In contrast much has been done in the area of ethnicity data collection in the USA where the proportion of ethnic minorities is greater [ 25].
Little is known about the concordance between different methods of data collection among ethnic minorities.
This was not surprising, given the differences in the characteristics of the populations, data collection methods, ethnic populations, sample size, and sources of the cases.
Aspinall [ 19] has noted the inclusion in Canadian state data collection of ethnic origin/ancestry (originally defined through the paternal ancestor) as well as 'population group'.
Bhopal [ 13] identifies several factors that can hamper cross-national comparative research on ethnicity and health, including: differing migration histories and policy contexts; differences in the use of ethnic categories and in routine data collection; and divergent perspectives regarding the desirability and need for such research.
Previous research has demonstrated the potential of a range of different modes of data collection in these ethnic groups (where illiteracy rates are high), including audio versions of questionnaires, as well as assisted completion, depending on the type of questionnaire to be completed [ 13].
After the first round of data collection with the FUn Group, the ethnic identity scale in the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure was removed from the survey [ 35].
In addition, data collection with multi-ethnic populations can be problematic, as traditional 'written' methods are suited to the White population, whereas some South Asian sub-groups requiring assistance or audio delivery [ 12].
Meticulous data collection and analysis for each ethnic group in each fertility unit can help provide appropriate counselling to women from ethnic minority groups.
