IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: Were valid and ethical field methods used in this survey?

Listed author(s):
  • Madelyn Hsiao-Rei Hicks


    (King's College London)

Registered author(s):

    The Lancet has published the methodology and findings of a 2006 survey by Gilbert Burnham and colleagues of mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The authors report that 40 households were interviewed a day in this survey, and illustrate the ease of this completion rate by comparison to their 2004 study in which teams interviewed 30 households in three hours (completing on average one interview every 6 minutes). This paper describes in detail the problems presented by this reported rapid interviewing rate: inadequacy of the timeframe, likely compromise to data validity, increased risk to interviewees, and the improbability of maintaining ethical standards for academic epidemiological research. Conflict-related mortality surveys should be based on valid field methods that systematically maintain an ethical relationship with the population being represented. It is suggested that Burnham and colleagues need to provide a fully detailed methodological description of their study coupled with access to their raw data to establish that these standards were met for their survey in Iraq.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by Households in Conflict Network in its series HiCN Research Design Notes with number 3.

    in new window

    Length: 17 pages
    Date of creation: Dec 2006
    Handle: RePEc:hic:resdes:3
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hic:resdes:3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Alia Aghajanian)

    or ()

    or ()

    or ()

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.