While the BRICS countries are grouped together in terms of economic development, demographic progress varies across these five countries. In 2019, India and South Africa were the only BRICS countries with a fertility rate above replacement level (2.1 births per woman). Fertility rates since 2000 show that fertility in China and Russia has either fluctuated or remained fairly steady, as these two countries are at a later stage of the demographic transition than the other three, while Brazil has reached this stage more recently. Fertility rates in India are following a similar trend to Brazil, while South Africa's rate is progressing at a much slower pace. Demographic development is inextricably linked with economic growth; for example, as fertility rates drop, female participation in the workforce increases, as does the average age, which then leads to higher productivity and a more profitable domestic market.

In 2025, there are six countries, all in Sub-Saharan Africa, where the average woman of childbearing age can expect to have between 5-6 children throughout their lifetime. In fact, of the 20 countries in the world with the highest fertility rates, Afghanistan and Yemen are the only countries not found in Sub-Saharan Africa. High fertility rates in Africa With a fertility rate of almost six children per woman, Chad is the country with the highest fertility rate in the world. Population growth in Chad is among the highest in the world. Lack of healthcare access, as well as food instability, political instability, and climate change, are all exacerbating conditions that keep Chad's infant mortality rates high, which is generally the driver behind high fertility rates. This situation is common across much of the continent, and, although there has been considerable progress in recent decades, development in Sub-Saharan Africa is not moving as quickly as it did in other regions. Demographic transition While these countries have the highest fertility rates in the world, their rates are all on a generally downward trajectory due to a phenomenon known as the demographic transition. The third stage (of five) of this transition sees birth rates drop in response to decreased infant and child mortality, as families no longer feel the need to compensate for lost children. Eventually, fertility rates fall below replacement level (approximately 2.1 children per woman), which eventually leads to natural population decline once life expectancy plateaus. In some of the most developed countries today, low fertility rates are creating severe econoic and societal challenges as workforces are shrinking while aging populations are placin a greater burden on both public and personal resources.

In 2023, it is estimated that the BRICS countries have a combined population of 3.25 billion people, which is over 40 percent of the world population. The majority of these people live in either China or India, which have a population of more than 1.4 billion people each, while the other three countries have a combined population of just under 420 million. Comparisons Although the BRICS countries are considered the five foremost emerging economies, they are all at various stages of the demographic transition and have different levels of population development. For all of modern history, China has had the world's largest population, but rapidly dropping fertility and birth rates in recent decades mean that its population growth has slowed. In contrast, India's population growth remains much higher, and it is expected to overtake China in the next few years to become the world's most populous country. The fastest growing population in the BRICS bloc, however, is that of South Africa, which is at the earliest stage of demographic development. Russia, is the only BRICS country whose population is currently in decline, and it has been experiencing a consistent natural decline for most of the past three decades. Growing populations = growing opportunities Between 2000 and 2026, the populations of the BRICS countries is expected to grow by 625 million people, and the majority of this will be in India and China. As the economies of these two countries grow, so too do living standards and disposable income; this has resulted in the world's two most populous countries emerging as two of the most profitable markets in the world. China, sometimes called the "world's factory" has seen a rapid growth in its middle class, increased potential of its low-tier market, and its manufacturing sector is now transitioning to the production of more technologically advanced and high-end goods to meet its domestic demand.

ObjectivesThe burden and highest regional prevalence of anaemia is reported in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). The study evaluated changes in anaemia prevalence across the Demographic Health Surveys (DHS) periods in SSA and reported factors influencing observed changes in the trend.MethodThe study was implemented by a two-stage cross-sectional stratified sampling approach. The study involved women of reproductive age (15–49 years) in sub-Saharan Africa countries (Ghana, Sierra Leone, Mali, and Benin) using two different periods of their demographic health surveys (DHS) data. The study adopted both descriptive and inferential statistical methods. The chi-square test was used to determine the existence of a statistically significant relationship between the outcome and predictor variables and test the observed changes in anaemia. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted on each survey year and the pooled dataset for eligible study countries. Multivariate decomposition analysis was performed to explain how compositional changes and behavioural effects of women characteristics affected the changes in anaemia prevalence. The study reported frequencies, percentages and odds ratios along with their 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsGhana and Sierra Leone experienced 17.07% [95% CI: 14.76–19.37, p  0.05] of anaemia decrease from period 1 to period 2, respectively, while Mali and Benin experienced 11% [95% CI: 9.14–12.90, p 

