As of September 2023, 29 percent of Facebook users in the United States were aged 30 to 39 years, while a further 29 percent of users were aged 50 to 64 years, making these demographics the biggest audiences of the online network in the country. Meta’s Instagram was also popular among users aged 30 to 39 years, who accounted for 32 percent of the audience of the photo-based platform, while those aged 18 to 29 years accounted for another third of the network’s U.S. users. Overall, TikTok and Snapchat were the most popular social media platforms amongst younger audiences, while LinkedIn was the least used platform by those aged 18 to 29 in the United States as of 2023.

The social media market in the United States

The number of social media users in the United States has shown continuous growth in the past years, and it is forecast to continue increasing to reach 342 million users in 2029. As of 2023, the social network user penetration in the United States amounted to an impressive 91.56 percent, meaning that more than nine in ten people in the country engaged with online platforms. Furthermore, Facebook was by far the most popular social media platform in the United States, accounting for 45 percent of all social media visits in 2023, followed by Pinterest with 21.2 percent of visits.

The global social media landscape

As of April 2024, 5.07 billion people were social media users, accounting for 62.6 percent of the world’s population. Northern Europe was the region with the highest social media penetration rate with a reach of 80.2 percent, followed by Western Europe with 78.2 percent and Eastern Asia 74.9 percent. In contrast, less than one in ten people in Middle Africa used social networks. Facebook’s popularity is not limited to the United States: this network leads the market on a global scale, and it accumulated more than three billion monthly active users (MAU) as of 2024, which is far more any other social media platform. 272014 YouTube, Instagram, and WhatsApp followed, all with two billion or more MAU.

Abstract

The 1998 Ghana Demographic and Health Survey (GDHS) is the latest in a series of national-level population and health surveys conducted in Ghana and it is part of the worldwide MEASURE DHS+ Project, designed to collect data on fertility, family planning, and maternal and child health.

The primary objective of the 1998 GDHS is to provide current and reliable data on fertility and family planning behaviour, child mortality, children’s nutritional status, and the utilisation of maternal and child health services in Ghana. Additional data on knowledge of HIV/AIDS are also provided. This information is essential for informed policy decisions, planning and monitoring and evaluation of programmes at both the national and local government levels.

The long-term objectives of the survey include strengthening the technical capacity of the Ghana Statistical Service (GSS) to plan, conduct, process, and analyse the results of complex national sample surveys. Moreover, the 1998 GDHS provides comparable data for long-term trend analyses within Ghana, since it is the third in a series of demographic and health surveys implemented by the same organisation, using similar data collection procedures. The GDHS also contributes to the ever-growing international database on demographic and health-related variables.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Household
• Children under five years
• Women age 15-49
• Men age 15-59

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

The major focus of the 1998 GDHS was to provide updated estimates of important population and health indicators including fertility and mortality rates for the country as a whole and for urban and rural areas separately. In addition, the sample was designed to provide estimates of key variables for the ten regions in the country.

The list of Enumeration Areas (EAs) with population and household information from the 1984 Population Census was used as the sampling frame for the survey. The 1998 GDHS is based on a two-stage stratified nationally representative sample of households. At the first stage of sampling, 400 EAs were selected using systematic sampling with probability proportional to size (PPS-Method). The selected EAs comprised 138 in the urban areas and 262 in the rural areas. A complete household listing operation was then carried out in all the selected EAs to provide a sampling frame for the second stage selection of households. At the second stage of sampling, a systematic sample of 15 households per EA was selected in all regions, except in the Northern, Upper West and Upper East Regions. In order to obtain adequate numbers of households to provide reliable estimates of key demographic and health variables in these three regions, the number of households in each selected EA in the Northern, Upper West and Upper East regions was increased to 20. The sample was weighted to adjust for over sampling in the three northern regions (Northern, Upper East and Upper West), in relation to the other regions. Sample weights were used to compensate for the unequal probability of selection between geographically defined strata.

The survey was designed to obtain completed interviews of 4,500 women age 15-49. In addition, all males age 15-59 in every third selected household were interviewed, to obtain a target of 1,500 men. In order to take cognisance of non-response, a total of 6,375 households nation-wide were selected.

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

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

Three types of questionnaires were used in the GDHS: the Household Questionnaire, the Women’s Questionnaire, and the Men’s Questionnaire. These questionnaires were based on model survey instruments developed for the international MEASURE DHS+ programme and were designed to provide information needed by health and family planning programme managers and policy makers. The questionnaires were adapted to the situation in Ghana and a number of questions pertaining to on-going health and family planning programmes were added. These questionnaires were developed in English and translated into five major local languages (Akan, Ga, Ewe, Hausa, and Dagbani).

The Household Questionnaire was used to enumerate all usual members and visitors in a selected household and to collect information on the socio-economic status of the household. The first part of the Household Questionnaire collected information on the relationship to the household head, residence, sex, age, marital status, and education of each usual resident or visitor. This information was used to identify women and men who were eligible for the individual interview. For this purpose, all women age 15-49, and all men age 15-59 in every third household, whether usual residents of a selected household or visitors who slept in a selected household the night before the interview, were deemed eligible and interviewed. The Household Questionnaire also provides basic demographic data for Ghanaian households. The second part of the Household Questionnaire contained questions on the dwelling unit, such as the number of rooms, the flooring material, the source of water and the type of toilet facilities, and on the ownership of a variety of consumer goods.

