Professional organizations in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) can use demographic data to quantify recruitment and retention (R&R) of underrepresented groups within their memberships. However, variation in the types of demographic data collected can influence the targeting and perceived impacts of R&R efforts - e.g., giving false signals of R&R for some groups. We obtained demographic surveys from 73 U.S.-affiliated STEM organizations, collectively representing 712,000 members and conference-attendees. We found large differences in the demographic categories surveyed (e.g., disability status, sexual orientation) and the available response options. These discrepancies indicate a lack of consensus regarding the demographic groups that should be recognized and, for groups that are omitted from surveys, an inability of organizations to prioritize and evaluate R&R initiatives. Aligning inclusive demographic surveys across organizations will provide baseline data that can be used to target and evaluate R&R initiatives to better serve underrepresented groups throughout STEM. Methods We surveyed 164 STEM organizations (73 responses, rate = 44.5%) between December 2020 and July 2021 with the goal of understanding what demographic data each organization collects from its constituents (i.e., members and conference-attendees) and how the data are used. Organizations were sourced from a list of professional societies affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS, (n = 156) or from social media (n = 8). The survey was sent to the elected leadership and management firms for each organization, and follow-up reminders were sent after one month. The responding organizations represented a wide range of fields: 31 life science organizations (157,000 constituents), 5 mathematics organizations (93,000 constituents), 16 physical science organizations (207,000 constituents), 7 technology organizations (124,000 constituents), and 14 multi-disciplinary organizations spanning multiple branches of STEM (131,000 constituents). A list of the responding organizations is available in the Supplementary Materials. Based on the AAAS-affiliated recruitment of the organizations and the similar distribution of constituencies across STEM fields, we conclude that the responding organizations are a representative cross-section of the most prominent STEM organizations in the U.S. Each organization was asked about the demographic information they collect from their constituents, the response rates to their surveys, and how the data were used. Survey description The following questions are written as presented to the participating organizations. Question 1: What is the name of your STEM organization? Question 2: Does your organization collect demographic data from your membership and/or meeting attendees? Question 3: When was your organization’s most recent demographic survey (approximate year)? Question 4: We would like to know the categories of demographic information collected by your organization. You may answer this question by either uploading a blank copy of your organization’s survey (linked provided in online version of this survey) OR by completing a short series of questions. Question 5: On the most recent demographic survey or questionnaire, what categories of information were collected? (Please select all that apply)

Disability status Gender identity (e.g., male, female, non-binary) Marital/Family status Racial and ethnic group Religion Sex Sexual orientation Veteran status Other (please provide)

Question 6: For each of the categories selected in Question 5, what options were provided for survey participants to select? Question 7: Did the most recent demographic survey provide a statement about data privacy and confidentiality? If yes, please provide the statement. Question 8: Did the most recent demographic survey provide a statement about intended data use? If yes, please provide the statement. Question 9: Who maintains the demographic data collected by your organization? (e.g., contracted third party, organization executives) Question 10: How has your organization used members’ demographic data in the last five years? Examples: monitoring temporal changes in demographic diversity, publishing diversity data products, planning conferences, contributing to third-party researchers. Question 11: What is the size of your organization (number of members or number of attendees at recent meetings)? Question 12: What was the response rate (%) for your organization’s most recent demographic survey? *Organizations were also able to upload a copy of their demographics survey instead of responding to Questions 5-8. If so, the uploaded survey was used (by the study authors) to evaluate Questions 5-8.

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.

The questions list for questionnaire – Demographics and basic work characteristics of survey respondents

Abstract

The 2002 Vietnam Demographic and Health Survey (VNDHS 2002) is a nationally representative sample survey of 5,665 ever-married women age 15-49 selected from 205 sample points (clusters) throughout Vietnam. It provides information on levels of fertility, family planning knowledge and use, infant and child mortality, and indicators of maternal and child health. The survey included a Community/ Health Facility Questionnaire that was implemented in each of the sample clusters.

The survey was designed to measure change in reproductive health indicators over the five years since the VNDHS 1997, especially in the 18 provinces that were targeted in the Population and Family Health Project of the Committee for Population, Family and Children. Consequently, all provinces were separated into “project” and “nonproject” groups to permit separate estimates for each. Data collection for the survey took place from 1 October to 21 December 2002.

The Vietnam Demographic and Health Survey 2002 (VNDHS 2002) was the third DHS in Vietnam, with prior surveys implemented in 1988 and 1997. The VNDHS 2002 was carried out in the framework of the activities of the Population and Family Health Project of the Committee for Population, Family and Children (previously the National Committee for Population and Family Planning).

The main objectives of the VNDHS 2002 were to collect up-to-date information on family planning, childhood mortality, and health issues such as breastfeeding practices, pregnancy care, vaccination of children, treatment of common childhood illnesses, and HIV/AIDS, as well as utilization of health and family planning services. The primary objectives of the survey were to estimate changes in family planning use in comparison with the results of the VNDHS 1997, especially on issues in the scope of the project of the Committee for Population, Family and Children.

VNDHS 2002 data confirm the pattern of rapidly declining fertility that was observed in the VNDHS 1997. It also shows a sharp decline in child mortality, as well as a modest increase in contraceptive use. Differences between project and non-project provinces are generally small.

Geographic coverage

The 2002 Vietnam Demographic and Health Survey (VNDHS 2002) is a nationally representative sample survey. The VNDHS 1997 was designed to provide separate estimates for the whole country, urban and rural areas, for 18 project provinces and the remaining nonproject provinces as well. Project provinces refer to 18 focus provinces targeted for the strengthening of their primary health care systems by the Government's Population and Family Health Project to be implemented over a period of seven years, from 1996 to 2002 (At the outset of this project there were 15 focus provinces, which became 18 by the creation of 3 new provinces from the initial set of 15). These provinces were selected according to criteria based on relatively low health and family planning status, no substantial family planning donor presence, and regional spread. These criteria resulted in the selection of the country's poorer provinces. Nine of these provinces have significant proportions of ethnic minorities among their population.

Analysis unit

• Household
• Women age 15-49

Universe

The population covered by the 2002 VNDHS is defined as the universe of all women age 15-49 in Vietnam.

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

The sample for the VNDHS 2002 was based on that used in the VNDHS 1997, which in turn was a subsample of the 1996 Multi-Round Demographic Survey (MRS), a semi-annual survey of about 243,000 households undertaken regularly by GSO. The MRS sample consisted of 1,590 sample areas known as enumeration areas (EAs) spread throughout the 53 provinces/cities of Vietnam, with 30 EAs in each province. On average, an EA comprises about 150 households. For the VNDHS 1997, a subsample of 205 EAs was selected, with 26 households in each urban EA and 39 households for each rural EA. A total of 7,150 households was selected for the survey. The VNDHS 1997 was designed to provide separate estimates for the whole country, urban and rural areas, for 18 project provinces and the remaining nonproject provinces as well. Because the main objective of the VNDHS 2002 was to measure change in reproductive health indicators over the five years since the VNDHS 1997, the sample design for the VNDHS 2002 was as similar as possible to that of the VNDHS 1997.

Although it would have been ideal to have returned to the same households or at least the same sample points as were selected for the VNDHS 1997, several factors made this undesirable. Revisiting the same households would have held the sample artificially rigid over time and would not allow for newly formed households. This would have conflicted with the other major survey objective, which was to provide up-to-date, representative data for the whole of Vietnam. Revisiting the same sample points that were covered in 1997 was complicated by the fact that the country had conducted a population census in 1999, which allowed for a more representative sample frame.