In 2022, India overtook China as the world's most populous country and now has almost 1.46 billion people. China now has the second-largest population in the world, still with just over 1.4 billion inhabitants, however, its population went into decline in 2023. Global population As of 2025, the world's population stands at almost 8.2 billion people and is expected to reach around 10.3 billion people in the 2080s, when it will then go into decline. Due to improved healthcare, sanitation, and general living conditions, the global population continues to increase; mortality rates (particularly among infants and children) are decreasing and the median age of the world population has steadily increased for decades. As for the average life expectancy in industrial and developing countries, the gap has narrowed significantly since the mid-20th century. Asia is the most populous continent on Earth; 11 of the 20 largest countries are located there. It leads the ranking of the global population by continent by far, reporting four times as many inhabitants as Africa. The Demographic Transition The population explosion over the past two centuries is part of a phenomenon known as the demographic transition. Simply put, this transition results from a drastic reduction in mortality, which then leads to a reduction in fertility, and increase in life expectancy; this interim period where death rates are low and birth rates are high is where this population explosion occurs, and population growth can remain high as the population ages. In today's most-developed countries, the transition generally began with industrialization in the 1800s, and growth has now stabilized as birth and mortality rates have re-balanced. Across less-developed countries, the stage of this transition varies; for example, China is at a later stage than India, which accounts for the change in which country is more populous - understanding the demographic transition can help understand the reason why China's population is now going into decline. The least-developed region is Sub-Saharan Africa, where fertility rates remain close to pre-industrial levels in some countries. As these countries transition, they will undergo significant rates of population growth