The Women’s Questionnaire was used to collect information on the following topics: respondent’s background characteristics, reproductive history, contraceptive knowledge and use, antenatal, delivery and postnatal care, infant feeding practices, child immunisation and health, marriage, fertility preferences and attitudes about family planning, husband’s background characteristics, women’s work, knowledge of HIV/AIDS and STDs, as well as anthropometric measurements of children and mothers.

The Men’s Questionnaire collected information on respondent’s background characteristics, reproduction, contraceptive knowledge and use, marriage, fertility preferences and attitudes about family planning, as well as knowledge of HIV/AIDS and STDs.

Response rate

A total of 6,375 households were selected for the GDHS sample. Of these, 6,055 were occupied. Interviews were completed for 6,003 households, which represent 99 percent of the occupied households. A total of 4,970 eligible women from these households and 1,596 eligible men from every third household were identified for the individual interviews. Interviews were successfully completed for 4,843 women or 97 percent and 1,546 men or 97 percent. The principal reason for nonresponse among individual women and men was the failure of interviewers to find them at home despite repeated callbacks.

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

Sampling error estimates

The estimates from a sample survey are affected by two types of errors: (1) nonsampling errors, and (2) sampling errors. Nonsampling errors are the results of shortfalls made in implementing data collection and data processing, such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, misunderstanding of the questions on the part of either the interviewer or the respondent, and data entry errors. Although numerous efforts were made during the implementation of the 1998 GDHS to minimize this type of error, nonsampling errors are impossible to avoid and difficult to evaluate statistically.

Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be evaluated statistically. The sample of respondents selected in the 1998 GDHS is only one of many samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and expected size. Each of these samples would yield results that differ somewhat from the results of the actual sample selected. Sampling errors are a measure of the variability between all possible samples. Although the degree of variability is not known exactly, it can be estimated from the survey results.

A sampling error is usually measured in terms of the standard error for 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 the true value for the population can reasonably be assumed to fall. For example, for any given statistic calculated from a sample survey, the value of that statistic will fall within a range of plus or minus two times the standard error of that statistic in 95 percent of all possible samples of identical size and design.

If the sample of respondents had been selected as a simple random sample, it would have been possible to use straightforward formulas for calculating sampling errors. However, the 1998 GDHS sample is the result of a two-stage stratified design, and, consequently, it was necessary to use more complex formulae. The computer software used to calculate sampling errors for the 1998 GDHS is the ISSA Sampling Error Module. This module uses the Taylor linearization method of variance estimation for survey estimates that are means or proportions. The Jackknife repeated replication method is used for variance estimation of more complex statistics such as fertility and mortality rates.

Data appraisal

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

Note: See detailed tables in APPENDIX C of the survey report.

Based on market research, the source divided U.S. Generation Z consumers (born between January 1, 1997 and December 31, 2007) into five segments based on their behavior and attitude. The largest segment, making up 35 percent of the total, were the so-called Stress Strivers, defined by the source as "high achievers, driven by a fear of not being good enough." Authentic Activists and Secluded Perfectionists followed, with 22 percent and 20 percent, respectively.

Data on enterprise births, deaths, active enterprises and survival rates across boroughs.

Data includes:
1) the most recent annual figures for enterprise births and deaths. Births and deaths are identified by comparing active populations of enterprises for different years
2) time series of the number of births and deaths of entrprises together with a percentage of births and deaths to active enterprises in a given year
3) a time series of the number of active enterprises. Active enterprises are businesses that had either turnover or employment at any time during the reference period.
4) survival rates of enterprises for up to 5 years after birth

Using the most recent data, a chart showing the trend of the percentage of businesses that survive a year is shown below.

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/londondatastore-upload/busi-demog-survival-chart.png" alt="1 year survival">

Data on size of firms (micro-business, SME, large) for business and employees in London by industry can be found on the ONS website.

More Business Demographics data on the ONS website

Description and PurposeThese data include the individual responses for the City of Tempe Annual Community Survey conducted by ETC Institute. These data help determine priorities for the community as part of the City's on-going strategic planning process. Averaged Community Survey results are used as indicators for several city performance measures. The summary data for each performance measure is provided as an open dataset for that measure (separate from this dataset). The performance measures with indicators from the survey include the following (as of 2022):1. Safe and Secure Communities1.04 Fire Services Satisfaction1.06 Crime Reporting1.07 Police Services Satisfaction1.09 Victim of Crime1.10 Worry About Being a Victim1.11 Feeling Safe in City Facilities1.23 Feeling of Safety in Parks2. Strong Community Connections2.02 Customer Service Satisfaction2.04 City Website Satisfaction2.05 Online Services Satisfaction Rate2.15 Feeling Invited to Participate in City Decisions2.21 Satisfaction with Availability of City Information3. Quality of Life3.16 City Recreation, Arts, and Cultural Centers3.17 Community Services Programs3.19 Value of Special Events3.23 Right of Way Landscape Maintenance3.36 Quality of City Services4. Sustainable Growth & DevelopmentNo Performance Measures in this category presently relate directly to the Community Survey5. Financial Stability & VitalityNo Performance Measures in this category presently relate directly to the Community SurveyMethodsThe survey is mailed to a random sample of households in the City of Tempe. Follow up emails and texts are also sent to encourage participation. A link to the survey is provided with each communication. To prevent people who do not live in Tempe or who were not selected as part of the random sample from completing the survey, everyone who completed the survey was required to provide their address. These addresses were then matched to those used for the random representative sample. If the respondent’s address did not match, the response was not used. To better understand how services are being delivered across the city, individual results were mapped to determine overall distribution across the city. Additionally, demographic data were used to monitor the distribution of responses to ensure the responding population of each survey is representative of city population. Processing and LimitationsThe location data in this dataset is generalized to the block level to protect privacy. This means that only the first two digits of an address are used to map the location. When they data are shared with the city only the latitude/longitude of the block level address points are provided. This results in points that overlap. In order to better visualize the data, overlapping points were randomly dispersed to remove overlap. The result of these two adjustments ensure that they are not related to a specific address, but are still close enough to allow insights about service delivery in different areas of the city. This data is the weighted data provided by the ETC Institute, which is used in the final published PDF report.The 2022 Annual Community Survey report is available on data.tempe.gov. The individual survey questions as well as the definition of the response scale (for example, 1 means “very dissatisfied” and 5 means “very satisfied”) are provided in the data dictionary.Additional InformationSource: Community Attitude SurveyContact (author): Wydale HolmesContact E-Mail (author): wydale_holmes@tempe.govContact (maintainer): Wydale HolmesContact E-Mail (maintainer): wydale_holmes@tempe.govData Source Type: Excel tablePreparation Method: Data received from vendor after report is completedPublish Frequency: AnnualPublish Method: ManualData Dictionary