In order to balance the two main objectives of measuring change and providing representative data, it was decided to select enumeration areas from the 1999 Population Census, but to cover the same communes that were sampled in the VNDHS 1997 and attempt to obtain a sample point as close as possible to that selected in 1997. Consequently, the VNDHS 2002 sample also consisted of 205 sample points and reflects the oversampling in the 20 provinces that fall in the World Bank-supported Population and Family Health Project. The sample was designed to produce about 7,000 completed household interviews and 5,600 completed interviews with ever-married women age 15-49.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

As in the VNDHS 1997, three types of questionnaires were used in the 2002 survey: the Household Questionnaire, the Individual Woman's Questionnaire, and the Community/Health Facility Questionnaire. The first two questionnaires were based on the DHS Model A Questionnaire, with additions and modifications made during an ORC Macro staff visit in July 2002. The questionnaires were pretested in two clusters in Hanoi (one in a rural area and another in an urban area). After the pretest and consultation with ORC Macro, the drafts were revised for use in the main survey.

a) The Household Questionnaire was used to enumerate all usual members and visitors in selected households and to collect information on age, sex, education, marital status, and relationship to the head of household. The main purpose of the Household Questionnaire was to identify persons who were eligible for individual interview (i.e. ever-married women age 15-49). In addition, the Household Questionnaire collected information on characteristics of the household such as water source, type of toilet facilities, material used for the floor and roof, and ownership of various durable goods.

b) The Individual Questionnaire was used to collect information on ever-married women aged 15-49 in surveyed households. These women were interviewed on the following topics:
- Respondent's background characteristics (education, residential history, etc.); - Reproductive history; - Contraceptive knowledge and use;
- Antenatal and delivery care; - Infant feeding practices; - Child immunization; - Fertility preferences and attitudes about family planning; - Husband's background characteristics; - Women's work information; and - Knowledge of AIDS.

c) The Community/Health Facility Questionnaire was used to collect information on all communes in which the interviewed women lived and on services offered at the nearest health stations. The Community/Health Facility Questionnaire consisted of four sections. The first two sections collected information from community informants on some characteristics such as the major economic activities of residents, distance from people's residence to civic services and the location of the nearest sources of health care. The last two sections involved visiting the nearest commune health centers and intercommune health centers, if these centers were located within 30 kilometers from the surveyed cluster. For each visited health center, information was collected on the type of health services offered and the number of days services were offered per week; the number of assigned staff and their training; medical equipment and medicines available at the time of the visit.

Cleaning operations

The first stage of data editing was implemented by the field editors soon after each interview. Field editors and team leaders checked the completeness and consistency of all items in the questionnaires. The completed questionnaires were sent to the GSO headquarters in Hanoi by post for data processing. The editing staff of the GSO first checked the questionnaires for completeness. The data were then entered into microcomputers and edited using a software program specially developed for the DHS program, the Census and Survey Processing System, or CSPro. Data were verified on a 100 percent basis, i.e., the data were entered separately twice and the two results were compared and corrected. The data processing and editing staff of the GSO were trained and supervised for two weeks by a data processing specialist from ORC Macro. Office editing and processing activities were initiated immediately after the beginning of the fieldwork and were completed in late December 2002.

Response rate

The results of the household and individual

Abstract

The Turkey Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) 2008 has been conducted by the Haccettepe University Institute of Population Studies in collaboration with the Ministry of health General Directorate of Mother and Child Health and Family Planning and Undersecretary of State Planning Organization. The Turkey Demographic and Health Survey 2008 has been financed the scientific and Technological research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) under the support program for Research Projects of Public Institutions.

The primary objective of the Turkey DHS 2008 is to provide data on fertility, contraceptive methods, maternal and child health. Detailed information on these issues is obtained through questionnaires, filled by face-to face interviews with ever-married women in reproductive ages (15-49).

Another important objective of the survey, with aims to contribute to the knowledge on population and health as well, is to maintain the flow of information for the related organizations in Turkey on the Turkish demographic structure and change in the absence of reliable vital registration system and ascertain the continuity of data on demographic and health necessary for sustainable development in the absence of a reliable vital registration system. In terms of survey methodology and content, the Turkey DHS 2008 is comparable with the previous demographic surveys in Turkey (MEASURE DHS+).

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Household
• Women age 15-49
• Children under age of five

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

Two main types of questionnaires were used to collect the TDHS-2008 data: a) The Household Questionnaire; b) The Individual Questionnaire for Ever-Married Women of Reproductive Ages.

The contents of these questionnaires were based on the DHS Model "A" Questionnaire, which was designed for the DHS program for use in countries with high contraceptive prevalence. Additions, deletions and modifications were made to the DHS model questionnaire in order to collect information particularly relevant to Turkey. Attention also was paid to ensuring the comparability of the DHS-2008 findings with previous demographic surveys carried out by the Hacettepe Institute of Population Studies. In the process of designing the TDHS-2003 questionnaires, national and international population and health agencies were consulted for their comments.

a) The Household Questionnaire was used to enumerate all usual members of and visitors to the selected households and to collect information relating to the socioeconomic position of the households. In the first part of the Household Questionnaire, basic information was collected on the age, sex, educational attainment, recent migration and residential mobility, employment, marital status, and relationship to the head of household of each person listed as a household member or visitor. The objective of the first part of the Household Questionnaire was to obtain the information needed to identify women who were eligible for the individual interview as well as to provide basic demographic data for Turkish households. The second part of the Household Questionnaire included questions on never married women age 15-49, with the objective of collecting information on basic background characteristics of women in this age group. The third section was used to collect information on the welfare of the elderly people. The final section of the Household Questionnaire was used to collect information on housing characteristics, such as the number of rooms, the flooring material, the source of water, and the type of toilet facilities, and on the household's ownership of a variety of consumer goods. This section also incorporated a module that was only administered in Istanbul metropolitan households, on house ownership, use of municipal facilities and the like, as well as a module that was used to collect information, from one-half of households, on salt iodization. In households where salt was present, test kits were used to test whether the salt used in the household was fortified with potassium iodine or potassium iodate, i.e. whether salt was iodized.

b) The Individual Questionnaire for ever-married women obtained information on the following subjects: - Background characteristics - Reproduction - Marriage - Knowledge and use of family planning - Maternal care and breastfeeding - Immunization and health - Fertility preferences - Husband's background
- Women's work and status - Sexually transmitted diseases and AIDS - Maternal and child anthropometry.

Cleaning operations

The questionnaires were returned to the Hacettepe Institute of Population Studies by the fieldwork teams for data processing as soon as interviews were completed in a province. The office editing staff checked that the questionnaires for all the selected households and eligible respondents were returned from the field.

Includes questions written in Spanish pertaining to: race & ethnicitygenderagetribal affiliationdisabilityincomelanguagelocation

The STAMINA study examined the nutritional risks of low-income peri-urban mothers, infants and young children (IYC), and households in Peru during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study was designed to capture information through three, repeated cross-sectional surveys at approximately 6 month intervals over an 18 month period, starting in December 2020. The surveys were carried out by telephone in November-December 2020, July-August 2021 and in February-April 2022. The third survey took place over a longer period to allow for a household visit after the telephone interview.The study areas were Manchay (Lima) and Huánuco district in the Andean highlands (~ 1900m above sea level).In each study area, we purposively selected the principal health centre and one subsidiary health centre. Peri-urban communities under the jurisdiction of these health centres were then selected to participate. Systematic random sampling was employed with quotas for IYC age (6-11, 12-17 and 18-23 months) to recruit a target sample size of 250 mother-infant pairs for each survey.Data collected included: household socio-demographic characteristics; infant and young child feeding practices (IYCF), child and maternal qualitative 24-hour dietary recalls/7 day food frequency questionnaires, household food insecurity experience measured using the validated Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) survey module (Cafiero, Viviani, & Nord, 2018), and maternal mental health.In addition, questions that assessed the impact of COVID-19 on households including changes in employment status, adaptations to finance, sources of financial support, household food insecurity experience as well as access to, and uptake of, well-child clinics and vaccination health services were included.This folder includes the dataset and dictionary of variables for survey 3 (English only).The survey questionnaire for survey 3 is available at 10.17028/rd.lboro.21740921.