COVID-19 Trends MethodologyOur goal is to analyze and present daily updates in the form of recent trends within countries, states, or counties during the COVID-19 global pandemic. The data we are analyzing is taken directly from the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases Dashboard, though we expect to be one day behind the dashboard’s live feeds to allow for quality assurance of the data.Revisions added on 4/23/2020 are highlighted.Revisions added on 4/30/2020 are highlighted.Discussion of our assertion of an abundance of caution in assigning trends in rural counties added 5/7/2020. Correction on 6/1/2020Methodology update on 6/2/2020: This sets the length of the tail of new cases to 6 to a maximum of 14 days, rather than 21 days as determined by the last 1/3 of cases. This was done to align trends and criteria for them with U.S. CDC guidance. The impact is areas transition into Controlled trend sooner for not bearing the burden of new case 15-21 days earlier.Reasons for undertaking this work:The popular online maps and dashboards show counts of confirmed cases, deaths, and recoveries by country or administrative sub-region. Comparing the counts of one country to another can only provide a basis for comparison during the initial stages of the outbreak when counts were low and the number of local outbreaks in each country was low. By late March 2020, countries with small populations were being left out of the mainstream news because it was not easy to recognize they had high per capita rates of cases (Switzerland, Luxembourg, Iceland, etc.). Additionally, comparing countries that have had confirmed COVID-19 cases for high numbers of days to countries where the outbreak occurred recently is also a poor basis for comparison.The graphs of confirmed cases and daily increases in cases were fit into a standard size rectangle, though the Y-axis for one country had a maximum value of 50, and for another country 100,000, which potentially misled people interpreting the slope of the curve. Such misleading circumstances affected comparing large population countries to small population counties or countries with low numbers of cases to China which had a large count of cases in the early part of the outbreak. These challenges for interpreting and comparing these graphs represent work each reader must do based on their experience and ability. Thus, we felt it would be a service to attempt to automate the thought process experts would use when visually analyzing these graphs, particularly the most recent tail of the graph, and provide readers with an a resulting synthesis to characterize the state of the pandemic in that country, state, or county.The lack of reliable data for confirmed recoveries and therefore active cases. Merely subtracting deaths from total cases to arrive at this figure progressively loses accuracy after two weeks. The reason is 81% of cases recover after experiencing mild symptoms in 10 to 14 days. Severe cases are 14% and last 15-30 days (based on average days with symptoms of 11 when admitted to hospital plus 12 days median stay, and plus of one week to include a full range of severely affected people who recover). Critical cases are 5% and last 31-56 days. Sources:U.S. CDC. April 3, 2020 Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19). Accessed online. Initial older guidance was also obtained online. Additionally, many people who recover may not be tested, and many who are, may not be tracked due to privacy laws. Thus, the formula used to compute an estimate of active cases is: Active Cases = 100% of new cases in past 14 days + 19% from past 15-30 days + 5% from past 31-56 days - total deaths.We’ve never been inside a pandemic with the ability to learn of new cases as they are confirmed anywhere in the world. After reviewing epidemiological and pandemic scientific literature, three needs arose. We need to specify which portions of the pandemic lifecycle this map cover. The World Health Organization (WHO) specifies six phases. The source data for this map begins just after the beginning of Phase 5: human to human spread and encompasses Phase 6: pandemic phase. Phase six is only characterized in terms of pre- and post-peak. However, these two phases are after-the-fact analyses and cannot ascertained during the event. Instead, we describe (below) a series of five trends for Phase 6 of the COVID-19 pandemic.Choosing terms to describe the five trends was informed by the scientific literature, particularly the use of epidemic, which signifies uncontrolled spread. The five trends are: Emergent, Spreading, Epidemic, Controlled, and End Stage. Not every locale will experience all five, but all will experience at least three: emergent, controlled, and end stage.This layer presents the current trends for the COVID-19 pandemic by country (or appropriate level). There are five trends:Emergent: Early stages of outbreak. Spreading: Early stages and depending on an administrative area’s capacity, this may represent a manageable rate of spread. Epidemic: Uncontrolled spread. Controlled: Very low levels of new casesEnd Stage: No New cases These trends can be applied at several levels of administration: Local: Ex., City, District or County – a.k.a. Admin level 2State: Ex., State or Province – a.k.a. Admin level 1National: Country – a.k.a. Admin level 0Recommend that at least 100,000 persons be represented by a unit; granted this may not be possible, and then the case rate per 100,000 will become more important.Key Concepts and Basis for Methodology: 10 Total Cases minimum threshold: Empirically, there must be enough cases to constitute an outbreak. Ideally, this would be 5.0 per 100,000, but not every area has a population of 100,000 or more. Ten, or fewer, cases are also relatively less difficult to track and trace to sources. 21 Days of Cases minimum threshold: Empirically based on COVID-19 and would need to be adjusted for any other event. 21 days is also the minimum threshold for analyzing the “tail” of the new cases curve, providing seven cases as the basis for a likely trend (note that 21 days in the tail is preferred). This is the minimum needed to encompass the onset and duration of a normal case (5-7 days plus 10-14 days). Specifically, a median of 5.1 days incubation time, and 11.2 days for 97.5% of cases to incubate. This is also driven by pressure to understand trends and could easily be adjusted to 28 days. Source used as basis:Stephen A. Lauer, MS, PhD *; Kyra H. Grantz, BA *; Qifang Bi, MHS; Forrest K. Jones, MPH; Qulu Zheng, MHS; Hannah R. Meredith, PhD; Andrew S. Azman, PhD; Nicholas G. Reich, PhD; Justin Lessler, PhD. 2020. The Incubation Period of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) From Publicly Reported Confirmed Cases: Estimation and Application. Annals of Internal Medicine DOI: 10.7326/M20-0504.New Cases per Day (NCD) = Measures the daily spread of COVID-19. This is the basis for all rates. Back-casting revisions: In the Johns Hopkins’ data, the structure is to provide the cumulative number of cases per day, which presumes an ever-increasing sequence of numbers, e.g., 0,0,1,1,2,5,7,7,7, etc. However, revisions do occur and would look like, 0,0,1,1,2,5,7,7,6. To accommodate this, we revised the lists to eliminate decreases, which make this list look like, 0,0,1,1,2,5,6,6,6.Reporting Interval: In the early weeks, Johns Hopkins' data provided reporting every day regardless of change. In late April, this changed allowing for days to be skipped if no new data was available. The day was still included, but the value of total cases was set to Null. The processing therefore was updated to include tracking of the spacing between intervals with valid values.100 News Cases in a day as a spike threshold: Empirically, this is based on COVID-19’s rate of spread, or r0 of ~2.5, which indicates each case will infect between two and three other people. There is a point at which each administrative area’s capacity will not have the resources to trace and account for all contacts of each patient. Thus, this is an indicator of uncontrolled or epidemic trend. Spiking activity in combination with the rate of new cases is the basis for determining whether an area has a spreading or epidemic trend (see below). Source used as basis:World Health Organization (WHO). 16-24 Feb 2020. Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Obtained online.Mean of Recent Tail of NCD = Empirical, and a COVID-19-specific basis for establishing a recent trend. The recent mean of NCD is taken from the most recent fourteen days. A minimum of 21 days of cases is required for analysis but cannot be considered reliable. Thus, a preference of 42 days of cases ensures much higher reliability. This analysis is not explanatory and thus, merely represents a likely trend. The tail is analyzed for the following:Most recent 2 days: In terms of likelihood, this does not mean much, but can indicate a reason for hope and a basis to share positive change that is not yet a trend. There are two worthwhile indicators:Last 2 days count of new cases is less than any in either the past five or 14 days. Past 2 days has only one or fewer new cases – this is an extremely positive outcome if the rate of testing has continued at the same rate as the previous 5 days or 14 days. Most recent 5 days: In terms of likelihood, this is more meaningful, as it does represent at short-term trend. There are five worthwhile indicators:Past five days is greater than past 2 days and past 14 days indicates the potential of the past 2 days being an aberration. Past five days is greater than past 14 days and less than past 2 days indicates slight positive trend, but likely still within peak trend time frame.Past five days is less than the past 14 days. This means a downward trend. This would be an