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents the mean household income for each of the five quintiles in New Market, IN, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. The dataset highlights the variation in mean household income across quintiles, offering valuable insights into income distribution and inequality.

Key observations

• Income disparities: The mean income of the lowest quintile (20% of households with the lowest income) is 21,409, while the mean income for the highest quintile (20% of households with the highest income) is 139,212. This indicates that the top earners earn 7 times compared to the lowest earners.
• *Top 5%: * The mean household income for the wealthiest population (top 5%) is 175,728, which is 126.23% higher compared to the highest quintile, and 820.81% higher compared to the lowest quintile.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2017-2021 5-Year Estimates.

Income Levels:

• Lowest Quintile
• Second Quintile
• Third Quintile
• Fourth Quintile
• Highest Quintile
• Top 5 Percent

Variables / Data Columns

• Income Level: This column showcases the income levels (As mentioned above).
• Mean Household Income: Mean household income, in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars for the specific income level.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for New Market median household income. You can refer the same here

How high is the brand awareness of World Market in the United States?When it comes to furniture online shop users, brand awareness of World Market is at 40% in the United States. The survey was conducted using the concept of aided brand recognition, showing respondents both the brand's logo and the written brand name.How popular is World Market in the United States?In total, 8% of U.S. furniture online shop users say they like World Market. However, in actuality, among the 40% of U.S. respondents who know World Market, 20% of people like the brand.What is the usage share of World Market in the United States?All in all, 5% of furniture online shop users in the United States use World Market. That means, of the 40% who know the brand, 12% use them.How loyal are the customers of World Market?Around 4% of furniture online shop users in the United States say they are likely to use World Market again. Set in relation to the 5% usage share of the brand, this means that 80% of their customers show loyalty to the brand.What's the buzz around World Market in the United States?In July 2022, about 3% of U.S. furniture online shop users had heard about World Market in the media, on social media, or in advertising over the past three months. Of the 40% who know the brand, that's 8%, meaning at the time of the survey there's little to no buzz around World Market in the United States.If you want to compare brands, do deep-dives by survey items of your choice, filter by total online population or users of a certain brand, or drill down on your very own hand-tailored target groups, our Consumer Insights Brand KPI survey has you covered.

This layer was developed by the Research & Analytics Division of the Atlanta Regional Commission using data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

The user should note that American Community Survey data represent estimates derived from a surveyed sample of the population, which creates some level of uncertainty, as opposed to an exact measure of the entire population (the full census count is only conducted once every 10 years and does not cover as many detailed characteristics of the population). Therefore, any measure reported by ACS should not be taken as an exact number – this is why a corresponding margin of error (MOE) is also given for ACS measures. The size of the MOE relative to its corresponding estimate value provides an indication of confidence in the accuracy of each estimate. Each MOE is expressed in the same units as its corresponding measure; for example, if the estimate value is expressed as a number, then its MOE will also be a number; if the estimate value is expressed as a percent, then its MOE will also be a percent.

The user should also note that for relatively small geographic areas, such as census tracts shown here, ACS only releases combined 5-year estimates, meaning these estimates represent rolling averages of survey results that were collected over a 5-year span (in this case 2014-2018). Therefore, these data do not represent any one specific point in time or even one specific year. For geographic areas with larger populations, 3-year and 1-year estimates are also available.

For a deep dive into the data model including every specific metric, see the Infrastructure Manifest. The manifest details ARC-defined naming conventions, field names/descriptions and topics, summary levels; source tables; notes and so forth for all metrics.

For further explanation of ACS estimates and margin of error, visit Census ACS website.