Abstract

The main objective of a demographic household survey (DHS) is to provide estimates of a number of basic demographic and health variables. This is done through interviews with a scientifically selected probability sample that is chosen from a well-defined population.

The 2007 Nauru Demographic and Health Survey (2007 NDHS) was one of four pilot demographic and health surveys conducted in the Pacific under an Asian Development Bank ADB/ Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) Regional DHS Pilot Project. The primary objective of this survey was to provide up-to-date information for policy-makers, planners, researchers and programme managers, for use in planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating population and health programmes within the country. The survey was intended to provide key estimates of Nauru's demographics and health situation. The findings of the 2007 NDHS are very important in measuring the achievements of family planning and other health programmes. To ensure better understanding and use of these data, the results of this survey should be widely disseminated at different planning levels. Different dissemination techniques will be used to reach different segments of society.

The primary purpose of the 2007 NDHS was to furnish policy-makers and planners with detailed information on fertility, family planning, infant and child mortality, maternal and child health, nutrition, and knowledge of HIV and AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections.

NOTE: The only dissemination used was wide distribution of the report. A planned data use workshop was not undertaken. Hence there is some misconceptions and lack of awareness on the results obtained from the survey. The report is provided on the NBOS website free for download.

Geographic coverage

National Coverage - Districts

Analysis unit

• Households
• Children (0-14yrs)
• Individual women of reproductive age (15-49 yrs)
• Individual men of reproductive age (15yrs+)
• Facilities providing reproductive and child health services

Universe

The survey covered all household members (usual residents), - All children (aged 0-14 years) resident in the household - All women of reproductive age (15-49 years) resident in all household - All males (15yrs and above) in every second household (approx. 50%) resident in selected household

Results: The 2007 Nauru Demographic Health Survey (2007 NDHS) is a nationally representative survey of 655 eligible women (aged 15-49) and 392 eligible men (aged 15 and above).

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

IDG NOTES: Locate sampling documentation with SPC (Graeme Brown) and internal files. Add in this sections. Or second option dilute appendix A Sampling and extract key issues.

ESTIMATES OF SAMPLING ERRORS - Refer to Appendix A of final NDHS2007 report or; - External Resources - 2007 DHS- Appendix A and B Sampling (to be created separatedly by IDG progress ongoing)

Sampling deviation

IDG NOTES: Locate sampling documentation with Macro and internal files. Add in this section. Or second option dilute appendix B Sampling and extract key issues.

ESTIMATES OF SAMPLING ERRORS - Refer to Appendix B of final NDHS2007 report or;

• External Resources
  • 2007 DHS- Appendix A and B Sampling (to be created separatedly by IDG progress ongoing)

Extract:

In the 2007 NDHS Report of the survey results, sampling errors for selected variables have been presented in a tabular format. The sampling error tables should include:

.. Variable name

R: Value of the estimate; SE: Sampling error of the estimate; N: Unweighted number of cases on which the estimate is based; WN: Weighted number of cases; DEFT: Design effect value that compensates for the loss of precision that results from using cluster rather than simple random sampling; SE/R: Relative standard error (i.e. ratio of the sampling error to the value estimate); R-2SE: Lower limit of the 95% confidence interval; R+2SE: Upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (never >1.000 for a proportion).

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

DHS questionnaire for women cover the following sections:

• Background characteristics (age, education, religion, etc)
• Reproductive history
• Knowledge and use of contraception methods
• Antenatal care, delivery care and postnatal care
• Breastfeeding and infant feeding
• Immunization, child health and nutrition
• Marriage and recent sexual activity
• Fertility preferences
• Knowledge about HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections
• Husbands background and women's work

The men's questionnaire covers the same except for sections 4, 5, 6 which are not applicable to men.

It was also recognized that some countries have a need for special information that is not contained in the core questionnaire. Separate questionnaire modules were developed on a series of topics. These topics are optional and include:

• maternal mortality
• pill-taking behaviour
• sterilization experience
• children's education
• women's status
• domestic violence
• health expenditures
• consanguinity

The Papua New Guinea (PNG) questionnaire was proposed for Nauru to adapt as in comparison to the existing DHS model, this is not as lengthy and time-consuming. The PNG questionnaire also dealt with high incidence of alcohol and tobacco in Nauru. Questions on HIV/AIDS and STI knowledge were included in the men's questionnaire where it was not included in the PNG questionnaire.

Response rate

IDG NOTES: Locate response rate documentation with SPC (Graeme Brown) and internal files. Add in this sections.

Abstract

The 1996 Uzbekistan Demographic and Health Survey (UDHS) is a nationally representative survey of 4,415 women age 15-49. Fieldwork was conducted from June to October 1996. The UDHS was sponsored by the Ministry of Health (MOH), and was funded by the United States Agency for International Development. The Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology implemented the survey with technical assistance from the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) program.

The 1996 UDHS was the first national-level population and health survey in Uzbekistan. It was implemented by the Research Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the Ministry of Health of Uzbekistan. The 1996 UDHS was funded by the United States Agency for International development (USAID) and technical assistance was provided by Macro International Inc. (Calverton, Maryland USA) through its contract with USAID.

OBJECTIVES AND ORGANIZATION OF THE SURVEY

The purpose of the 1996 Uzbekistan Demographic and Health Survey (UDHS) was to provide an information base to the Ministry of Health for the planning of policies and programs regarding the health of women and their children. The UDHS collected data on women's reproductive histories, knowledge and use of contraception, breastfeeding practices, and the nutrition, vaccination coverage, and episodes of illness among children under the age of three. The survey also included, for all women of reproductive age and for children under the age of three, the measurement of the hemoglobin level in the blood to assess the prevalence of anemia and measurements of height and weight to assess nutritional status.

A secondary objective of the survey was to enhance the capabilities of institutions in Uzbekistan to collect, process and analyze population and health data so as to facilitate the implementation of future surveys of this type.

