Years of life lost due to mortality from all circulatory diseases (ICD-10 I00-I99). Years of life lost (YLL) is a measure of premature mortality. Its primary purpose is to compare the relative importance of different causes of premature death within a particular population and it can therefore be used by health planners to define priorities for the prevention of such deaths. It can also be used to compare the premature mortality experience of different populations for a particular cause of death. The concept of years of life lost is to estimate the length of time a person would have lived had they not died prematurely. By inherently including the age at which the death occurs, rather than just the fact of its occurrence, the calculation is an attempt to better quantify the burden, or impact, on society from the specified cause of mortality. Legacy unique identifier: P00520

Excel workbook of age-standardised baseline mortality rates (BMRs) for each US county by race and ethnicity used for calculating racial-ethnic disparities in health burdens for air pollution from the major oil and gas lifecycle stages in the United States.The workbook includes 3 sheets:BMRs for all-cause mortality in 25+ years population for calculating premature mortality from exposure to fine particular matter (PM2.5).BMRs for all-cause mortality in 65+ years population for calculating premature mortality from exposure to nitrogen dioxide (NO2), andBMRs for all-ages chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) mortality from exposure to ozone air pollution.Raw BMRs from the US US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-ranging ONline Data for Epidemiologic Research (CDC WONDER) are processed to gap fill data not reported at the county level. This data gap filling is detailed in Vohra et al. (2025) Science Advances, "The health burden and racial-ethnic disparities of air pollution from the major oil and gas lifecycle stages in the United States", doi:10.1126/sciadv.adu2241.

This data shows premature deaths (Age under 75), numbers and rates by gender, as 3-year moving-averages.

All-Cause Mortality rates are a summary indicator of population health status. All-cause mortality is related to Life Expectancy, and both may be influenced by health inequalities.

Directly Age-Standardised Rates (DASR) are shown in the data (where numbers are sufficient) so that death rates can be directly compared between areas. The DASR calculation applies Age-specific rates to a Standard (European) population to cancel out possible effects on crude rates due to different age structures among populations, thus enabling direct comparisons of rates.

A limitation on using mortalities as a proxy for prevalence of health conditions is that mortalities may give an incomplete view of health conditions in an area, as ill-health might not lead to premature death.

Data source: Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID), Public Health Outcomes Framework (PHOF) indicator ID 108. This data is updated annually.

COVID-19 rate of death, or the known deaths divided by confirmed cases, was over ten percent in Yemen, the only country that has 1,000 or more cases. This according to a calculation that combines coronavirus stats on both deaths and registered cases for 221 different countries. Note that death rates are not the same as the chance of dying from an infection or the number of deaths based on an at-risk population. By April 26, 2022, the virus had infected over 510.2 million people worldwide, and led to a loss of 6.2 million. The source seemingly does not differentiate between "the Wuhan strain" (2019-nCOV) of COVID-19, "the Kent mutation" (B.1.1.7) that appeared in the UK in late 2020, the 2021 Delta variant (B.1.617.2) from India or the Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) from South Africa.

Where are these numbers coming from?

The numbers shown here were collected by Johns Hopkins University, a source that manually checks the data with domestic health authorities. For the majority of countries, this is from national authorities. In some cases, like China, the United States, Canada or Australia, city reports or other various state authorities were consulted. In this statistic, these separately reported numbers were put together. Note that Statista aims to also provide domestic source material for a more complete picture, and not to just look at one particular source. Examples are these statistics on the confirmed coronavirus cases in Russia or the COVID-19 cases in Italy, both of which are from domestic sources. For more information or other freely accessible content, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.

