Analysis of the situation in Greece
3. Research Methodology
Aims and Objectives
The main objective of the work was to put together a representative sample and gather information on the current health situation of the Greek Roma population and compare the outcomes to the other EU coun- tries participating in the project.
A number of diff erent aspects emerged providing pertinent information on the status of the Roma people with regard to:
general health status, identifi cation of the main problems encountered (chronic illness, aches and
•
pains, limitations in terms of activity, aid, accidents etc.);
knowledge of the degree to which health services are used;
•
preventive practices followed;
•
frequency of habits which could endanger or benefi t health.
•
These main aspects formed the basis of the approach followed in this project. Given that the fundamental aim of the research was not only to gain insight into the health status of Greek Roma but also to compare the situation of Greek Roma with that of other population groups, the methodological approach also aims to generate offi cial health statistics in Greece. It is also in compliance with the research design by the leader of the project (Fundación Secretariado Gitano).
Methodological approach
To achieve these objectives, the project gathered current, fi rst-hand information by means of a national survey. This basically meant conducting direct and indirect interviews with a representative sample of Greek Roma households all over the country so that we could subsequently extract statistically reliable data which can then be extrapolated to the entire Roma community. The technical characteristics of the survey were as follows.
Target population
The statistical target population of the study was the entire Greek Roma population and therefore infor- mation was gathered from Roma of both sexes age 0 and older. In terms of age, the group was divided into two categories, minors and adults. In the case of minors (0-15 years) information was collected indirectly while in the case of adults (over 15) it was collected directly.
The total theoretical sample envisaged 660 interviews of Roma households. Each of these interviews gath- ered detailed information on the health status and habits of 440 adults and 220 minors (in a 2:1 ratio). In the case of the former, information from each household was collected fi rst-hand from a randomly selected adult, while in the case of the minors it was provided by an adult directly responsible for and familiar with the situation of the minor. Those interviewed also provided information on the home and all of the mem- bers residing there.
In order to acquire a representative sample, data from a previous survey1 was used. Information concerning the following variables was used for the fi rst phase of this survey:
Geographical distribution of Roma settlements nationwide 1.
Type of houses (construction material: e.g. tent, apartment, shack, etc.) 2.
Number of households per settlement 3.
Estimation of the number of inhabitants in the community/demographic data 4.
Type of residence (permanent or seasonal) 5.
Information was gathered from 162 settlements in 116 Municipalities. The total number of members of was 27,000.
1 Special Service for the Implementation of Actions Co-Financed by the European Social Fund - Ministry of Employment (2008).
Current situation of Roma in Greece, Review of actions and Preparation of action plan for the 4th Programming Period.
Sample design
The sample was designed in stages. At stage one, data concerning territorial (regional) distribution and number of settlements per region from the above mentioned study was used.
The following considerations were taken into account in attaining a nationwide sample:
Sample size per settlement divided by 3 [module (N,3)=0] in order to achieve a 2:1 ratio.
1.
The size of the sample per region and per community had to be large enough to make additional 2.
estimates per region.
Availability of human resources (such as existence of local social / medical centers, qualifi ed inter- 3.
viewers) in order to reduce the no-response rate.
Autonomous communities recorded (table 1) 4.
Table 1. Communities per region and sample of households
Region Autonomous communities/settlements
(not all in Greece) Sample (households)
1 East Macedonia and Thrace 28 129
2 Central Macedonia 23 117
3 West Macedonia 2 -
4 Epirus 3 -
5 Thessaly 11 111
6 West Greece 47 150
7 Ionian Islands 5 -
8 Central Greece 17 33
9 Peloponnesus 13 -
10 Attica 9 93
11 Crete 2 27
12 North Aegean 1 -
13 South Aegean 1 -
Total 162 660
Thus, the fi nal sample can be regarded as disproportionate.
According to the Spanish (coordinator) sampling design, the fi nal sample should refl ect a 2:1 adult to minor ratio. It was decided that a sample of 2.4% of the households (namely 660) would be adequate, taking pa- rameters like budget, time, human resources and territorial dispersion into account. This means 660 people were scheduled for interviews. Therefore, of the 660 Roma, 220 were minors (up to age 15) and 440 were adults (15.1 and older), broken down by gender and age group.
Sampling
In general the sampling method used can be described as multistage, disproportionate, non probability- judgmental method at the preliminary stages and simple random selection for the interviews of minors and adults.
The fi rst stage entailed the selection of the fi rst units which, in this case, were the regions where settle- ments were known to exist (table 1).
Specifi c settlements were selected at the second stage (Table 2). The main criterion was the existence of a social-medical center providing support to the target population and type of housing (equally balanced).
Table 2. Settlement areas
1 13 2
6
6 5
33 settlements
Once we had identifi ed and located the areas where our target population lived, we proceeded to select the units of the third stage, i.e. households.
At the fourth stage, within each household, a minor (0 to 15) for the minor’s questionnaire or an adult (15.1 and older) for the adult’s questionnaire was selected.
In selecting the sampling units, we considered breakdown by sex and age bracket as illustrated below (Table 3).
Table 3. Distribution of the target group (designed)
Minors Adults
Age Male Female Total Age Male Female Total
0-6 54 52 106 15.1-30 113 130 243
6.1-15 60 54 114 30.1-45 56 50 106
46 + 43 48 91
Total 114 106 220 Total 212 228 440
% 51.8% 48.2% 100% % 48.2% 51.8% 100%
Total male: 326 Total female: 334
In no case were both an adult and a minor of the same household interviewed. In each household only one adult or one minor was interviewed in addition to collecting information regarding the household in gen- eral. The interviewers had to follow certain guidelines provided by the coordinator. In selecting a minor or adult to be interviewed, interviewers were instructed to choose the member of the family whose upcoming birthday was closest to the survey date in order to attain a random selection.
This design was used to reach 645 households. We were unable to reach the planned sample of 660 due to a number of reasons and obstacles. Also, 4 questionnaires were rejected at the fi nal screening. Thus the fi nal sample was 641 households containing a total of 3,485 individuals, 2.79% of the estimated Roma population.
Table 4. Final sample (acquired)
Male Female Total
Minors 109 (50.7%) 106 (49.3%) 215 (33.5%)
Adults 199 (46.7%) 227 (53.3%) 426 (66.5%)
Total 308 333 641
As the above table shows, the percentage distribution of the fi nal sample is very close to the original design and the 2:1 ratio was likewise achieved (66.5%:33.5%)
A total of 3 485 people were living in the 641 households, i.e. 5.4 persons / household (very close to the 5.24 from the previous study).
The distribution of the nationwide sample by region, municipality, area and type of settlement/community is presented in Appendix 1.
Field work
Field work was conducted between November and December 2008.
A strict set of rules specifi cally designed to account for the characteristics of the target group was estab- lished to ensure the quality of fi eld work, a vital part of any research project of this nature.
All of the people taking part in the collection of data received specifi c and detailed training at a meeting held in Athens. In addition to the criteria and operational mechanics typically transmitted to the interview- ers responsible for a survey, in this case they were also provided with a series of very important specifi c rules in order to minimise possible bias and ensure the accuracy of the data collected.