MAIN RESULTS

• Fertility Rates. Survey results indicate a total fertility rate (TFR) for all of Uzbekistan of 3.3 children per woman. Fertility levels differ for different population groups. The TFR for women living in urbml areas (2.7 children per woman) is substantially lower than for women living in rural areas (3.7). The TFR for Uzbeki women (3.5 children per woman) is higher than for women of other ethnicities (2.5). Among the regions of Uzbekistan, the TFR is lowest in Tashkent City (2.3 children per woman).
• Family Planning. Knowledge. Knowledge of contraceptive methods is high among women in Uzbekistan. Knowledge of at least one method is 89 percent. High levels of knowledge are the norm for women of all ages, all regions of the country, all educational levels, and all ethnicities. However, knowledge of sterilization was low; only 27 percent of women reported knowing of this method.
• Fertility Preferences. A majority of women in Uzbekistan (51 percent) indicated that they desire no more children. Among women age 30 and above, the proportion that want no more children increases to 75 percent. Thus, many women come to the preference to stop childbearing at relatively young ages when they have 20 or more potential years of childbearing ahead of them. For some of these women, the most appropriate method of contraception may be a long-acting method such as female sterilization, However, there is a deficiency of both knowledge and use of this method in Uzbekistan. In the interest of providing couples with a broad choice of safe and effective methods, information about this method and access to it should be made available so that informed choices about its suitability can be made by individual women and couples.
• Induced Aboration : Abortion Rates. From the UDHS data, the total abortion rate (TAR)--the number of abortions a woman will have in her lifetime based on the currently prevailing abortion rates--was calculated. For Uzbekistan, the TAR for the period from mid-1993 to mid-1996 is 0.7 abortions per woman. As expected, the TAR for Uzbekistan is substantially lower than recent estimates of the TAR for other areas of the former Soviet Union such as Kazakstan (1.8), Romania (3.4 abortions per woman), and Yekaterinburg and Perm in Russia (2.3 and 2.8, respectively).
• Infant mortality : In the UDHS, infant mortality data were collected based on the international definition of a live birth which, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy, is a birth that breathes or shows any sign of life (United Nations, 1992).
• Mortality Rates. For the five-year period before the survey (i.e., approximately mid- 1992 to mid- 1996), infant mortality in Uzbekistan is estimated at 49 infant deaths per 1,000 births. The estimates of neonatal and postneonatal mortality are 23 and 26 per 1,000.
• Maternal and child health : Uzbekistan has a well-developed health system with an extensive infrastructure of facilities that provide maternal care services. This system includes special delivery hospitals, the obstetrics and gynecology departments of general hospitals, women's consulting centers, and doctor's assistant/midwife posts (FAPs). There is an extensive network of FAPs throughout rural areas.
• Nutrition : Breastfeeding. Breastfeeding is almost universal in Uzbekistan; 96 percent of children born in the three years preceding the survey are breastfed. Overall, 19 percent of children are breastfed within an hour of delivery and 40 percent within 24 hours of delivery. The median duration of breastfeeding is lengthy (17 months). However, durations of exclusive breastfeeding, as recommended by WHO, are short (0.4 months).
• Prevalence of anemia : Testing of women and children for anemia was one of the major efforts of the 1996 UDHS. Anemia has been considered a major public health problem in Uzbekistan for decades. Nevertheless, this was the first anemia study in Uzbekistan done on a national basis. The study involved hemoglobin (Hb) testing for anemia using the Hemocue system. Women. Sixty percent of the women in Uzbekistan suffer from some degree of anemia. The great majority of these women have either mild (45 percent) or moderate anemia (14 percent). One percent have severe anemia.

Geographic coverage

National Seven raions were excluded from the survey because they were considered too remote and sparsely inhabited.

Analysis unit

• Household
• Women age 15-49

Universe

The population covered by the 1996 UDHS is defined as the universe of all women age 15-49 in Uzbekistan

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

The UDHS employed a probability sample of women age 15 to 49, representative of 98.7 percent of the country. Seven raions were excluded from the survey because they were considered too remote and sparsely inhabited. These raions are: Kungradskiyi, Muyinakskiyi, and Takhtakupyrskiyi in Karakalpakstan; Uchkudukskiyi, Tamdynskiyi, and Kanimekhskiyi in Navoiiskaya; and Romitanskiyi in Bukharskaya. The remainder of the country was divided into five survey regions. Tashkent City constituted a survey region by itself, while the remaining four survey regions consisted of groups of contiguous oblasts. The five survey regions were defined as follows: Region 1: Karakalpakstan and Khoresmskaya. Region 2: Navoiyiskaya, Bukharskaya, Kashkadarinskaya, and Surkhandarinskaya. Region 3: Samarkandskaya, Dzhizakskaya, Syrdarinskaya, and Tashkentskaya. Region 4: Namanganskaya, Ferganskaya, and Andizhanskaya. Region 5: Tashkent City.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE UDHS SAMPLE

The sample for the UDHS was selected in three stages. In the rural areas, the primary sampling units (PSUs) corresponded to the raions which were selected with probabilities proportional to size, the size being the 1994 population. At the second stage, one village was selected in each selected raion. A complete listing of the households residing in each selected village was carried out. The lists of households obtained were used as the frame for third-stage sampling, which is the selection of the households to be visited by the UDHS interviewing teams during the main survey fieldwork. In each selected household, women between the ages of 15 and 49 were identified and interviewed.

In the urban areas, the PSUs were the cities and towns themselves. In the second stage, one health block was selected from each town except in self-representing cities (large cities that were selected with certainty), where more than one health block was selected. The selected health blocks were segmented prior to the household listing operation which provided the household lists for the third-stage selection of households.

SAMPLE ALLOCATION

The regions, stratified by urban and rural areas, were the sampling strata. There were thus nine strata with Tashkent City constituting an entire stratum. A proportional allocation of the target number of 4,000 women to the 9 strata would yield the sample distribution.

The proportional allocation would result in a completely self-weighting sample but would not allow for reliable estimates for at least two of the five survey regions, namely Region 1 and Tashkent City. Results of other demographic and health surveys show that a minimum sample of 1,000 women is required in order to obtain estimates of fertility and childhood mortality rates at an acceptable level of sampling errors. Given that the total sample size for the UDHS could not he increased so as to achieve the required level of sampling errors, it was decided that the sample would be divided equally among the five regions, and within each region, it would be distributed proportionally to the urban and the rural areas. With this type of allocation, demographic rates (fertility and mortality) could not be produced for regions separately.

The number of sample points (or clusters) to be selected for each stratum was calculated by dividing the

The City of Norfolk is committed to using data to inform decisions and allocate resources. An important source of data is input from residents about their priorities and satisfaction with the services we provide. Norfolk last conducted a citywide survey of residents in 2022.

To provide up-to-date information regarding resident priorities and satisfaction, Norfolk contracted with ETC Institute to conduct a survey of residents. This survey was conducted in May and June 2024; surveys were sent via the U.S. Postal Service, and respondents were given the choice of responding by mail or online. This survey represents a random and statistically valid sample of residents from across the city, including each Ward. ETC Institute monitored responses and followed up to ensure all sections of the city were represented. Additionally, an opportunity was provided for residents not included in the random sample to take the survey and express their views. This dataset includes all random sample survey data including demographic information; it excludes free-form comments to protect privacy. It is grouped by Question Category, Question, Response, Demographic Question, and Demographic Question Response. This dataset will be updated every two years.

Abstract

The 2015-16 Armenia Demographic and Health Survey (2015-16 ADHS) is the fourth in a series of nationally representative sample surveys designed to provide information on population and health issues. It is conducted in Armenia under the worldwide Demographic and Health Surveys program. Specifically, the objective of the 2015-16 ADHS is to provide current and reliable information on fertility and abortion levels, marriage, sexual activity, fertility preferences, awareness and use of family planning methods, breastfeeding practices, nutritional status of young children, childhood mortality, maternal and child health, domestic violence against women, child discipline, awareness and behavior regarding AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and other health-related issues such as smoking, tuberculosis, and anemia. The survey obtained detailed information on these issues from women of reproductive age and, for certain topics, from men as well.

The 2015-16 ADHS results are intended to provide information needed to evaluate existing social programs and to design new strategies to improve the health of and health services for the people of Armenia. Data are presented by region (marz) wherever sample size permits. The information collected in the 2015-16 ADHS will provide updated estimates of basic demographic and health indicators covered in the 2000, 2005, and 2010 surveys.