A word on the flaws of numbers like this

People are right to ask whether these numbers are at all representative or not for several reasons. First, countries worldwide decide differently on who gets tested for the virus, meaning that comparing case numbers or death rates could to some extent be misleading. Germany, for example, started testing relatively early once the country’s first case was confirmed in Bavaria in January 2020, whereas Italy tests for the coronavirus postmortem. Second, not all people go to see (or can see, due to testing capacity) a doctor when they have mild symptoms. Countries like Norway and the Netherlands, for example, recommend people with non-severe symptoms to just stay at home. This means not all cases are known all the time, which could significantly alter the death rate as it is presented here. Third and finally, numbers like this change very frequently depending on how the pandemic spreads or the national healthcare capacity. It is therefore recommended to look at other (freely accessible) content that dives more into specifics, such as the coronavirus testing capacity in India or the number of hospital beds in the UK. Only with additional pieces of information can you get the full picture, something that this statistic in its current state simply cannot provide.

Abstract

The 1995 Uganda Demographic and Health Survey (UDHS-II) is a nationally-representative survey of 7,070 women age 15-49 and 1,996 men age 15-54. The UDHS was designed to provide information on levels and trends of fertility, family planning knowledge and use, infant and child mortality, and maternal and child health. Fieldwork for the UDHS took place from late-March to mid-August 1995. The survey was similar in scope and design to the 1988-89 UDHS. Survey data show that fertility levels may be declining, contraceptive use is increasing, and childhood mortality is declining; however, data also point to several remaining areas of challenge.

The 1995 UDHS was a follow-up to a similar survey conducted in 1988-89. In addition to including most of the same questions included in the 1988-89 UDHS, the 1995 UDHS added more detailed questions on AIDS and maternal mortality, as well as incorporating a survey of men. The general objectives of the 1995 UDHS are to: - provide national level data which will allow the calculation of demographic rates, particularly fertility and childhood mortality rates; - analyse the direct and indirect factors which determine the level and trends of fertility; - measure the level of contraceptive knowledge and practice (of both women and men) by method, by urban-rural residence, and by region; - collect reliable data on maternal and child health indicators; immunisation, prevalence, and treatment of diarrhoea and other diseases among children under age four; antenatal visits; assistance at delivery; and breastfeeding; - assess the nutritional status of children under age four and their mothers by means of anthropometric measurements (weight and height), and also child feeding practices; and - assess among women and men the prevailing level of specific knowledge and attitudes regarding AIDS and to evaluate patterns of recent behaviour regarding condom use.

MAIN RESULTS

• Fertility:

Fertility Trends. UDHS data indicate that fertility in Uganda may be starting to decline. The total fertility rate has declined from the level of 7.1 births per woman that prevailed over the last 2 decades to 6.9 births for the period 1992-94. The crude birth rate for the period 1992-94 was 48 live births per I000 population, slightly lower than the level of 52 observed from the 1991 Population and Housing Census. For the roughly 80 percent of the country that was covered in the 1988-89 UDHS, fertility has declined from 7.3 to 6.8 births per woman, a drop of 7 percent over a six and a half year period.

Birth Intervals. The majority of Ugandan children (72 percent) are born after a "safe" birth interval (24 or more months apart), with 30 percent born at least 36 months after a prior birth. Nevertheless, 28 percent of non-first births occur less than 24 months after the preceding birth, with 10 percent occurring less than 18 months since the previous birth. The overall median birth interval is 29 months. Fertility Preferences. Survey data indicate that there is a strong desire for children and a preference for large families in Ugandan society. Among those with six or more children, 18 percent of married women want to have more children compared to 48 percent of married men. Both men and women desire large families.

• Family planning:

Knowledge of Contraceptive Methods. Knowledge of contraceptive methods is nearly universal with 92 percent of all women age 15-49 and 96 percent of all men age 15-54 knowing at least one method of family planning. Increasing Use of Contraception. The contraceptive prevalence rate in Uganda has tripled over a six-year period, rising from about 5 percent in approximately 80 percent of the country surveyed in 1988-89 to 15 percent in 1995.

Source of Contraception. Half of current users (47 percent) obtain their methods from public sources, while 42 percent use non-governmental medical sources, and other private sources account for the remaining 11 percent.