Abstract

The transition from socialism to a market economy has transformed the lives of many people. What are people's perceptions and attitudes to transition? What are the current attitudes to market reforms and political institutions?

To analyze these issues, the EBRD and the World Bank have jointly conducted the comprehensive, region-wide "Life in Transition Survey" (LiTS), which combines traditional household survey features with questions about respondents' attitudes and is carried out through two-stage sampling with a random selection of households and respondents.

The LiTS assesses the impact of transition on people through their personal and professional experiences during the first 15 years of transition. LiTS attempts to understand how these personal experiences of transition relate to people’s attitudes toward market and political reforms, as well as their priorities for the future.

The main objective of the LiTS was to build on existing studies to provide a comprehensive assessment of relationships among life satisfaction and living standards, poverty and inequality, trust in state institutions, satisfaction with public services, attitudes to a market economy and democracy and to provide valuable insights into how transition has affected the lives of people across a region comprising 16 countries in Central and Eastern Europe (“CEE”) and 11 in the Commonwealth of Independent State (“CIS”). Turkey and Mongolia were also included in the survey.

Geographic coverage

The LITS was to be implemented in the following 29 countries: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), Georgia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

A total of 1,000 face-to-face household interviews per country were to be conducted, with adult (18 years and over) occupants and with no upper limit for age. The sample was to be nationally representative. The EBRD’s preferred procedure was a two stage sampling method, with census enumeration areas (CEA) as primary sampling units and households as secondary sampling units. To the extent possible, the EBRD wished the sampling procedure to apply no more than 2 stages.

The first stage of selection was to use as a sampling frame the list of CEA's generated by the most recent census. Ideally, 50 primary sampling units (PSU's) were to be selected from that sample frame, with probability proportional to size (PPS), using as a measure of size either the population, or the number of households.

The second sampling stage was to select households within each of the primary sampling units, using as a sampling frame a specially developed list of all households in each of the selected PSU's defined above. Households to be interviewed were to be selected from that list by systematic, equal probability sampling. Twenty households were to be selected in each of the 50 PSU's.

The individuals to be interviewed in each household were to be selected at random, within each of the selected households, with no substitution if possible.

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SAMPLE FRAME OF PSU’s

In each country we established the most recent sample frame of PSU’s which would best serve the purposes of the LITS sampling methodology. Details of the PSU sample frames in each country are shown in table 1 (page 10) of the survey report.

In the cases of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Serbia and Uzbekistan, CEA’s were used. In Croatia we also used CEA’s but in this case, because the CEA’s were very small and we would not have been able to complete the targeted number of interviews within each PSU, we merged together adjoining CEA’s and constructed a sample of 1,732 Merged Enumeration Areas. The same was the case in Montenegro.

In Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland and the Slovak Republic we used Eurostat’s NUTS area classification system.

