robustly adopted.'
[Section 3.2.4, aggregation with population-density thresholding] The aggregation step for the stratified cluster-level model reconstructs the urban/rural partition by fitting an Admin-1-specific population-density threshold to match reported urban fractions, then treats this partition as known when computing the area-level prevalence θ_i. The uncertainty in the thresholded partition is not propagated into the posterior intervals for θ_i. Given the strong urban/rural association in this example (γ = −0.453, 95% CI [−0.564, −0.343]), and the acknowledged over-sampling of urban clusters, the credible intervals for the aggregated stratified estimates are likely to understate total uncertainty. Please provide a sensitivity analysis over plausible urban partitions (e.g., varying the threshold or using an alternative urban/rural classification) or a formal justification that this uncertainty is negligible for the ANC4+ case study.
[Section 3.2.2, phantom cluster imputation in the Admin-2 Fay-Herriot model] For 12 of 300 Admin-2 areas, the design-based variance estimate is undefined or zero, and the authors supplement these areas with a 'phantom' cluster whose prevalence is set to the Admin-1 prevalence and whose weight is the average sum of weights in the Admin-1 area. This procedure is described only by reference to another manuscript (Wakefield et al., 2025, under preparation). Since these 12 areas are exactly the most data-sparse cases where the Fay-Herriot model is most questionable, the sensitivity of the Admin-2 results to the imputed phantom-cluster weight and prevalence should be examined within this paper. At minimum, report a sensitivity analysis that varies the imputed weight and prevalence, or restrict the Admin-2 Fay-Herriot presentation to areas with valid variance estimates.

minor comments (5)

[Section 3.4] There is a typo: 'visualy' should be 'visually'.
[References] The reference list contains two entries cited as 'Wakefield et al. (2025)': one published in Statistical Science and one listed as 'Manuscript under Preparation.' In the text (e.g., Section 3.2.2), it is not clear which of these is being cited. Please disambiguate the citations.
[Section 3.2.4, equation for θ_i] In the equation for θ_i in the nested stratified model, the roles of q_i and (1−q_i) would be clearer if the text explicitly stated that γ is the rural-effect coefficient and that the first expit term corresponds to rural areas. As written, a reader could misread the sign of γ.
[Section 3.2.5] The notation q'_c for the population proportion in cluster c within area i is introduced but the estimation of q'_c from gridded population data is not explained. Please clarify how the grid-to-cluster aggregation is performed.
[Figure 14] The text describes 'a striking band of red' in the north and east, but the figure caption does not define the color scale. Adding a legend or annotation would improve interpretability, especially since the printed version may be grayscale.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Main workflow derivation is independent; sparse-area Fay-Herriot estimates contain one forced phantom-cluster input.

fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2.2, paragraph on Admin-2 Fay-Herriot model with phantom cluster]
"When fitting the Admin-2 level Fay-Herriot model, the design-based variance formula does not produce an estimate, or produces an estimate that is zero or close to zero for 12 out of 300 areas. For these Admin-2 areas, we supplement the data with a “phantom” cluster that has prevalence equal to the prevalence in the Admin-1 area within which the Admin-2 area is contained, and with the sum of the weights equal to the average sum across all observed clusters in the Admin-1 area. For further details, see Wakefield et al. (2025)."

For the 12 Admin-2 areas with unusable direct estimates, the model input is manufactured to equal the prevalence of the containing Admin-1 area. The Fay-Herriot sampling model (Eq. 1) then treats this phantom cluster as data, and no other area-specific information enters for these areas; the resulting Admin-2 posterior estimate is therefore shrunk toward, and effectively restates, the Admin-1 prevalence that was used to build the input. The 'estimate' produced for these areas is thus forced by construction rather than informed by Admin-2 data, and the only cited justification is the authors' own review (Wakefield et al., 2025). This is a disclosed data-augmentation device, but it makes the Admin-2 FH map partially circular for those 12 areas.