• Maternal and child health:

High Childhood Mortality. Although childhood mortality in Uganda is still quite high in absolute terms, there is evidence of a significant decline in recent years. Currently, the direct estimate of the infant mortality rate is 81 deaths per 1,000 births and under five mortality is 147 per 1,000 births, a considerable decline from the rates of 101 and 180, respectively, that were derived for the roughly 80 percent of the country that was covered by the 1988-89 UDHS.

Childhood Vaccination Coverage. One possible reason for the declining mortality is improvement in childhood vaccination coverage. The UDHS results show that 47 percent of children age 12-23 months are fully vaccinated, and only 14 percent have not received any vaccinations.

Childhood Nutritional Status. Overall, 38 percent of Ugandan children under age four are classified as stunted (low height-for-age) and 15 percent as severely stunted. About 5 percent of children under four in Uganda are wasted (low weight-for-height); 1 percent are severely wasted. Comparison with other data sources shows little change in these measures over time.

• AIDS:

Virtually all women and men in Uganda are aware of AIDS. About 60 percent of respondents say that limiting the number of sexual partners or having only one partner can prevent the spread of disease. However, knowledge of ways to avoid AIDS is related to respondents' education. Safe patterns of sexual behaviour are less commonly reported by respondents who have little or no education than those with more education. Results show that 65 percent of women and 84 percent of men believe that they have little or no chance of being infected.

Availability of Health Services. Roughly half of women in Uganda live within 5 km of a facility providing antenatal care, delivery care, and immunisation services. However, the data show that children whose mothers receive both antenatal and delivery care are more likely to live within 5 km of a facility providing maternal and child health (MCH) services (70 percent) than either those whose mothers received only one of these services (46 percent) or those whose mothers received neither antenatal nor delivery care (39 percent).

Geographic coverage

The 1995 Uganda Demographic and Health Survey (UDHS-II) is a nationally-representative survey. For the purpose of the 1995 UDHS, the following domains were utilised: Uganda as a whole; urban and rural areas separately; each of the four regions: Central, Eastern, Northern, and Western; areas in the USAID-funded DISH project to permit calculation of contraceptive prevalence rates.

Analysis unit

• Household
• Women age 15-49
• Men age 15-54
• Children under four

Universe

The population covered by the 1995 UDHS is defined as the universe of all women age 15-49 in Uganda. But because of insecurity, eight EAs could not be surveyed (six in Kitgum District, one in Apac District, and one in Moyo District). An additional two EAs (one in Arua and one in Moroto) could not be surveyed, but substitute EAs were selected in their place.

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

A sample of 303 primary sampling units (PSU) consisting of enumeration areas (EAs) was selected from a sampling frame of the 1991 Population and Housing Census. For the purpose of the 1995 UDHS, the following domains were utilised: Uganda as a whole; urban and rural areas separately; each of the four regions: Central, Eastern, Northern, and Western; areas in the USAID-funded DISH project to permit calculation of contraceptive prevalence rates.

Districts in the DISH project area were grouped by proximity into the following five reporting domains: - Kasese and Mbarara Districts - Masaka and Rakai Districts - Luwero and Masindi Districts - Jinja and Kamuli Districts - Kampala District

The sample for the 1995 UDHS was selected in two stages. In the first stage, 303 EAs were selected with probability proportional to size. Then, within each selected EA, a complete household listing and mapping exercise was conducted in December 1994 forming the basis for the second-stage sampling. For the listing exercise, 11 listers from the Statistics Department were trained. Institutional populations (army barracks, hospitals, police camps, etc.) were not listed.

From these household lists, households to be included in the UDHS were selected with probability inversely proportional to size based on the household listing results. All women age 15-49 years in these households were eligible to be interviewed in the UDHS. In one-third of these selected households, all men age 15-54 years were eligible for individual interview as well. The overall target sample was 6,000 women and 2,000 men. Because of insecurity, eight EAs could not be surveyed (six in Kitgum District, one in Apac District, and one in Moyo District). An additional two EAs (one in Arua and one in Moroto) could not be surveyed, but substitute EAs were selected in their place.