The long-term objective of the survey includes strengthening the technical capacity of major government institutions, including the NSS. The 2015-16 ADHS also provides comparable data for longterm trend analysis because the 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015-16 surveys were implemented by the same organization and used similar data collection procedures. It also adds to the international database of demographic and health–related information for research purposes.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

• Household
• Individual
• Children age 0-5
• Woman age 15-49
• Man age 15-49

Universe

The survey covered all de jure household members (usual residents), children age 0-4 years, women age 15-49 years and men age 15-49 years resident in the household.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The sample was designed to produce representative estimates of key indicators at the national level, for Yerevan, and for total urban and total rural areas separately. Many indicators can also be estimated at the regional (marz) level.

The sampling frame used for the 2015-16 ADHS is the Armenia Population and Housing Census, which was conducted in Armenia in 2011 (APHC 2011). The sampling frame is a complete list of enumeration areas (EAs) covering the whole country, a total number of 11,571 EAs, provided by the National Statistical Service (NSS) of Armenia, the implementing agency for the 2015-16 ADHS. This EA frame was created from the census data base by summarizing the households down to EA level. A representative probability sample of 8,749 households was selected for the 2015-16 ADHS sample. The sample was selected in two stages. In the first stage, 313 clusters (192 in urban areas and 121 in rural areas) were selected from a list of EAs in the sampling frame. In the second stage, a complete listing of households was carried out in each selected cluster. Households were then systematically selected for participation in the survey. Appendix A provides additional information on the sample design of the 2015-16 Armenia DHS. Because of the approximately equal sample size in each marz, the sample is not self-weighting at the national level, and weighting factors have been calculated, added to the data file, and applied so that results are representative at the national level.

For further details on sample design, see Appendix A of the final report.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

Five questionnaires were used for the 2015-16 ADHS: the Household Questionnaire, the Woman’s Questionnaire, the Man’s Questionnaire, the Biomarker Questionnaire, and the Fieldworker Questionnaire. These questionnaires, based on The DHS Program’s standard Demographic and Health Survey questionnaires, were adapted to reflect the population and health issues relevant to Armenia. Input was solicited from various stakeholders representing government ministries and agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and international donors. After all questionnaires were finalized in English, they were translated into Armenian. They were pretested in September-October 2015.

Cleaning operations

The processing of the 2015-16 ADHS data began shortly after fieldwork commenced. All completed questionnaires were edited immediately by field editors while still in the field and checked by the supervisors before being dispatched to the data processing center at the NSS central office in Yerevan. These completed questionnaires were edited and entered by 15 data processing personnel specially trained for this task. All data were entered twice for 100 percent verification. Data were entered using the CSPro computer package. The concurrent processing of the data was an advantage because the senior ADHS technical staff were able to advise field teams of problems detected during the data entry. In particular, tables were generated to check various data quality parameters. Moreover, the double entry of data enabled easy comparison and identification of errors and inconsistencies. As a result, specific feedback was given to the teams to improve performance. The data entry and editing phase of the survey was completed in June 2016.

Response rate

A total of 8,749 households were selected in the sample, of which 8,205 were occupied at the time of the fieldwork. The main reason for the difference is that some of the dwelling units that were occupied during the household listing operation were either vacant or the household was away for an extended period at the time of interviewing. The number of occupied households successfully interviewed was 7,893, yielding a household response rate of 96 percent. The household response rate in urban areas (96 percent) was nearly the same as in rural areas (97 percent).

In these households, a total of 6,251 eligible women were identified; interviews were completed with 6,116 of these women, yielding a response rate of 98 percent. In one-half of the households, a total of 2,856 eligible men were identified, and interviews were completed with 2,755 of these men, yielding a response rate of 97 percent. Among men, response rates are slightly lower in urban areas (96 percent) than in rural areas (97 percent), whereas rates for women are the same in urban and in rural areas (98 percent).

The 2015-16 ADHS achieved a slightly higher response rate for households than the 2010 ADHS (NSS 2012). The increase is only notable for urban households (96 percent in 2015-16 compared with 94 percent in 2010). Response rates in all other categories are very close to what they were in 2010.

Sampling error estimates

SAS computer software were used to calculate sampling errors for the 2015-16 ADHS. The programs used the Taylor linearization method of variance estimation for means or proportions and the Jackknife repeated replication method for variance estimation of more complex statistics such as fertility and mortality rates.

A more detailed description of estimates of sampling errors are presented in Appendix B of the survey final report.

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 - Nutritional status of children based on the NCHS/CDC/WHO International Reference Population - Vaccinations by background characteristics for children age 18-29 months

See details of the data quality tables in Appendix C of the survey final report.

Public perception regarding diagnostic sample types as well as personal experiences can influence willingness to test. As such, public preferences for specific sample type(s) should be used to inform diagnostic and surveillance testing programs to improve public health response efforts. To understand where preferences lie, we conducted an international survey regarding the sample types used for SARS-CoV-2 tests. A Qualtrics survey regarding SARS-CoV-2 testing preferences was distributed via social media and email. The survey collected preferences regarding sample methods and key demographic data. Python was used to analyze survey responses. From March 30th to June 15th, 2022, 2,094 responses were collected from 125 countries. Participants were 55% female and predominantly aged 25–34 years (27%). Education and employment were skewed: 51% had graduate degrees, 26% had bachelor’s degrees, 27% were scientists/researchers, and 29% were healthcare workers. By rank sum analysis, the most preferred sample type globally was the oral swab, followed by saliva, with parents/guardians preferring saliva-based testing for children. Respondents indicated a higher degree of trust in PCR testing (84%) vs. rapid antigen testing (36%). Preferences for self- or healthcare worker-collected sampling varied across regions. This international survey identified a preference for oral swabs and saliva when testing for SARS-CoV-2. Notably, respondents indicated that if they could be assured that all sample types performed equally, then saliva was preferred. Overall, survey responses reflected the region-specific testing experiences during the COVID-19. Public preferences should be considered when designing future response efforts to increase utilization, with oral sample types (either swabs or saliva) providing a practical option for large-scale, accessible diagnostic testing.

The National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) is a program of studies designed to assess the health and nutritional status of adults and children in the United States. The NHANES combines personal interviews and physical examinations, which focus on different population groups or health topics. These surveys have been conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) on a periodic basis from 1971 to 1994. In 1999, the NHANES became a continuous program with a changing focus on a variety of health and nutrition measurements which were designed to meet current and emerging concerns. The sample for the survey is selected to represent the U.S. population of all ages. Many of the NHANES 2007-2008 questions also were asked in NHANES II 1976-1980, Hispanic HANES 1982-1984, NHANES III 1988-1994, and NHANES 1999-2006. New questions were added to the survey based on recommendations from survey collaborators, NCHS staff, and other interagency work groups. Estimates for previously undiagnosed conditions, as well as those known to and reported by survey respondents, are produced through the survey.

In the 2003-2004 wave, the NHANES includes over 100 datasets. Most have been combined into three datasets for convenience. Each starts with the Demographic dataset and includes datasets of a specific type.

1. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), Demographic & Examination Data, 2003-2004 (The base of the Demographic dataset + all data from medical examinations).

2. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), Demographic & Laboratory Data, 2003-2004 (The base of the Demographic dataset + all data from medical laboratories).

3. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), Demographic & Questionnaire Data, 2003-2004 (The base of the Demographic dataset + all data from questionnaires)

Variable SEQN is included for merging files within the waves. All data files should be sorted by SEQN.

Additional details of the design and content of each survey are available at the NHANES web site.

Abstract

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

The BDHS is intended to serve as a source of population and health data for policymakers and the research community. In general, the objectives of the BDHS are to: - assess the overall demographic situation in Bangladesh, - assist in the evaluation of the population and health programs in Bangladesh, and - advance survey methodology.