full rationale

The paper is primarily a recommended workflow with an illustrative case study, not a derivation of a novel estimator whose outputs reduce to its inputs. Direct estimation, Fay-Herriot, and cluster-level beta-binomial models are standard, and their equations do not define the target prevalence in terms of the same target prevalence. The BYM2 and PC-prior choices are cited to external literature, and the choice of beta-binomial is supported by a prior empirical comparison (Dong and Wakefield, 2021) that is external to this paper's fitted values; the surveyPrev package is an implementation, not a load-bearing circular argument. The uncheckable beta-binomial assumption flagged in Section 3.2.3 is a model-risk or correctness concern, not circularity. The only concrete constructed-input-forcing-output issue is the phantom-cluster imputation for 12 of 300 Admin-2 areas in the Fay-Herriot model; this is disclosed and affects only one model in the workflow, so it raises the score modestly but does not undermine the overall non-circularity of the proposed pipeline.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central workflow rests on standard SAE machinery plus several hand-set prior hyperparameters, a density-based urban/rural partition, and a pseudo-data imputation step. None of the ad hoc choices is stress-tested in the paper, and two ingredients are taken from the authors' own unpublished or forthcoming work.

free parameters (4)

PC prior scale for total standard deviation (sigma) = Prob(sigma > 1) = 0.01
Hand-specified prior hyperparameter for the BYM2 random effects; not data-driven, and the paper omits sensitivity analysis to this choice.
PC prior for spatial variance proportion (phi) = Prob(phi > 0.5) = 2/3
Hand-specified prior hyperparameter controlling shrinkage between IID and spatial effects; not varied in sensitivity analysis.
Population-density threshold for urban/rural partition = Area-specific threshold calibrated so pixel population matches reported urban fraction
The threshold is fitted per Admin-1 area to match the census urban fraction, then treated as fixed when computing aggregation weights qi; errors propagate into the stratified model's area estimates.
Phantom cluster imputation values for 12 Admin-2 areas = Prevalence set to the parent Admin-1 prevalence; weight sum set to average observed cluster weight sum
Ad hoc pseudo-data used to stabilize Fay-Herriot sampling variances; based on authors' unpublished references and not validated.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The beta-binomial distribution is a reasonable approximation to the true cluster-level data-generating process.
Invoked in Section 3.2.3 for all cluster-level models; the authors admit it cannot be easily checked.
domain assumption Given the urban/rural fixed effect, covariates, and spatial random effects, the survey sampling design is ignorable, so survey weights are not needed in cluster-level models.
The workflow uses unweighted model-based cluster regressions; justification rests on the model being correctly specified, which is standard but unverifiable.
ad hoc to paper The population-density thresholding procedure reconstructs the urban/rural partition well enough for aggregation.
Section 3.2.4 relies on the assumption that urban locations have higher population density and that census-based classifications remain valid at survey time.
domain assumption DHS design weights and non-response adjustments produce approximately unbiased direct estimates.
Standard assumption for the direct estimator and Fay-Herriot inputs; described in Section 2.
standard math BYM2 spatial random effects with PC priors are an appropriate default for the residual spatial structure.
Section 3.2.2; standard in disease mapping, but prior choice is stated rather than justified for this dataset.

invented entities (1)

Phantom cluster
purpose: Impute pseudo-observations to compute Fay-Herriot sampling variances for 12 Admin-2 areas with zero or missing design-based variance.
The pseudo-data values (prevalence equal to Admin-1 average, weights equal to average cluster weight sum) have no external validation; cited to Wakefield et al. (2025) and an in-preparation manuscript.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Toward a Principled Workflow for Prevalence Mapping Using Household Survey Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A2KQ6VJM

@misc{pith2026250416435,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Toward a Principled Workflow for Prevalence Mapping Using Household Survey Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A2KQ6VJM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16435}
}

read the original abstract

Understanding the prevalence of key demographic and health indicators in small geographic areas and domains is of global interest, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where vital registration data is sparse and household surveys are the primary source of information. Recent advances in computation and the increasing availability of spatially detailed datasets have led to much progress in sophisticated statistical modeling of prevalence. As a result, high-resolution prevalence maps for many indicators are routinely produced in the literature. However, statistical and practical guidance for producing prevalence maps in LMICs has been largely lacking. In particular, advice in choosing and evaluating models and interpreting results is needed, especially when data is limited. Software and analysis tools are also usually inaccessible to researchers in low-resource settings to conduct their own analysis or reproduce findings in the literature. In this paper, we propose a general workflow for prevalence mapping using household survey data. We consider all stages of the analysis pipeline, with particular emphasis on model choice and interpretation. We illustrate the proposed workflow using a case study mapping the proportion of pregnant women who had at least four antenatal care visits in Kenya. Reproducible code is provided in the Supplementary Materials and can be readily extended to a broad collection of indicators.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.16435 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Stage 1: Understand the sampling design and data availability Stage 2: Conduct analyses with a range of models Stage 3: Evaluate and compare estimates Stage 4: Summarize, map, and visualize the prevalence estimates The full pipeline are carried out using the surveyPrev package (Dong et al., 2024) in R (R Core Team, 2024). A reproducible report with all analysis scripts is included in the Supplementary Materials. 3.1… view at source ↗