Since one objective of the survey was to produce estimates of specific demographic and health indicators for the areas included in the DISH project, the sample design allowed for oversampling of households in these districts relative to their actual proportion in the population. Thus, the 1995 UDHS sample is not self-weighting at the national level; weights are required to estimate national-level indicators. Due to the weighting factor and rounding of estimates, figures may not add to totals. In addition, the percent total may not add to 100.0 due to rounding.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

Four questionnaires were used in the 1995 UDHS.

a) A Household Schedule was used to list the names and certain

8,74 (per thousand population) in 2021. Death Rate (or Crude Death Rate) refers to the ratio of the number of deaths to the average population (or mid-period population) during a certain period of time (usually a year), expressed in ‰. Death rate refers to annual death rate. The following formula is used: (Number of deaths)/(Annual average population)*1000‰.

*Possible ALS used as baseline category for El-Escorial category rate ratio calculations.‡65–74 is peak age group and is used as the baseline category for rate ratio calculations.Dx = diagnosis; o = counts less than 5 omitted; ns = not significant.Overall n = 1,282. Overall median survival from diagnosis = 1.27 yrs (95% CI:1.20–1.36).Overall median survival from symptom onset = 2.39years (95% CI: 2.26–2.54).

Crude birth rates, age-specific fertility rates and total fertility rates (live births), 2000 to most recent year.

Data for CDC’s COVID Data Tracker site on Rates of COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by Vaccination Status. Click 'More' for important dataset description and footnotes

Dataset and data visualization details: These data were posted on October 21, 2022, archived on November 18, 2022, and revised on February 22, 2023. These data reflect cases among persons with a positive specimen collection date through September 24, 2022, and deaths among persons with a positive specimen collection date through September 3, 2022.