Naming conventions:

Prefixes:

None

Count

p

Percent

r

Rate

m

Median

a

Mean (average)

t

Aggregate (total)

ch

Change in absolute terms (value in t2 - value in t1)

pch

Percent change ((value in t2 - value in t1) / value in t1)

chp

Change in percent (percent in t2 - percent in t1)

s

Significance flag for change: 1 = statistically significant with a 90% Confidence Interval, 0 = not statistically significant, blank = cannot be computed

Suffixes:

_e18

Estimate from 2014-18 ACS

_m18

Margin of Error from 2014-18 ACS

_00_v18

Decennial 2000 in 2018 geography boundary

_00_18

Change, 2000-18

_e10_v18

Estimate from 2006-10 ACS in 2018 geography boundary

_m10_v18

Margin of Error from 2006-10 ACS in 2018 geography boundary

_e10_18

Change, 2010-18

This layer was developed by the Research & Analytics Division of the Atlanta Regional Commission using data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

The user should note that American Community Survey data represent estimates derived from a surveyed sample of the population, which creates some level of uncertainty, as opposed to an exact measure of the entire population (the full census count is only conducted once every 10 years and does not cover as many detailed characteristics of the population). Therefore, any measure reported by ACS should not be taken as an exact number – this is why a corresponding margin of error (MOE) is also given for ACS measures. The size of the MOE relative to its corresponding estimate value provides an indication of confidence in the accuracy of each estimate. Each MOE is expressed in the same units as its corresponding measure; for example, if the estimate value is expressed as a number, then its MOE will also be a number; if the estimate value is expressed as a percent, then its MOE will also be a percent.

The user should also note that for relatively small geographic areas, such as census tracts shown here, ACS only releases combined 5-year estimates, meaning these estimates represent rolling averages of survey results that were collected over a 5-year span (in this case 2014-2018). Therefore, these data do not represent any one specific point in time or even one specific year. For geographic areas with larger populations, 3-year and 1-year estimates are also available.

For a deep dive into the data model including every specific metric, see the Infrastructure Manifest. The manifest details ARC-defined naming conventions, field names/descriptions and topics, summary levels; source tables; notes and so forth for all metrics.

For further explanation of ACS estimates and margin of error, visit Census ACS website.

Naming conventions:

Prefixes:

None

Count

p

Percent

r

Rate

m

Median

a

Mean (average)

t

Aggregate (total)

ch

Change in absolute terms (value in t2 - value in t1)

pch

Percent change ((value in t2 - value in t1) / value in t1)

chp

Change in percent (percent in t2 - percent in t1)

s

Significance flag for change: 1 = statistically significant with a 90% Confidence Interval, 0 = not statistically significant, blank = cannot be computed

Suffixes:

_e18

Estimate from 2014-18 ACS

_m18

Margin of Error from 2014-18 ACS

_00_v18

Decennial 2000 in 2018 geography boundary

_00_18

Change, 2000-18

_e10_v18

Estimate from 2006-10 ACS in 2018 geography boundary

_m10_v18

Margin of Error from 2006-10 ACS in 2018 geography boundary

_e10_18

Change, 2010-18

This dataset was developed by the Research & Analytics Group at the Atlanta Regional Commission using data from the U.S. Census Bureau.For a deep dive into the data model including every specific metric, see the Infrastructure Manifest. The manifest details ARC-defined naming conventions, field names/descriptions and topics, summary levels; source tables; notes and so forth for all metrics.Naming conventions:Prefixes: None Countp Percentr Ratem Mediana Mean (average)t Aggregate (total)ch Change in absolute terms (value in t2 - value in t1)pch Percent change ((value in t2 - value in t1) / value in t1)chp Change in percent (percent in t2 - percent in t1)s Significance flag for change: 1 = statistically significant with a 90% CI, 0 = not statistically significant, blank = cannot be computed Suffixes: _e19 Estimate from 2014-19 ACS_m19 Margin of Error from 2014-19 ACS_00_v19 Decennial 2000, re-estimated to 2019 geography_00_19 Change, 2000-19_e10_v19 2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2019 geography_m10_v19 Margin of Error from 2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2019 geography_e10_19 Change, 2010-19The user should note that American Community Survey data represent estimates derived from a surveyed sample of the population, which creates some level of uncertainty, as opposed to an exact measure of the entire population (the full census count is only conducted once every 10 years and does not cover as many detailed characteristics of the population). Therefore, any measure reported by ACS should not be taken as an exact number – this is why a corresponding margin of error (MOE) is also given for ACS measures. The size of the MOE relative to its corresponding estimate value provides an indication of confidence in the accuracy of each estimate. Each MOE is expressed in the same units as its corresponding measure; for example, if the estimate value is expressed as a number, then its MOE will also be a number; if the estimate value is expressed as a percent, then its MOE will also be a percent. The user should also note that for relatively small geographic areas, such as census tracts shown here, ACS only releases combined 5-year estimates, meaning these estimates represent rolling averages of survey results that were collected over a 5-year span (in this case 2015-2019). Therefore, these data do not represent any one specific point in time or even one specific year. For geographic areas with larger populations, 3-year and 1-year estimates are also available. For further explanation of ACS estimates and margin of error, visit Census ACS website.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Atlanta Regional CommissionDate: 2015-2019Data License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC by 4.0)Link to the manifest: https://www.arcgis.com/sharing/rest/content/items/3d489c725bb24f52a987b302147c46ee/data