[NOTE: The NUTS (from the French "Nomenclature des territoriales statistiques" or in English ("Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics"), is a uniform and consistent system that runs on five different NUTS levels and is widely used for EU surveys including the Eurobarometer (a comparable survey to the Life in Transition). As a hierarchical system, NUTS subdivides the territory of the country into a defined number of regions on NUTS 1 level (population 3-7 million), NUTS 2 level (800,000-3 million) and NUTS 3 level (150,000-800,000). At a more detailed level NUTS 3 is subdivided into smaller units (districts and municipalities). These are called "Local Administrative Units" (LAU). The LAU is further divided into upper LAU (LAU1 - formerly NUTS 4) and LAU 2 (formerly NUTS 5).]

Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Georgia, Moldova and Romania used the electoral register as the basis for the PSU sample frame. In the other cases, the PSU sample frame was chosen using either local geographical or administrative and territorial classification systems. The total number of PSU sample frames per country varied from 182 in the case of Mongolia to over 48,000 in the case of Turkey. To ensure the safety of our fieldworkers, we excluded from the sample frame PSU’s territories (in countries such as Georgia, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Russia, etc) in which there was conflict and political instability. We have also excluded areas which were not easily accessible due to their terrain or were sparsely populated.

In the majority of cases, the source for this information was the national statistical body for the country in question, or the relevant central electoral committee. In establishing the sample frames and to the extent possible, we tried to maintain a uniform measure of size namely, the population aged 18 years and over which was of more pertinence to the LITS methodology. Where the PSU was based on CEA’s, the measure was usually the total population, whereas the electoral register provided data on the population aged 18 years old and above, the normal voting age in all sampled countries. Although the NUTS classification provided data on the total population, we filtered, where possible, the information and used as a measure of size the population aged 18 and above. The other classification systems used usually measure the total population of a country. However, in the case of Azerbaijan, which used CEA’s, and Slovenia, where a classification system based on administrative and territorial areas was employed, the measure of size was the number of households in each PSU.

The accuracy of the PSU information was dependent, to a large extent, on how recently the data has been collected. Where the data were collected recently then the information could be considered as relatively accurate. However, in some countries we believed that more recent information was available, but because the relevant authorities were not prepared to share this with us citing secrecy reasons, we had no alternative than to use less up to date data. In some countries the age of the data available makes the figures less certain. An obvious case in point is Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the latest available figures date back to 1991, before the Balkan wars. The population figures available take no account of the casualties suffered among the civilian population, resulting displacement and subsequent migration of people.

Equally there have been cases where countries have experienced economic migration in recent years, as in the case of those countries that acceded to the European Union in May, 2004, such as Hungary, Poland and the Baltic states, or to other countries within the region e.g. Armenians to Russia, Albanians to Greece and Italy; the available figures may not accurately reflect this. And, as most economic migrants tend to be men, the actual proportion of females in a population was, in many cases, higher than the available statistics would suggest. People migration in recent years has also occurred from rural to urban areas in Albania and the majority of the Asian Republics, as well as in Mongolia on a continuous basis but in this case, because of the nomadic population of the country.

SAMPLING METHODOLOGY

Brief Overview

In broad terms the following sampling methodology was employed: · From the sample frame of PSU’s we selected 50 units · Within each selected PSU, we sampled 20 households, resulting in 1,000 interviews per country · Within each household we sampled 1 and sometimes 2 respondents The sampling procedures were designed to leave no free choice to the interviewers. Details on each of the above steps as well as country specific procedures adapted to suit the availability, depth and quality of the PSU information and local operational issues are described in the following sections.

Selection of PSU’s

The PSU’s of each country (all in electronic format) were sorted first into metropolitan, urban and rural areas (in that order), and within each of these categories by region/oblast/province in alphabetical order. This ensured a consistent sorting methodology across all countries and also that the randomness of the selection process could be supervised.

To select the 50 PSU’s from the sample frame of PSU’s, we employed implicit stratification and sampling was done with PPS. Implicit stratification ensured that the sample of PSU’s was spread across the primary categories of explicit variables and a better representation of the population, without actually stratifying the PSU’s thus, avoiding difficulties in calculating the sampling errors at a later stage. In brief, the PPS involved the

State 1: normal, State 2: Marginally stunted, State 3: Moderately stunted, State 4: Severely stunted.

Descriptive statistics at entry into the study (N = 676). N is the number of children.

Observed transitions between height-for-age classification.

Abstract

The 2022 Philippines National Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) was implemented by the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA). Data collection took place from May 2 to June 22, 2022.

