Methodological Issues for Eliciting Local Signs/Symptoms/illness Terms Associated with Acute Respiratory Illnesses

Published in: Archives of Medical Research, v. 27, no. 3, Autumn 1996, p. 359-365

Posted on on January 01, 1996

by Gery W. Ryan, Homero Martinez, Gretel H. Pelto

Acute respiratory infections (ARI) are among the principal causes of mortality of children under 5 years of age. Most deaths are due to pneumonia, which, when timely identified and properly treated, could be avoided. An effective case management scheme, based on early recognition of pneumonia and prompt antibiotic treatment, relies on early recognition of alarm signs by mothers and community health workers. For mothers to understand and act on advice from health workers, language and concepts commonly used by mothers should be utilized. The present study was carried out to compare the relative effectiveness of two different methods to elicit local terms used by mothers to refer to ARI symptoms/signs/treatments. A comparison was made among the terms elicited by a free listing of common terms mentioned by mothers in relation to ARI, and the terms they recognized when looking at a video that showed children with different ARI signs. The video was shown in a community and a clinical setting, in order to identify strengths and weaknesses of showing it in these settings. The video elicited more signs dealing with serious illness, respiratory distress and general malaise, but missed non-visual signs, such as fever, lack of appetite or pain. Also, mothers tended to be distracted by trivial signs, such as skin color. Free listing was easier to administer and elicited more non-life-threatening symptoms/signs, but mothers were more prone to drift away and mention terms not related to respiratory illness. Showing the video in the clinic elicited more medical-related terms, and was easier to show than in the community. In conclusion, choice of either of the two methods depends on the researcher's purpose. Using both methods produced a larger list of terms associated with ARI.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.