How high is the brand awareness of Carter's in the United States?When it comes to toys and baby online shop users, brand awareness of Carter's is at 68% in the United States. The survey was conducted using the concept of aided brand recognition, showing respondents both the brand's logo and the written brand name.How popular is Carter's in the United States?In total, 35% of U.S. toys and baby online shop users say they like Carter's. However, in actuality, among the 68% of U.S. respondents who know Carter's, 51% of people like the brand.What is the usage share of Carter's in the United States?All in all, 25% of toys and baby online shop users in the United States use Carter's. That means, of the 68% who know the brand, 37% use them.How loyal are the customers of Carter's?Around 19% of toys and baby online shop users in the United States say they are likely to use Carter's again. Set in relation to the 25% usage share of the brand, this means that 76% of their customers show loyalty to the brand.What's the buzz around Carter's in the United States?In June 2022, about 19% of U.S. toys and baby online shop users had heard about Carter's in the media, on social media, or in advertising over the past three months. Of the 68% who know the brand, that's 28%, meaning at the time of the survey there's some buzz around Carter's in the United States.If you want to compare brands, do deep-dives by survey items of your choice, filter by total online population or users of a certain brand, or drill down on your very own hand-tailored target groups, our Consumer Insights Brand KPI survey has you covered.

A feature layer used to store information about demographics at the census tract level.

The Toothpaste Market is predicted to increase further as people place a greater emphasis on oral health. Consumers are becoming more aware of the value of healthy teeth and gums, which has prompted them to emphasize excellent oral hygiene practices. This, together with increased disposable incomes in many places, is driving up demand for high-quality toothpaste products. The market size surpass USD 15.98 Billion valued in 2023 to reach a valuation of around USD 28.46 Billion by 2031.

Furthermore, factors such as focused marketing initiatives and an expanded product line of specialist toothpaste are helping to drive market expansion. Manufacturers are developing novel solutions that address specific demands including whitening, sensitivity, and gum health. This increased variety is drawing a larger customer base, moving the toothpaste business forward. The rising demand for cost-effective and efficient toothpaste is enabling the market grow at a CAGR of 7.48% from 2024 to 2031.

Toothpaste Market: Definition/ Overview

Toothpaste is a gel or paste that is used with a toothbrush to clean and preserve the health of your teeth. It typically contains abrasive agents, fluoride, taste, and other compounds intended to remove food particles, plaque, and bacteria from the teeth’s surface. The major use of toothpaste is for oral hygiene, which promotes dental health by reducing cavities, gum disease, and bad breath. Specialized formulations address several needs, including whitening, sensitivity reduction, and tartar management, making toothpaste a vital component of daily oral care practices.

The toothpaste is expected to be shaped by developments in dental science and consumer preferences. Emerging trends include the creation of natural and environmentally friendly formulas that do not contain synthetic ingredients or plastic packaging. Customized toothpaste suited to individual needs based on genetic or lifestyle characteristics may become more prevalent. Technology improvements, such as the incorporation of smart sensors in toothbrushes that sync with toothpaste formulations, may provide real-time feedback on dental hygiene practices. Overall, toothpaste will evolve to improve efficacy, sustainability, and user experience in sustaining oral health.

How high is the brand awareness of Nordstrom Rack in the United States?When it comes to fashion online shop users, brand awareness of Nordstrom Rack is at 61% in the United States. The survey was conducted using the concept of aided brand recognition, showing respondents both the brand's logo and the written brand name.How popular is Nordstrom Rack in the United States?In total, 18% of U.S. fashion online shop users say they like Nordstrom Rack. However, in actuality, among the 61% of U.S. respondents who know Nordstrom Rack, 30% of people like the brand.What is the usage share of Nordstrom Rack in the United States?All in all, 10% of fashion online shop users in the United States use Nordstrom Rack. That means, of the 61% who know the brand, 16% use them.How loyal are the customers of Nordstrom Rack?Around 7% of fashion online shop users in the United States say they are likely to use Nordstrom Rack again. Set in relation to the 10% usage share of the brand, this means that 70% of their customers show loyalty to the brand.What's the buzz around Nordstrom Rack in the United States?In June 2022, about 9% of U.S. fashion online shop users had heard about Nordstrom Rack in the media, on social media, or in advertising over the past three months. Of the 61% who know the brand, that's 15%, meaning at the time of the survey there's little buzz around Nordstrom Rack in the United States.If you want to compare brands, do deep-dives by survey items of your choice, filter by total online population or users of a certain brand, or drill down on your very own hand-tailored target groups, our Consumer Insights Brand KPI survey has you covered.

This layer was developed by the Research & Analytics Division of the Atlanta Regional Commission using data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

The user should note that American Community Survey data represent estimates derived from a surveyed sample of the population, which creates some level of uncertainty, as opposed to an exact measure of the entire population (the full census count is only conducted once every 10 years and does not cover as many detailed characteristics of the population). Therefore, any measure reported by ACS should not be taken as an exact number – this is why a corresponding margin of error (MOE) is also given for ACS measures. The size of the MOE relative to its corresponding estimate value provides an indication of confidence in the accuracy of each estimate. Each MOE is expressed in the same units as its corresponding measure; for example, if the estimate value is expressed as a number, then its MOE will also be a number; if the estimate value is expressed as a percent, then its MOE will also be a percent.

The user should also note that for relatively small geographic areas, such as census tracts shown here, ACS only releases combined 5-year estimates, meaning these estimates represent rolling averages of survey results that were collected over a 5-year span (in this case 2014-2018). Therefore, these data do not represent any one specific point in time or even one specific year. For geographic areas with larger populations, 3-year and 1-year estimates are also available.