**Figure 1.** Workflow for prevalence mapping using household survey data. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Map of the sampled clusters in the 2022 Kenya DHS by urban/rural status. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (13 more)

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Comparison between the fraction of sampled clusters that are urban and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png]

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Point estimates and 95% uncertainty intervals for ANC4+ coverage across Admin-1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Maps of estimated prevalence (top row), coefficient of variation (middle row), and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Maps of estimated prevalence (top row), coefficient of variation (middle row), and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Comparing the estimated prevalence using the unstratified and stratified model at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Comparing the estimated mean and 95% credible intervals of the coefficients of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Comparing Admin-2 level model with and without area-level covariates (left) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Comparing point estimates of the three smoothed models against the direct [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Posterior mean of the Admin-1 fixed effects and Admin-2 random effects in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_11.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Lastly, the posterior distribution of the prevalence are usually the input to compute other quantities of interest. For example, exceedance probabilities, that is, the probability that the prevalence of a given area exceeds certain thresholds, are often used to assess…

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Ridge plot of the posterior distributions of the Admin-1 prevalence, based on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Point estimates of prevalence from different models. Blue points correspond to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_13.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Probability of prevalence exceeding 70% in each Admin-1 area (Left) and Admin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

12 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

[1]

Paige, A

Altay, U., J. Paige, A. Riebler, and G.-A. Fuglstad (2025). Impact of jittering on raster- and distance-based geostatistical analyses of DHS data. Statistical Modelling 25 (1), 55–74. Besag, J., J. York, and A. Molli´ e (1991). Bayesian image restoration with two applica- 27 tions in spatial statistics. Annals of the Institute of Statistics and Mathematic...

work page 2025
[2]

Simpson, D., H. Rue, A. Riebler, T. Martins, and S. Sørbye (2017). Penalising model component complexity: A principled, practical approach to constructing priors (with discussion). Statistical Science 32, 1–28. Sørbye, S. H. and H. Rue (2017). Penalised complexity priors for stationary autore- gressive processes. Journal of Time Series Analysis 38 (6), 92...

work page 2017
[5]

Krainski, E. T., V. G´ omez-Rubio, H. Bakka, A. Lenzi, D. Castro-Camilo, D. Simpson, F. Lindgren, and H. Rue (2018). Advanced Spatial Modeling with Stochastic Partial Differential Equations Using R and INLA . Chapman and Hall/CRC. Li, Z. R., Y. Hsiao, J. Godwin, B. D. Martin, J. Wakefield, and S. J. Clark (2019). Changes in the spatial distribution of the...

work page 2018
[11]

Zhang, A

Tzavidis, N., L.-C. Zhang, A. Luna, T. Schmid, and N. Rojas-Perilla (2018). From start to finish: a framework for the production of small area official statistics. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A 181 , 927–979. 32 United Nations (2015). Sustainable Development Goals . https://sdgs.un.org/ 2030agenda. USAID (2019). Demographic and Health...

work page 2018
[17]

Small Area Estimation with Random Forests and the LASSO

Rockville, Maryland, USA. Mercer, L., J. Wakefield, A. Pantazis, A. Lutambi, H. Mosanja, and S. Clark (2015). Small area estimation of childhood mortality in the absence of vital registration. Annals of Applied Statistics 9 , 1889–1905. 30 Merfeld, J., H. Chen, P. Lahiri, and D. Newhouse (2024). Small area estimation with geospatial data: A primer. Merfel...

work page Pith review arXiv 2015
[21]

33 Wu, Y

Rockville, Maryland, USA. 33 Wu, Y. and J. Wakefield (2024). Modelling urban/rural fractions in low-and middle- income countries. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, qnae003. 34

work page 2024
[41]

Osgood-Zimmerman, A. and J. Wakefield (2023). A statistical review of template model builder: A flexible tool for spatial modelling. International Statistical Review 91 , 318–342. Otto, M. C. and W. R. Bell (1995). Sampling error modelling of poverty and income statistics for states. In American Statistical Association, Proceedings of the Section on Gover...

work page 2023
[286]

Kenya Demographic and Health Survey 2022: volume

KNBS and ICF (2023). Kenya Demographic and Health Survey 2022: volume

work page 2023

Show all 12 references

[665]

Fuglstad, A

Wakefield, J., G.-A. Fuglstad, A. Riebler, J. Godwin, K. Wilson, and S. Clark (2019). Estimating under five mortality in space and time in a developing world context. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 28 , 2614–2634. Wakefield, J., P. A. Gao, G.-A. Fuglstad, and Z. R. Li...