More specifically, the objective of the BDHS is to provide up-to-date information on fertility and childhood mortality levels; nuptiality; fertility preferences; awareness, approval, and use of family planning methods; breastfeeding practices; nutrition levels; and maternal and child health. This information is intended to assist policymakers and administrators in evaluating and designing programs and strategies for improving health and family planning services in the country.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Household
• Children under five years
• Women age 10-49
• Men age 15-59

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

Bangladesh is divided into six administrative divisions, 64 districts (zillas), and 490 thanas. In rural areas, thanas are divided into unions and then mauzas, a land administrative unit. Urban areas are divided into wards and then mahallas. The 1996-97 BDHS employed a nationally-representative, two-stage sample that was selected from the Integrated Multi-Purpose Master Sample (IMPS) maintained by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. Each division was stratified into three groups: 1 ) statistical metropolitan areas (SMAs), 2) municipalities (other urban areas), and 3) rural areas. 3 In the rural areas, the primary sampling unit was the mauza, while in urban areas, it was the mahalla. Because the primary sampling units in the IMPS were selected with probability proportional to size from the 1991 Census frame, the units for the BDHS were sub-selected from the IMPS with equal probability so as to retain the overall probability proportional to size. A total of 316 primary sampling units were utilized for the BDHS (30 in SMAs, 42 in municipalities, and 244 in rural areas). In order to highlight changes in survey indicators over time, the 1996-97 BDHS utilized the same sample points (though not necessarily the same households) that were selected for the 1993-94 BDHS, except for 12 additional sample points in the new division of Sylhet. Fieldwork in three sample points was not possible (one in Dhaka Cantonment and two in the Chittagong Hill Tracts), so a total of 313 points were covered.

Since one objective of the BDHS is to provide separate estimates for each division as well as for urban and rural areas separately, it was necessary to increase the sampling rate for Barisal and Sylhet Divisions and for municipalities relative to the other divisions, SMAs and rural areas. Thus, the BDHS sample is not self-weighting and weighting factors have been applied to the data in this report.

Mitra and Associates conducted a household listing operation in all the sample points from 15 September to 15 December 1996. A systematic sample of 9,099 households was then selected from these lists. Every second household was selected for the men's survey, meaning that, in addition to interviewing all ever-married women age 10-49, interviewers also interviewed all currently married men age 15-59. It was expected that the sample would yield interviews with approximately 10,000 ever-married women age 10-49 and 3,000 currently married men age 15-59.

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

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

Four types of questionnaires were used for the BDHS: a Household Questionnaire, a Women's Questionnaire, a Men' s Questionnaire and a Community Questionnaire. The contents of these questionnaires were based on the DHS Model A Questionnaire, which is designed for use in countries with relatively high levels of contraceptive use. These model questionnaires were adapted for use in Bangladesh during a series of meetings with a small Technical Task Force that consisted of representatives from NIPORT, Mitra and Associates, USAID/Bangladesh, the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (ICDDR,B), Population Council/Dhaka, and Macro International Inc (see Appendix D for a list of members). Draft questionnaires were then circulated to other interested groups and were reviewed by the BDHS Technical Review Committee (see Appendix D for list of members). The questionnaires were developed in English and then translated into and printed in Bangla (see Appendix E for final version in English).

The Household Questionnaire was used to list all the usual members and visitors in the selected households. Some basic information was collected on the characteristics of each person listed, including his/her age, sex, education, and relationship to the head of the household. The main purpose of the Household Questionnaire was to identify women and men who were eligible for the individual interview. In addition, information was collected about the dwelling itself, such as the source of water, type of toilet facilities, materials used to construct the house, and ownership of various consumer goods.

The Women's Questionnaire was used to collect information from ever-married women age 10-49. These women were asked questions on the following topics: - Background characteristics (age, education, religion, etc.), - Reproductive history, - Knowledge and use of family planning methods, - Antenatal and delivery care, - Breastfeeding and weaning practices, - Vaccinations and health of children under age five, - Marriage, - Fertility preferences, - Husband's background and respondent's work, - Knowledge of AIDS, - Height and weight of children under age five and their mothers.

The Men's Questionnaire was used to interview currently married men age 15-59. It was similar to that for women except that it omitted the sections on reproductive history, antenatal and delivery care, breastfeeding, vaccinations, and height and weight. The Community Questionnaire was completed for each sample point and included questions about the existence in the community of income-generating activities and other development organizations and the availability of health and family planning services.

Response rate

A total of 9,099 households were selected for the sample, of which 8,682 were successfully interviewed. The shortfall is primarily due to dwellings that were vacant or in which the inhabitants had left for an extended period at the time they were visited by the interviewing teams. Of the 8,762 households occupied, 99 percent were successfully interviewed. In these households, 9,335 women were identified as eligible for the individual interview (i.e., ever-married and age 10-49) and interviews were completed for 9,127 or 98 percent of them. In the half of the households that were selected for inclusion in the men's survey, 3,611 eligible ever-married men age 15-59 were identified, of whom 3,346 or 93 percent were interviewed.

The principal reason for non-response among eligible women and men was the failure to find them at home despite repeated visits to the household. The refusal rate was low.

Note: See summarized response rates by residence (urban/rural) 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) non-sampling errors, and (2) sampling errors. Non-sampling errors are the results of mistakes 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 BDHS 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 evaluated statistically. The sample of respondents selected in the BDHS 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 BDHS 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 BDHS is the ISSA Sampling Error Module. This module used the Taylor

The American Community Survey (ACS) is an ongoing statistical survey that samples a small percentage of the population every year -- giving communities the information they need to plan investments and services. The 5-year public use microdata sample (PUMS) for 2012-2016 is a subset of the 2012-2012 ACS sample. It contains the same sample as the combined PUMS 1-year files for 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016. This data collection provides a person-level subset of 133,781 respondents whose occupations were coded as arts-related in the 2011-2015 ACS PUMS. The 2012-2016 PUMS is the seventh 5-year file published by the ACS. This data collection contains five years of data for the population from households and the group quarters (GQ) population. The GQ population and population from households are all weighted to agree with the ACS counts which are an average over the five year period (2012-2016). The ACS sample was selected from all counties across the nation. The ACS provides social, housing, and economic characteristics for demographic groups covering a broad spectrum of geographic areas in the United States. For a more detailed list of variables of what these categories include please see the decriptions of variables section.

Open Science in (Higher) Education – data of the February 2017 survey

This data set contains:

• Full raw (anonymised) data set (completed responses) of Open Science in (Higher) Education February 2017 survey. Data are in xlsx and sav format.
• Survey questionnaires with variables and settings (German original and English translation) in pdf. The English questionnaire was not used in the February 2017 survey, but only serves as translation.
• Readme file (txt)

Survey structure

The survey includes 24 questions and its structure can be separated in five major themes: material used in courses (5), OER awareness, usage and development (6), collaborative tools used in courses (2), assessment and participation options (5), demographics (4). The last two questions include an open text questions about general issues on the topics and singular open education experiences, and a request on forwarding the respondent’s e-mail address for further questionings. The online survey was created with Limesurvey[1]. Several questions include filters, i.e. these questions were only shown if a participants did choose a specific answer beforehand ([n/a] in Excel file, [.] In SPSS).