For a deep dive into the data model including every specific metric, see the Infrastructure Manifest. The manifest details ARC-defined naming conventions, field names/descriptions and topics, summary levels; source tables; notes and so forth for all metrics.

For further explanation of ACS estimates and margin of error, visit Census ACS website.

Naming conventions:

Prefixes:

None

Count

p

Percent

r

Rate

m

Median

a

Mean (average)

t

Aggregate (total)

ch

Change in absolute terms (value in t2 - value in t1)

pch

Percent change ((value in t2 - value in t1) / value in t1)

chp

Change in percent (percent in t2 - percent in t1)

s

Significance flag for change: 1 = statistically significant with a 90% Confidence Interval, 0 = not statistically significant, blank = cannot be computed

Suffixes:

_e18

Estimate from 2014-18 ACS

_m18

Margin of Error from 2014-18 ACS

_00_v18

Decennial 2000 in 2018 geography boundary

_00_18

Change, 2000-18

_e10_v18

Estimate from 2006-10 ACS in 2018 geography boundary

_m10_v18

Margin of Error from 2006-10 ACS in 2018 geography boundary

_e10_18

Change, 2010-18

This layer was developed by the Research & Analytics Group of the Atlanta Regional Commission, using data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 5-year estimates for 2013-2017, to show sex and age by race and by census tract in the Atlanta region.

The user should note that American Community Survey data represent estimates derived from a surveyed sample of the population, which creates some level of uncertainty, as opposed to an exact measure of the entire population (the full census count is only conducted once every 10 years and does not cover as many detailed characteristics of the population). Therefore, any measure reported by ACS should not be taken as an exact number – this is why a corresponding margin of error (MOE) is also given for ACS measures. The size of the MOE relative to its corresponding estimate value provides an indication of confidence in the accuracy of each estimate. Each MOE is expressed in the same units as its corresponding measure; for example, if the estimate value is expressed as a number, then its MOE will also be a number; if the estimate value is expressed as a percent, then its MOE will also be a percent.

The user should also note that for relatively small geographic areas, such as census tracts shown here, ACS only releases combined 5-year estimates, meaning these estimates represent rolling averages of survey results that were collected over a 5-year span (in this case 2013-2017). Therefore, these data do not represent any one specific point in time or even one specific year. For geographic areas with larger populations, 3-year and 1-year estimates are also available.

For further explanation of ACS estimates and margin of error, visit Census ACS website.

Naming conventions:

Prefixes:

None

Count

p

Percent

r

Rate

m

Median

a

Mean (average)

t

Aggregate (total)

ch

Change in absolute terms (value in t2 - value in t1)

pch

Percent change ((value in t2 - value in t1) / value in t1)

chp

Change in percent (percent in t2 - percent in t1)

Suffixes:

None

Change over two periods

_e

Estimate from most recent ACS

_m

Margin of Error from most recent ACS

_00

Decennial 2000

Attributes:

Attributes and definitions available below under "Attributes" section and in Infrastructure Manifest (due to text box constraints, attributes cannot be displayed here).

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Atlanta Regional Commission

Date: 2013-2017

For additional information, please visit the Census ACS website.

Results of ANOVAs testing relationships between demographic factors and trip characteristics for (a) mean duration; (b) mean distance; (c) mean speed; (d) trip frequency; (e) total duration in greenspace; and (f) total distance in greenspace.

Abstract

The survey on financial literacy among the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina was conducted within a larger project that aims at creating the Action Plan for Consumer Protection in Financial Services.

The conclusion about the need for an Action Plan was reached by the representatives of the World Bank, the Federal Ministry of Finance, the Central Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina, supervisory authorities for entity financial institutions and non-governmental organizations for the protection of consumer rights, based on the Diagnostic Review on Consumer Protection and Financial Literacy in Bosnia and Herzegovina conducted by the World Bank in 2009-2010. This diagnostic review was conducted at the request of the Federal Ministry of Finance, as part of a larger World Bank pilot program to assess consumer protection and financial literacy in developing countries and middle-income countries. The diagnostic review in Bosnia and Herzegovina was the eighth within this project.

The financial literacy survey, whose results are presented in this report, aims at establishing the basic situation with respect to financial literacy, serving on the one hand as a preparation for the educational activities plan, and on the other as a basis for measuring the efficiency of activities undertaken.

Geographic coverage

Data collection was based on a random, nation-wide sample of citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina aged 18 or older (N = 1036).

Analysis unit

Household, individual

Universe

Population aged 18 or older

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

SUMMARY

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, as is well known, there is no completely reliable sample frame or information about universe. The main reasons for such a situation are migrations caused by war and lack of recent census data. The last census dates back to 1991, but since then the size and distribution of population has significantly changed. In such a situation, researchers have to combine all available sources of population data to estimate the present size and structure of the population: estimates by official statistical offices and international organizations, voters? lists, list of polling stations, registries of passport and ID holders, data from large random surveys etc.

The sample was three-stage stratified: in the first stage by entity, in the second by county/region and in the third by type of settlement (urban/rural). This means that, in the first stage, the total sample size was divided in two parts proportionally to number of inhabitants by entity, while in the second stage the subsample size for each entity was further divided by regions/counties. In the third stage, the subsample for each region/county was divided in two categories according to settlement type (rural/urban).