Vaccination status: A person vaccinated with a primary series had SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen detected on a respiratory specimen collected ≥14 days after verifiably completing the primary series of an FDA-authorized or approved COVID-19 vaccine. An unvaccinated person had SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen detected on a respiratory specimen and has not been verified to have received COVID-19 vaccine. Excluded were partially vaccinated people who received at least one FDA-authorized vaccine dose but did not complete a primary series ≥14 days before collection of a specimen where SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen was detected. Additional or booster dose: A person vaccinated with a primary series and an additional or booster dose had SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen detected on a respiratory specimen collected ≥14 days after receipt of an additional or booster dose of any COVID-19 vaccine on or after August 13, 2021. For people ages 18 years and older, data are graphed starting the week including September 24, 2021, when a COVID-19 booster dose was first recommended by CDC for adults 65+ years old and people in certain populations and high risk occupational and institutional settings. For people ages 12-17 years, data are graphed starting the week of December 26, 2021, 2 weeks after the first recommendation for a booster dose for adolescents ages 16-17 years. For people ages 5-11 years, data are included starting the week of June 5, 2022, 2 weeks after the first recommendation for a booster dose for children aged 5-11 years. For people ages 50 years and older, data on second booster doses are graphed starting the week including March 29, 2022, when the recommendation was made for second boosters. Vertical lines represent dates when changes occurred in U.S. policy for COVID-19 vaccination (details provided above). Reporting is by primary series vaccine type rather than additional or booster dose vaccine type. The booster dose vaccine type may be different than the primary series vaccine type. ** Because data on the immune status of cases and associated deaths are unavailable, an additional dose in an immunocompromised person cannot be distinguished from a booster dose. This is a relevant consideration because vaccines can be less effective in this group. Deaths: A COVID-19–associated death occurred in a person with a documented COVID-19 diagnosis who died; health department staff reviewed to make a determination using vital records, public health investigation, or other data sources. Rates of COVID-19 deaths by vaccination status are reported based on when the patient was tested for COVID-19, not the date they died. Deaths usually occur up to 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis. Participating jurisdictions: Currently, these 31 health departments that regularly link their case surveillance to immunization information system data are included in these incidence rate estimates: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, New York City (New York), North Carolina, Philadelphia (Pennsylvania), Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia; 30 jurisdictions also report deaths among vaccinated and unvaccinated people. These jurisdictions represent 72% of the total U.S. population and all ten of the Health and Human Services Regions. Data on cases among people who received additional or booster doses were reported from 31 jurisdictions; 30 jurisdictions also reported data on deaths among people who received one or more additional or booster dose; 28 jurisdictions reported cases among people who received two or more additional or booster doses; and 26 jurisdictions reported deaths among people who received two or more additional or booster doses. This list will be updated as more jurisdictions participate. Incidence rate estimates: Weekly age-specific incidence rates by vaccination status were calculated as the number of cases or deaths divided by the number of people vaccinated with a primary series, overall or with/without a booster dose (cumulative) or unvaccinated (obtained by subtracting the cumulative number of people vaccinated with a primary series and partially vaccinated people from the 2019 U.S. intercensal population estimates) and multiplied by 100,000. Overall incidence rates were age-standardized using the 2000 U.S. Census standard population. To estimate population counts for ages 6 months through 1 year, half of the single-year population counts for ages 0 through 1 year were used. All rates are plotted by positive specimen collection date to reflect when incident infections occurred. For the primary series analysis, age-standardized rates include ages 12 years and older from April 4, 2021 through December 4, 2021, ages 5 years and older from December 5, 2021 through July 30, 2022 and ages 6 months and older from July 31, 2022 onwards. For the booster dose analysis, age-standardized rates include ages 18 years and older from September 19, 2021 through December 25, 2021, ages 12 years and older from December 26, 2021, and ages 5 years and older from June 5, 2022 onwards. Small numbers could contribute to less precision when calculating death rates among some groups. Continuity correction: A continuity correction has been applied to the denominators by capping the percent population coverage at 95%. To do this, we assumed that at least 5% of each age group would always be unvaccinated in each jurisdiction. Adding this correction ensures that there is always a reasonable denominator for the unvaccinated population that would prevent incidence and death rates from growing unrealistically large due to potential overestimates of vaccination coverage. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs): IRRs for the past one month were calculated by dividing the average weekly incidence rates among unvaccinated people by that among people vaccinated with a primary series either overall or with a booster dose. Publications: Scobie HM, Johnson AG, Suthar AB, et al. Monitoring Incidence of COVID-19 Cases, Hospitalizations, and Deaths, by Vaccination Status — 13 U.S. Jurisdictions, April 4–July 17, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021;70:1284–1290. Johnson AG, Amin AB, Ali AR, et al. COVID-19 Incidence and Death Rates Among Unvaccinated and Fully Vaccinated Adults with and Without Booster Doses During Periods of Delta and Omicron Variant Emergence — 25 U.S. Jurisdictions, April 4–December 25, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022;71:132–138. Johnson AG, Linde L, Ali AR, et al. COVID-19 Incidence and Mortality Among Unvaccinated and Vaccinated Persons Aged ≥12 Years by Receipt of Bivalent Booster Doses and Time Since Vaccination — 24 U.S. Jurisdictions, October 3, 2021–December 24, 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2023;72:145–152. Johnson AG, Linde L, Payne AB, et al. Notes from the Field: Comparison of COVID-19 Mortality Rates Among Adults Aged ≥65 Years Who Were Unvaccinated and Those Who Received a Bivalent Booster Dose Within the Preceding 6 Months — 20 U.S. Jurisdictions, September 18, 2022–April 1, 2023. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2023;72:667–669.

Abstract

The JPFHS is part of the worldwide Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) program, which is designed to collect data on fertility, family planning, and maternal and child health.

The 1990 Jordan Population and Family Health Survey (JPFHS) was carried out as part of the Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) program. The Demographic and Health Surveys is assisting governments and private agencies in the implementation of household surveys in developing countries.

The JPFIS was designed to provide information on levels and trends of fertility, infant and child mortality, and family planning. The survey also gathered information on breastfeeding, matemal and child health cam, the nutritional status of children under five, as well as the characteristics of households and household members.