Demographic questions

Demographic questions asked about the current position, the discipline, birth year and gender. The classification of research disciplines was adapted to general disciplines at German higher education institutions. As we wanted to have a broad classification, we summarised several disciplines and came up with the following list, including the option “other” for respondents who do not feel confident with the proposed classification:

• Natural Sciences
• Arts and Humanities or Social Sciences
• Economics
• Law
• Medicine
• Computer Sciences, Engineering, Technics
• Other

The current job position classification was also chosen according to common positions in Germany, including positions with a teaching responsibility at higher education institutions. Here, we also included the option “other” for respondents who do not feel confident with the proposed classification:

• Professor
• Special education teacher
• Academic/scientific assistant or research fellow (research and teaching)
• Academic staff (teaching)
• Student assistant
• Other

We chose to have a free text (numerical) for asking about a respondent’s year of birth because we did not want to pre-classify respondents’ age intervals. It leaves us options to have different analysis on answers and possible correlations to the respondents’ age. Asking about the country was left out as the survey was designed for academics in Germany.

Remark on OER question

Data from earlier surveys revealed that academics suffer confusion about the proper definition of OER^[2]. Some seem to understand OER as free resources, or only refer to open source software (Allen & Seaman, 2016, p. 11). Allen and Seaman (2016) decided to give a broad explanation of OER, avoiding details to not tempt the participant to claim “aware”. Thus, there is a danger of having a bias when giving an explanation. We decided not to give an explanation, but keep this question simple. We assume that either someone knows about OER or not. If they had not heard of the term before, they do not probably use OER (at least not consciously) or create them.

Data collection

The target group of the survey was academics at German institutions of higher education, mainly universities and universities of applied sciences. To reach them we sent the survey to diverse institutional-intern and extern mailing lists and via personal contacts. Included lists were discipline-based lists, lists deriving from higher education and higher education didactic communities as well as lists from open science and OER communities. Additionally, personal e-mails were sent to presidents and contact persons from those communities, and Twitter was used to spread the survey.

The survey was online from Feb 6^th to March 3^rd 2017, e-mails were mainly sent at the beginning and around mid-term.

Data clearance

We got 360 responses, whereof Limesurvey counted 208 completes and 152 incompletes. Two responses were marked as incomplete, but after checking them turned out to be complete, and we added them to the complete responses dataset. Thus, this data set includes 210 complete responses. From those 150 incomplete responses, 58 respondents did not answer 1st question, 40 respondents discontinued after 1st question. Data shows a constant decline in response answers, we did not detect any striking survey question with a high dropout rate. We deleted incomplete responses and they are not in this data set.

Due to data privacy reasons, we deleted seven variables automatically assigned by Limesurvey: submitdate, lastpage, startlanguage, startdate, datestamp, ipaddr, refurl. We also deleted answers to question N^o 24 (email address).

References

Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2016). Opening the Textbook: Educational Resources in U.S. Higher Education, 2015-16.

First results of the survey are presented in the poster:

Heck, Tamara, Blümel, Ina, Heller, Lambert, Mazarakis, Athanasios, Peters, Isabella, Scherp, Ansgar, & Weisel, Luzian. (2017). Survey: Open Science in Higher Education. Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.400561

Contact:

Open Science in (Higher) Education working group, see http://www.leibniz-science20.de/forschung/projekte/laufende-projekte/open-science-in-higher-education/.

[1] https://www.limesurvey.org

[2] The survey question about the awareness of OER gave a broad explanation, avoiding details to not tempt the participant to claim “aware”.

Abstract

The Thai Demographic and Health Survey (TDHS) was a nationally representative sample survey conducted from March through June 1988 to collect data on fertility, family planning, and child and maternal health. A total of 9,045 households and 6,775 ever-married women aged 15 to 49 were interviewed. Thai Demographic and Health Survey (TDHS) is carried out by the Institute of Population Studies (IPS) of Chulalongkorn University with the financial support from USAID through the Institute for Resource Development (IRD) at Westinghouse. The Institute of Population Studies was responsible for the overall implementation of the survey including sample design, preparation of field work, data collection and processing, and analysis of data. IPS has made available its personnel and office facilities to the project throughout the project duration. It serves as the headquarters for the survey.

The Thai Demographic and Health Survey (TDHS) was undertaken for the main purpose of providing data concerning fertility, family planning and maternal and child health to program managers and policy makers to facilitate their evaluation and planning of programs, and to population and health researchers to assist in their efforts to document and analyze the demographic and health situation. It is intended to provide information both on topics for which comparable data is not available from previous nationally representative surveys as well as to update trends with respect to a number of indicators available from previous surveys, in particular the Longitudinal Study of Social Economic and Demographic Change in 1969-73, the Survey of Fertility in Thailand in 1975, the National Survey of Family Planning Practices, Fertility and Mortality in 1979, and the three Contraceptive Prevalence Surveys in 1978/79, 1981 and 1984.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Household
• Women age 15-49

Universe

The population covered by the 1987 THADHS is defined as the universe of all women Ever-married women in the reproductive ages (i.e., women 15-49). This covered women in private households on the basis of a de facto coverage definition. Visitors and usual residents who were in the household the night before the first visit or before any subsequent visit during the few days the interviewing team was in the area were eligible. Excluded were the small number of married women aged under 15 and women not present in private households.

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

SAMPLE SIZE AND ALLOCATION

The objective of the survey was to provide reliable estimates for major domains of the country. This consisted of two overlapping sets of reporting domains: (a) Five regions of the country namely Bangkok, north, northeast, central region (excluding Bangkok), and south; (b) Bangkok versus all provincial urban and all rural areas of the country. These requirements could be met by defining six non-overlapping sampling domains (Bangkok, provincial urban, and rural areas of each of the remaining 4 regions), and allocating approximately equal sample sizes to them. On the basis of past experience, available budget and overall reporting requirement, the target sample size was fixed at 7,000 interviews of ever-married women aged 15-49, expected to be found in around 9,000 households. Table A.I shows the actual number of households as well as eligible women selected and interviewed, by sampling domain (see Table i.I for reporting domains).

THE FRAME AND SAMPLE SELECTION

The frame for selecting the sample for urban areas, was provided by the National Statistical Office of Thailand and by the Ministry of the Interior for rural areas. It consisted of information on population size of various levels of administrative and census units, down to blocks in urban areas and villages in rural areas. The frame also included adequate maps and descriptions to identify these units. The extent to which the data were up-to-date as well as the quality of the data varied somewhat in different parts of the frame. Basically, the multi-stage stratified sampling design involved the following procedure. A specified number of sample areas were selected systematically from geographically/administratively ordered lists with probabilities proportional to the best available measure of size (PPS). Within selected areas (blocks or villages) new lists of households were prepared and systematic samples of households were selected. In principle, the sampling interval for the selection of households from lists was determined so as to yield a self weighting sample of households within each domain. However, in the absence of good measures of population size for all areas, these sampling intervals often required adjustments in the interest of controlling the size of the resulting sample. Variations in selection probabilities introduced due to such adjustment, where required, were compensated for by appropriate weighting of sample cases at the tabulation stage.

SAMPLE OUTCOME

The final sample of households was selected from lists prepared in the sample areas. The time interval between household listing and enumeration was generally very short, except to some extent in Bangkok where the listing itself took more time. In principle, the units of listing were the same as the ultimate units of sampling, namely households. However in a small proportion of cases, the former differed from the latter in several respects, identified at the stage of final enumeration: a) Some units listed actually contained more than one household each b) Some units were "blanks", that is, were demolished or not found to contain any eligible households at the time of enumeration. c) Some units were doubtful cases in as much as the household was reported as "not found" by the interviewer, but may in fact have existed.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

The DHS core questionnaires (Household, Eligible Women Respondent, and Community) were translated into Thai. A number of modifications were made largely to adapt them for use with an ever- married woman sample and to add a number of questions in areas that are of special interest to the Thai investigators but which were not covered in the standard core. Examples of such modifications included adding marital status and educational attainment to the household schedule, elaboration on questions in the individual questionnaire on educational attainment to take account of changes in the educational system during recent years, elaboration on questions on postnuptial residence, and adaptation of the questionnaire to take into account that only ever-married women are being interviewed rather than all women. More generally, attention was given to the wording of questions in Thai to ensure that the intent of the original English-language version was preserved.

a) Household questionnaire

The household questionnaire was used to list every member of the household who usually lives in the household and as well as visitors who slept in the household the night before the interviewer's visit. Information contained in the household questionnaire are age, sex, marital status, and education for each member (the last two items were asked only to members aged 13 and over). The head of the household or the spouse of the head of the household was the preferred respondent for the household questionnaire. However, if neither was available for interview, any adult member of the household was accepted as the respondent. Information from the household questionnaire was used to identify eligible women for the individual interview. To be eligible, a respondent had to be an ever-married woman aged 15-49 years old who had slept in the household 'the previous night'.