2019
[908]

Dontamsetti, T

Mayala, B., T. Dontamsetti, T. D. Fish, and T. N. Croft (2019). Interpolation of DHS Survey Data at Subnational Administrative Level 2 . DHS Spatial Analysis Reports No

2019
[1120]

Diggle, P. J. and E. Giorgi (2019). Model-based Geostatistics for Global Public Health: Methods and Applications. Chapman and Hall/CRC. 28 Dong, Q., Z. R. Li, Y. Wu, A. Boskovic, and J. Wakefield (2024).surveyPrev: Mapping the Prevalence of Binary Indicators using Survey Data ...

2019
[2594]

An essay on the logical foundations of survey sampling, part I

Fay, R. and R. Herriot (1979). Estimates of income for small places: an application of James–Stein procedure to census data. Journal of the American Statistical Associ- ation 74, 269–277. Franco, C. and W. R. Bell (2013). Applying bivariate binomial/logit normal models to smal...

1979 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Paige, A

Altay, U., J. Paige, A. Riebler, and G.-A. Fuglstad (2025). Impact of jittering on raster- and distance-based geostatistical analyses of DHS data. Statistical Modelling 25 (1), 55–74. Besag, J., J. York, and A. Molli´ e (1991). Bayesian image restoration with two applica- 27 tions in spatial statistics. Annals of the Institute of Statistics and Mathematic...

work page 2025

[2] [2]

Simpson, D., H. Rue, A. Riebler, T. Martins, and S. Sørbye (2017). Penalising model component complexity: A principled, practical approach to constructing priors (with discussion). Statistical Science 32, 1–28. Sørbye, S. H. and H. Rue (2017). Penalised complexity priors for stationary autore- gressive processes. Journal of Time Series Analysis 38 (6), 92...

work page 2017

[3] [5]

Krainski, E. T., V. G´ omez-Rubio, H. Bakka, A. Lenzi, D. Castro-Camilo, D. Simpson, F. Lindgren, and H. Rue (2018). Advanced Spatial Modeling with Stochastic Partial Differential Equations Using R and INLA . Chapman and Hall/CRC. Li, Z. R., Y. Hsiao, J. Godwin, B. D. Martin, J. Wakefield, and S. J. Clark (2019). Changes in the spatial distribution of the...

work page 2018

[4] [11]

Zhang, A

Tzavidis, N., L.-C. Zhang, A. Luna, T. Schmid, and N. Rojas-Perilla (2018). From start to finish: a framework for the production of small area official statistics. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A 181 , 927–979. 32 United Nations (2015). Sustainable Development Goals . https://sdgs.un.org/ 2030agenda. USAID (2019). Demographic and Health...

work page 2018

[5] [17]

Small Area Estimation with Random Forests and the LASSO

Rockville, Maryland, USA. Mercer, L., J. Wakefield, A. Pantazis, A. Lutambi, H. Mosanja, and S. Clark (2015). Small area estimation of childhood mortality in the absence of vital registration. Annals of Applied Statistics 9 , 1889–1905. 30 Merfeld, J., H. Chen, P. Lahiri, and D. Newhouse (2024). Small area estimation with geospatial data: A primer. Merfel...

work page Pith review arXiv 2015

[6] [21]

33 Wu, Y

Rockville, Maryland, USA. 33 Wu, Y. and J. Wakefield (2024). Modelling urban/rural fractions in low-and middle- income countries. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, qnae003. 34

work page 2024

[7] [41]

Osgood-Zimmerman, A. and J. Wakefield (2023). A statistical review of template model builder: A flexible tool for spatial modelling. International Statistical Review 91 , 318–342. Otto, M. C. and W. R. Bell (1995). Sampling error modelling of poverty and income statistics for states. In American Statistical Association, Proceedings of the Section on Gover...

work page 2023

[8] [286]

Kenya Demographic and Health Survey 2022: volume

KNBS and ICF (2023). Kenya Demographic and Health Survey 2022: volume

work page 2023