The main objectives of the project include: a) Providing decision makers with a data base and analyses useful for informed policy choices, b) Expanding the international population and health data base, c) Advancing survey methodology, and d) Developing skills and resources necessary to conduct high quality demographic and health surveys in the participating countries.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Household
• Children under five years
• Women age 15-49
• Men

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

The sample for the JPFHS survey was selected to be representative of the major geographical regions, as well as the nation as a whole. The survey adopted a stratified, multi-stage sampling design. In each governorate, localities were classified into 9 strata according to the estimated population size in 1989. The sampling design also allowed for the survey results to be presented according to major cities (Amman, Irbid and Zarqa), other urban localities, and the rural areas. Localities with fewer than 5,000 people were considered rural.

For this survey, 349 sample units were drawn, containing 10,708 housing units for the individual interview. Since the survey used a separate household questionnaire, the Department of Statistics doubled the household sample size and added a few questions on labor force, while keeping the original individual sample intact. This yielded 21,172 housing units. During fieldwork for the household interview, it was found that 4,359 household units were ineligible either because the dwelling was vacant or destroyed, the household was absent during the team visit, or some other reason. There were 16,296 completed household interviews out of 16,813 eligible households, producing a response rate of 96.9 percent.

The completed household interviews yielded 7,246 women eligible for the individual interview, of which 6,461 were successfully interviewed, producing a response rate of 89.2 percent.

Note: See detailed description of sample design in APPENDIX A of the survey report.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

The 1990 JPFIS utilized two questionnaires, one for the household interview and the other for individual women. Both questionnaires were developed first in English and then translated into Arabic. The household questionnaire was used to list all members of the sample households, including usual residents as well as visitors. For each member of the household, basic demographic and socioeconomic characteristics were recorded and women eligible for the individual interview were identified. To be eligible for individual interview, a woman had to be a usual member of the household (part of the de jure population), ever-married, and between 15 and 49 years of age. The household questionnaire was expanded from the standard DHS-II model questionnaire to facilitate the estimation of adult mortality using the orphanhood and widowhood techniques. In addition, the questionnaire obtained information on polygamy, economic activity of persons 15 years of age and over, family type, type of insurance covering the household members, country of work in the summer of 1990 which coincided with the Gulf crisis, and basic data for the calculation of the crude birth rate and the crude death rate. Additional questions were asked about deceased women if they were ever-married and age 15-49, in order to obtain information for the calculation of materoal mortality indices.

The individual questionnaire is a modified version of the standard DHS-II model "A" questionnaire. Experience gained from previous surveys, in particular the 1983 Jordan Fertility and Family Health Survey, and the questionnaire developed by the Pan Arab Project for Child Development (PAPCHILD), were useful in the discussions on the content of the JPFHS questionnaire. A major change from the DHS-II model questionnaire was the rearrangement of the sections so that the marriage section came before reproduction; this allowed the interview to flow more smoothly. Questions on children's cause of death based on verbal autopsy were added to the section on health, which, due to its size, was split into two parts. The first part focused on antenatal care and breastfeeding; the second part examined measures for prevention of childhood diseases and information on the morbidity and mortality of children loom since January 1985. As questions on sexual relations were considered too sensitive, they were replaced by questions about the husband's presence in the household during the specified time period; this served as a proxy for recent sexual activity.

The JPFHS individual questionnaire consists of nine sections: - Respondent's background and household characteristics - Marriage - Reproduction - Contraception - Breastfeeding and health - Immunization, morbidity, and child mortality - Fertility preferences - Husband's background, residence, and woman's work - Height and weight of children

Response rate

For the individual interview, the number of eligible women found in the selected households and the number of women successfully interviewed are presented. The data indicate a high response rate for the household interview (96.9 percent), and a lower rate for the individual interview (89.2 percent). Women in large cities have a slightly lower response rate (88.6 percent) than those in other areas. Most of the non-response for the individual interview was due to the absence of respondents and the postponement of interviews which were incomplete.

Note: See summarized response rates by place of residence in Table 1.1 of the survey report.