Prior evidence has indicated that when asked about current age, Thais are as likely to report age at next birthday as age at last birthday (the usual demographic definition of age). Since the birth date of each household number was not asked in the household questionnaire, it was not possible to calculate age at last birthday from the birthdate. Therefore a special procedure was followed to ensure that eligible women just under the higher boundary for eligible ages (i.e. 49 years old) were not mistakenly excluded from the eligible woman sample because of an overstated age. Ever-married women whose reported age was between 50-52 years old and who slept in the household the night before birthdate of the woman, it was discovered that these women (or any others being interviewed) were not actually within the eligible age range of 15-49, the interview was terminated and the case disqualified. This attempt recovered 69 eligible women who otherwise would have been missed because their reported age was over 50 years old or over.

b) Individual questionnaire

The questionnaire administered to eligible women was based on the DHS Model A Questionnaire for high contraceptive prevalence countries. The individual questionnaire has 8 sections: - Respondent's background - Reproduction - Contraception - Health and breastfeeding - Marriage - Fertility preference - Husband's background and woman's work - Heights and weights of children and mothers

The questionnaire was modified to suit the Thai context. As noted above, several questions were added to the standard DHS core questionnaire not only to meet the interest of IPS researchers hut also because of their relevance to the current demographic situation in Thailand. The supplemental questions are marked with an asterisk in the individual questionnaire. Questions concerning the following items were added in the individual questionnaire: - Did the respondent ever

The National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) is a program of studies designed to assess the health and nutritional status of adults and children in the United States. The NHANES combines personal interviews and physical examinations, which focus on different population groups or health topics. These surveys have been conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) on a periodic basis from 1971 to 1994. In 1999, the NHANES became a continuous program with a changing focus on a variety of health and nutrition measurements which were designed to meet current and emerging concerns. The sample for the survey is selected to represent the U.S. population of all ages. Many of the NHANES 2007-2008 questions also were asked in NHANES II 1976-1980, Hispanic HANES 1982-1984, NHANES III 1988-1994, and NHANES 1999-2006. New questions were added to the survey based on recommendations from survey collaborators, NCHS staff, and other interagency work groups. Estimates for previously undiagnosed conditions, as well as those known to and reported by survey respondents, are produced through the survey.

In the 1999-2000 wave, the NHANES includes more than 100 datasets. Most have been combined into three datasets for convenience. Each starts with the Demographic dataset and includes datasets of a specific type.

1. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), Demographic & Examination Data, 1999-2000 (The base of the Demographic dataset + all data from medical examinations).

2. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), Demographic & Laboratory Data, 1999-2000 (The base of the Demographic dataset + all data from medical laboratories).

3. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), Demographic & Questionnaire Data, 1999-2000 (The base of the Demographic dataset + all data from questionnaires)

Not all files from the 1999-2000 wave are included. This is for two reasons, both of which related to the merging variable (SEQN). For a subset of the files, SEQN is not a unique identifier for cases (i.e. some respondents have multiple cases) or SEQN is not in the file at all. The following datasets from this wave of the NHANES are not included in these three files and can be found individually from the "https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/index.htm" Target="_blank">NHANES website at the CDC:

Examination: Dietary Interview (Individual Foods File)
Examination: Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXX)
Examination: Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXX)
Questionnaire: Analgesics Pain Relievers
Questionnaire: Dietary Supplement Use -- Ingredient Information
Questionnaire: Dietary Supplement Use -- Supplement Blend
Questionnaire: Dietary Supplement Use -- Supplement Information
Questionnaire: Drug Information
Questionnaire: Dietary Supplement Use -- Participants Use of Supplement
Questionnaire: Physical Activity Individual Activity File
Questionnaire: Prescription Medications

Variable SEQN is included for merging files within the waves. All data files should be sorted by SEQN.

Additional details of the design and content of each survey are available at the "https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/index.htm" Target="_blank">NHANES website.

A random sample of households were invited to participate in this survey. In the dataset, you will find the respondent level data in each row with the questions in each column. The numbers represent a scale option from the survey, such as 1=Excellent, 2=Good, 3=Fair, 4=Poor. The question stem, response option, and scale information for each field can be found in the var "variable labels" and "value labels" sheets. VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: The scientific survey data were weighted, meaning that the demographic profile of respondents was compared to the demographic profile of adults in Bloomington from US Census data. Statistical adjustments were made to bring the respondent profile into balance with the population profile. This means that some records were given more "weight" and some records were given less weight. The weights that were applied are found in the field "wt". If you do not apply these weights, you will not obtain the same results as can be found in the report delivered to the Bloomington. The easiest way to replicate these results is likely to create pivot tables, and use the sum of the "wt" field rather than a count of responses.

The main objective of a demographic household survey (DHS) is to provide estimates of a number of basic demographic and health variables. This is done through interviews with a scientifically selected probability sample that is chosen from a well-defined population.

The 2007 Nauru Demographic and Health Survey (2007 NDHS) was one of four pilot demographic and health surveys conducted in the Pacific under an Asian Development Bank ADB/ Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) Regional DHS Pilot Project. The primary objective of this survey was to provide up-to-date information for policy-makers, planners, researchers and programme managers, for use in planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating population and health programmes within the country. The survey was intended to provide key estimates of Nauru's demographics and health situation. The findings of the 2007 NDHS are very important in measuring the achievements of family planning and other health programmes. To ensure better understanding and use of these data, the results of this survey should be widely disseminated at different planning levels. Different dissemination techniques will be used to reach different segments of society.

The primary purpose of the 2007 NDHS was to furnish policy-makers and planners with detailed information on fertility, family planning, infant and child mortality, maternal and child health, nutrition, and knowledge of HIV and AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections.

NOTE: The only dissemination used was wide distribution of the report. A planned data use workshop was not undertaken. Hence there is some misconceptions and lack of awareness on the results obtained from the survey. The report is provided on the NBOS website free for download.

Version 1.0

• v1.0: Edited data, second version for internal use only

DHS questionnaire for women cover the following sections:

• Background characteristics (age, education, religion, etc)
• Reproductive history
• Knowledge and use of contraception methods
• Antenatal care, delivery care and postnatal care
• Breastfeeding and infant feeding
• Immunization, child health and nutrition
• Marriage and recent sexual activity
• Fertility preferences
• Knowledge about HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections
• Husbands background and women's work

The men's questionnaire covers the same except for sections 4, 5, 6 which are not applicable to men.

It was also recognized that some countries have a need for special information that is not contained in the core questionnaire. Separate questionnaire modules were developed on a series of topics. These topics are optional and include:

• maternal mortality
• pill-taking behaviour
• sterilization experience
• children's education
• women's status
• domestic violence
• health expenditures

• consanguinity

• Collection start: 2007

• Collection end: 2007