Taking into the account the lack of a reliable and complete list of citizens to be used as a sample frame, a multistage sampling method was applied. The list of polling stations was used as a frame for the selection of primary sampling units (PSU). Polling station territories are a good choice for such a procedure since they have been recently updated, for the general elections held in October 2010. The list of polling station territories contains a list of addresses of housing units that are certainly occupied.

In the second stage, households were used as a secondary sampling unit. Households were selected randomly by a random route technique. In total, 104 PSU were selected with an average of 10 respondents per PSU. The respondent from the selected household was selected randomly using the Trohdal-Bryant scheme.

In total, 1036 citizens were interviewed with a satisfactory response rate of around 60% (table 1). A higher refusal rate is recorded among middle-age groups (table 2). The theoretical margin of error for a random sample of this size is +/-3.0%.

Due to refusals, the sample structure deviated from the estimated population structure by gender, age and education level. Deviations were corrected by RIM weighting procedure.

MORE DETAILED INFORMATION

IPSOS designed a representative sample of approximately 1.000 residents age 18 and over, proportional to the adult populations of each region, based on age, sex, region and town (settlement) type.

For this research we designed three-stage stratified representative sample. First we stratify sample at entity level, regional level and then at settlement type level for each region.

Sample universe:

Population of B&H -18+; 1991 Census figures and estimated population dynamics, census figures of refugees and IDPs, 1996. Central Election Commision - 2008; CIPS - 2008;

Sampling frame:

Polling stations territory (approximate size of census units) within strata defined by regions and type of settlements (urban and rural) Polling stations territories are chosen to be used as primary units because it enables the most reliable sample selection, due to the fact that for these units the most complete data are available (dwelling register - addresses)

Type of sample:

Three stage random representative stratified sample

Definition and number of PSU, SSU, TSU, and sampling points

• PSU - Polling station territory Definition: Polling stations territories are defined by street(s) name(s) and dwelling numbers; each polling station territory comprises approximately 300 households, with exception of the settlements with less than 300 HH which are defined as one unite. Number of PSUs in sample universe: 4710
• SSU - Household Definition: One household comprises people living in the same apartment and sharing the expenditure for food
• TSU - Respondent Definition: Member of the HH , 18+ Number of TSUs in sample universe: = 2.966.766
• Sampling points Approximately 10 respondents per one PSU, total 104

Stratification, purpose and method

• First level strata: Federation of B&H Republika Srpska Brc ko District
• Second level strata: 10 cantons 2 regions -
• Third level strata: urban and rural settlements
• Purpose: Optimisation of the sample plan, and reducing the sampling error

• Method: The strata are defined by criteria of optimal geographical and cultural uniformity

• Selection procedure of PSU, SSU, and respondent Stratification, purpose and method

• PSU Type of sampling of the PSU: Polling station territory chosen with probability proportional to size (PPS) Method of selection: Cumulative (Lachirie method)

• SSU Type of sampling of the SSU: Sample random sampling without replacement Method of selection: Random walk - Random choice of the starting point

• TSU - Respondent Type of sampling of respondent: Sample random sampling without replacement Method of selection: TCB (Trohdal-Bryant scheme)

• Sample size N=1036 respondents

• Sampling error Marginal error +/-3.0%

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The survey was modelled after the identical survey conducted in Romania. The questionnaire used in the Financial Literacy Survey in Romania was localized for Bosnia and Herzegovina, including adaptations to match the Bosnian context and methodological improvements in wording of questions.

Cleaning operations

Before data entry, 100% logic and consistency controls are performed first by local supervisors and once later by staff in central office.

Verification of correct data entry is assured by using BLAISE system for data entry (commercial product of Netherlands statistics), where criteria for logical and consistency control are defined in advance.

Response rate

• Nobody at home: 2,8%
• Eligible person is not home: 2,8%
• Refusal : 32,79%
• Given up after a minimum of two visits: 0,82%
• Other (excluded after control): 0,29%
• Finished: 60,5%

Analyze the market segmentation of the Software Defined Satellites (SDS) industry. Gain insights into market share distribution with a detailed breakdown of key segments and their growth.

Abstract

Different countries have different health outcomes that are in part due to the way respective health systems perform. Regardless of the type of health system, individuals will have health and non-health expectations in terms of how the institution responds to their needs. In many countries, however, health systems do not perform effectively and this is in part due to lack of information on health system performance, and on the different service providers.

The aim of the WHO World Health Survey is to provide empirical data to the national health information systems so that there is a better monitoring of health of the people, responsiveness of health systems and measurement of health-related parameters.

The overall aims of the survey is to examine the way populations report their health, understand how people value health states, measure the performance of health systems in relation to responsiveness and gather information on modes and extents of payment for health encounters through a nationally representative population based community survey. In addition, it addresses various areas such as health care expenditures, adult mortality, birth history, various risk factors, assessment of main chronic health conditions and the coverage of health interventions, in specific additional modules.

The objectives of the survey programme are to: 1. develop a means of providing valid, reliable and comparable information, at low cost, to supplement the information provided by routine health information systems. 2. build the evidence base necessary for policy-makers to monitor if health systems are achieving the desired goals, and to assess if additional investment in health is achieving the desired outcomes. 3. provide policy-makers with the evidence they need to adjust their policies, strategies and programmes as necessary.

Geographic coverage

The survey sampling frame must cover 100% of the country's eligible population, meaning that the entire national territory must be included. This does not mean that every province or territory need be represented in the survey sample but, rather, that all must have a chance (known probability) of being included in the survey sample.