Sampling error estimates

The results from sample surveys are affected by two types of errors, non-sampling error and sampling error. Nonsampling error is due to mistakes made in carrying out field activities, such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, errors in the way the questions are asked, misunderstanding on the part of either the interviewer or the respondent, data entry errors, etc. Although efforts were made during the design and implementation of the JPFHS to minimize this type of error, non-sampling errors are impossible to avoid and difficult to evaluate statistically

Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be measured statistically. The sample of women selected in the JPFHS is only one of many samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and expected size. Each one would have yielded results that differed somewhat from the actual sample selected. The sampling error is a measure of the variability between all possible samples; although it is not known exactly, it can be estimated from the survey results.

Sampling error is usually measured in terms of standard error of a particular statistic (mean, percentage, etc.), which is the square root of the variance. The standard error can be used to calculate confidence intervals within which one can reasonably assured that, apart from nonsampling errors, the true value of the variable for the whole population falls. For example, for any given statistic calculated from a sample survey, the value of that same statistic as measured in 95 percent of all possible samples with the same design (and expected size) will fall within a range of plus or minus two times the standard error of that statistic.

If the sample of women had been selected as a simple random sample, it would have been possible to use straightforward formulas for calculating sampling errors. However, the JPFI-IS sample design depended on stratification, stages and clusters. Consequently, it was necessary to utilize more complex formulas. The computer package CLUSTERS, developed by the International Statistical Institute for the World Fertility Survey, was used to assist in computing the sampling errors with the proper statistical methodology.

Note: See detailed estimate of sampling error calculation in APPENDIX B of the survey report.

Data appraisal

Data Quality Tables - Household age distribution - Age distribution of eligible and interviewed women - Completeness of reporting - Births by calendar year since birth - Reporting of age at death in days - Reporting of age at death in months

Note: See detailed tables in APPENDIX C of the report which is presented in this documentation.

Statbel, the Belgian statistical office, publishes an overview of the provisional mortality figures for each year, for all causes of death. The publication contains provisional mortality figures for all Belgian municipalities, and an analysis of the mortality by age category, gender and by month.

General mortality statistics are compiled on the basis of data from the National Register of Natural Persons (RNPP). They make it possible to consolidate the statistics on causes of death, the source of which is the civil status forms. This statistic breaks down the deaths of people residing in Belgium according to sex, municipality of residence (district, province and region), month of death, civil status and nationality (Belgian or foreign). They also make it possible to calculate the gross mortality rate, i.e. the ratio between the number of deaths during the year and the population in the middle of that year.

The above patient numbers and models are the basis for crude and adjusted mortality rate ratios as presented in Table 2 and Figure 3 and the predictions in Figure 4. The associations in these models are presented as adjusted rate ratios with corresponding 95% CIs in parentheses.aDeaths in South Africa represent the estimated number of deaths after correction for mortality under-ascertainment through record linkage and re-weighting. The proportions of deaths that were documented prior to record linkage were 63%, 53%, 51%, 47%, and 43% for the successive durations on ART reflected in the table.Full multivariable models used to calculate mortality rate ratios comparing Europe and North America to South Africa by duration on antiretroviral therapy.

6.90 (per thousand population) in 2021. Birth Rate (or Crude Birth Rate) refers to the ratio of the number of births to the average population (or mid-period population) during a certain period of time (usually a year), expressed in ‰. Birth rate refers to annual birth rate. The following formula is used: (Number of births)/(Annual average population)*1000‰. Number of births in the formula refers to live births, i.e. when a baby has breathed or showed any vital phenomena regardless of the length of pregnancy. Annual average population is the average of the number of population at the beginning of the year and that at the end of the year. Sometimes it is substituted by the mid-year population.

13,72 (per thousand population) in 2019. Birth Rate (or Crude Birth Rate) refers to the ratio of the number of births to the average population (or mid-period population) during a certain period of time (usually a year), expressed in ‰. Birth rate refers to annual birth rate. The following formula is used: (Number of births)/(Annual average population)*1000‰. Number of births in the formula refers to live births, i.e. when a baby has breathed or showed any vital phenomena regardless of the length of pregnancy. Annual average population is the average of the number of population at the beginning of the year and that at the end of the year. Sometimes it is substituted by the mid-year population.

Abstract

The importance of administrative statistics is much worth as it offers a good opportunity to get data at a cheaper cost compared to censuses and sample surveys. Administrative statistics are also very essential to calculate some important demographic measures for instance health administrative statistics such as crude birth rate, general fertility rate, age specific fertility rate, total fertility rate, gross reproduction rate, net reproduction rate, crude death rates, marriage and divorce rates, etc., under the condition that they are complete and accurate.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

The development of Health Administrative Data Progress Assessment focused on women and children as units of analysis.

Universe

This assessment targeted women and children

Kind of data

Administrative records data [adm]

Mode of data collection

Other [oth]

Cleaning operations

For the calculation of fertility indicators, two sources of administrative statistics( HMIS and CRVS) were used.

The Health Management Information System (HMIS) has collected the aggregated number of births in 2015 and 2016. For the corresponding years, the Civil Registration and Vital Statistics system (CRVS) has collected the number of births by the age of their mothers at the time of birth. To calculate fertility indicators like ASFR, TFR, and GRR, we need the number of births tabulated according to age of their mothers at birth.

Since the number of births registered in HMIS is close to expectation vis-à-vis the expected annual birth, fertility indicators were computed using HMIS data and these data have been imputed following the births distribution by age of the mothers (15-49) from the CRVS assuming that the same distribution of births according to the age of their mothers applies.

Data appraisal

A combination of sources of data namely Health Management Information System (HMIS) and Civil Registration and Vital Statistics web based application (CRVS) is very useful for quality data. The 4th Rwanda Population and Housing Census conducted in 2012 and Rwanda Demographic and Health Survey (RDHS) conducted in 2014/15 were also used to benchmark on expectations and achievements for now.

These indicators are designed to accompany the SHMI publication. The SHMI methodology includes an adjustment for admission method. This is because crude mortality rates for elective admissions tend to be lower than crude mortality rates for non-elective admissions. Contextual indicators on the crude percentage mortality rates for elective and non-elective admissions where a death occurred either in hospital or within 30 days (inclusive) of being discharged from hospital are produced to support the interpretation of the SHMI. Notes: 1. As of the July 2020 publication, COVID-19 activity has been excluded from the SHMI. The SHMI is not designed for this type of pandemic activity and the statistical modelling used to calculate the SHMI may not be as robust if such activity were included. Activity that is being coded as COVID-19, and therefore excluded, is monitored in the contextual indicator 'Percentage of provider spells with COVID-19 coding' which is part of this publication. 2. Please note that there has been a fall in the number of spells for some trusts due to COVID-19 impacting on activity from March 2020 onwards and this appears to be an accurate reflection of hospital activity rather than a case of missing data. Further information is available in the contextual indicator ‘Provider spells compared to the pre-pandemic period’ which is part of this publication. 3. A large proportion of records for Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RAJ) have missing or incorrect information for the main condition the patient was in hospital for (their primary diagnosis) and this will have affected the calculation of the expected number of deaths. Values for this trust should therefore be interpreted with caution. 4. Day cases and regular day attenders are excluded from the SHMI. However, some day cases for University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RRV) have been incorrectly classified as ordinary admissions meaning that they have been included in the SHMI. Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust (trust code RWF) has submitted a number of records with a patient classification of ‘day case’ or ‘regular day attender’ and an intended management value of ‘patient to stay in hospital for at least one night’. This mismatch has resulted in the patient classification being updated to ‘ordinary admission’ by the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data cleaning rules. This may have resulted in the number of ordinary admissions being overstated. The trust has been contacted to clarify what the correct patient classification is for these records. Values for these trusts should therefore be interpreted with caution. 5. Further information on data quality can be found in the SHMI background quality report, which can be downloaded from the 'Resources' section of the publication page.