There may be exceptional circumstances that preclude 100% national coverage. Certain areas in certain countries may be impossible to include due to reasons such as accessibility or conflict. All such exceptions must be discussed with WHO sampling experts. If any region must be excluded, it must constitute a coherent area, such as a particular province or region. For example if ¾ of region D in country X is not accessible due to war, the entire region D will be excluded from analysis.

Analysis unit

Households and individuals

Universe

The WHS will include all male and female adults (18 years of age and older) who are not out of the country during the survey period. It should be noted that this includes the population who may be institutionalized for health reasons at the time of the survey: all persons who would have fit the definition of household member at the time of their institutionalisation are included in the eligible population.

If the randomly selected individual is institutionalized short-term (e.g. a 3-day stay at a hospital) the interviewer must return to the household when the individual will have come back to interview him/her. If the randomly selected individual is institutionalized long term (e.g. has been in a nursing home the last 8 years), the interviewer must travel to that institution to interview him/her.

The target population includes any adult, male or female age 18 or over living in private households. Populations in group quarters, on military reservations, or in other non-household living arrangements will not be eligible for the study. People who are in an institution due to a health condition (such as a hospital, hospice, nursing home, home for the aged, etc.) at the time of the visit to the household are interviewed either in the institution or upon their return to their household if this is within a period of two weeks from the first visit to the household.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

SAMPLING GUIDELINES FOR WHS

Surveys in the WHS program must employ a probability sampling design. This means that every single individual in the sampling frame has a known and non-zero chance of being selected into the survey sample. While a Single Stage Random Sample is ideal if feasible, it is recognized that most sites will carry out Multi-stage Cluster Sampling.

The WHS sampling frame should cover 100% of the eligible population in the surveyed country. This means that every eligible person in the country has a chance of being included in the survey sample. It also means that particular ethnic groups or geographical areas may not be excluded from the sampling frame.

The sample size of the WHS in each country is 5000 persons (exceptions considered on a by-country basis). An adequate number of persons must be drawn from the sampling frame to account for an estimated amount of non-response (refusal to participate, empty houses etc.). The highest estimate of potential non-response and empty households should be used to ensure that the desired sample size is reached at the end of the survey period. This is very important because if, at the end of data collection, the required sample size of 5000 has not been reached additional persons must be selected randomly into the survey sample from the sampling frame. This is both costly and technically complicated (if this situation is to occur, consult WHO sampling experts for assistance), and best avoided by proper planning before data collection begins.

All steps of sampling, including justification for stratification, cluster sizes, probabilities of selection, weights at each stage of selection, and the computer program used for randomization must be communicated to WHO

STRATIFICATION

Stratification is the process by which the population is divided into subgroups. Sampling will then be conducted separately in each subgroup. Strata or subgroups are chosen because evidence is available that they are related to the outcome (e.g. health, responsiveness, mortality, coverage etc.). The strata chosen will vary by country and reflect local conditions. Some examples of factors that can be stratified on are geography (e.g. North, Central, South), level of urbanization (e.g. urban, rural), socio-economic zones, provinces (especially if health administration is primarily under the jurisdiction of provincial authorities), or presence of health facility in area. Strata to be used must be identified by each country and the reasons for selection explicitly justified.

Stratification is strongly recommended at the first stage of sampling. Once the strata have been chosen and justified, all stages of selection will be conducted separately in each stratum. We recommend stratifying on 3-5 factors. It is optimum to have half as many strata (note the difference between stratifying variables, which may be such variables as gender, socio-economic status, province/region etc. and strata, which are the combination of variable categories, for example Male, High socio-economic status, Xingtao Province would be a stratum).

Strata should be as homogenous as possible within and as heterogeneous as possible between. This means that strata should be formulated in such a way that individuals belonging to a stratum should be as similar to each other with respect to key variables as possible and as different as possible from individuals belonging to a different stratum. This maximises the efficiency of stratification in reducing sampling variance.

MULTI-STAGE CLUSTER SELECTION

A cluster is a naturally occurring unit or grouping within the population (e.g. enumeration areas, cities, universities, provinces, hospitals etc.); it is a unit for which the administrative level has clear, nonoverlapping boundaries. Cluster sampling is useful because it avoids having to compile exhaustive lists of every single person in the population. Clusters should be as heterogeneous as possible within and as homogenous as possible between (note that this is the opposite criterion as that for strata). Clusters should be as small as possible (i.e. large administrative units such as Provinces or States are not good clusters) but not so small as to be homogenous.

In cluster sampling, a number of clusters are randomly selected from a list of clusters. Then, either all members of the chosen cluster or a random selection from among them are included in the sample. Multistage sampling is an extension of cluster sampling where a hierarchy of clusters are chosen going from larger to smaller.

In order to carry out multi-stage sampling, one needs to know only the population sizes of the sampling units. For the smallest sampling unit above the elementary unit however, a complete list of all elementary units (households) is needed; in order to be able to randomly select among all households in the TSU, a list of all those households is required. This information may be available from the most recent population census. If the last census was >3 years ago or the information furnished by it was of poor quality or unreliable, the survey staff will have the task of enumerating all households in the smallest randomly selected sampling unit. It is very important to budget for this step if it is necessary and ensure that all households are properly enumerated in order that a representative sample is obtained.

It is always best to have as many clusters in the PSU as possible. The reason for this is that the fewer the number of respondents in each PSU, the lower will be the clustering effect which