The primary objective of the 2022 NDHS is to provide up-to-date estimates of basic demographic and health indicators. Specifically, the NDHS collected information on fertility, fertility preferences, family planning practices, childhood mortality, maternal and child health, nutrition, knowledge and attitudes regarding HIV/AIDS, violence against women, child discipline, early childhood development, and other health issues.

The information collected through the NDHS is intended to assist policymakers and program managers in designing and evaluating programs and strategies for improving the health of the country’s population. The 2022 NDHS also provides indicators anchored to the attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the new Philippine Development Plan for 2023 to 2028.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

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

Universe

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

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The sampling scheme provides data representative of the country as a whole, for urban and rural areas separately, and for each of the country’s administrative regions. The sample selection methodology for the 2022 NDHS was based on a two-stage stratified sample design using the Master Sample Frame (MSF) designed and compiled by the PSA. The MSF was constructed based on the listing of households from the 2010 Census of Population and Housing and updated based on the listing of households from the 2015 Census of Population. The first stage involved a systematic selection of 1,247 primary sampling units (PSUs) distributed by province or HUC. A PSU can be a barangay, a portion of a large barangay, or two or more adjacent small barangays.

In the second stage, an equal take of either 22 or 29 sample housing units were selected from each sampled PSU using systematic random sampling. In situations where a housing unit contained one to three households, all households were interviewed. In the rare situation where a housing unit contained more than three households, no more than three households were interviewed. The survey interviewers were instructed to interview only the preselected housing units. No replacements and no changes of the preselected housing units were allowed in the implementing stage in order to prevent bias. Survey weights were calculated, added to the data file, and applied so that weighted results are representative estimates of indicators at the regional and national levels.

All women age 15–49 who were either usual residents of the selected households or visitors who stayed in the households the night before the survey were eligible to be interviewed. Among women eligible for an individual interview, one woman per household was selected for a module on women’s safety.

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

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

Two questionnaires were used for the 2022 NDHS: the Household Questionnaire and the Woman’s Questionnaire. The questionnaires, based on The DHS Program’s model questionnaires, were adapted to reflect the population and health issues relevant to the Philippines. Input was solicited from various stakeholders representing government agencies, academe, and international agencies. The survey protocol was reviewed by the ICF Institutional Review Board.

After all questionnaires were finalized in English, they were translated into six major languages: Tagalog, Cebuano, Ilocano, Bikol, Hiligaynon, and Waray. The Household and Woman’s Questionnaires were programmed into tablet computers to allow for computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) for data collection purposes, with the capability to choose any of the languages for each questionnaire.

Cleaning operations

Processing the 2022 NDHS data began almost as soon as fieldwork started, and data security procedures were in place in accordance with confidentiality of information as provided by Philippine laws. As data collection was completed in each PSU or cluster, all electronic data files were transferred securely via SyncCloud to a server maintained by the PSA Central Office in Quezon City. These data files were registered and checked for inconsistencies, incompleteness, and outliers. The field teams were alerted to any inconsistencies and errors while still in the area of assignment. Timely generation of field check tables allowed for effective monitoring of fieldwork, including tracking questionnaire completion rates. Only the field teams, project managers, and NDHS supervisors in the provincial, regional, and central offices were given access to the CAPI system and the SyncCloud server.

A team of secondary editors in the PSA Central Office carried out secondary editing, which involved resolving inconsistencies and recoding “other” responses; the former was conducted during data collection, and the latter was conducted following the completion of the fieldwork. Data editing was performed using the CSPro software package. The secondary editing of the data was completed in August 2022. The final cleaning of the data set was carried out by data processing specialists from The DHS Program in September 2022.

Response rate

A total of 35,470 households were selected for the 2022 NDHS sample, of which 30,621 were found to be occupied. Of the occupied households, 30,372 were successfully interviewed, yielding a response rate of 99%. In the interviewed households, 28,379 women age 15–49 were identified as eligible for individual interviews. Interviews were completed with 27,821 women, yielding a response rate of 98%.

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 mistakes made in implementing data collection and in 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 2022 Philippines National Demographic and Health Survey (2022 NDHS) 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 2022 NDHS is only one of many samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and identical 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% 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 2022 NDHS sample was the result of a multistage stratified design, and, consequently, it was necessary to use more complex formulas. Sampling errors are computed in SAS using programs developed by ICF. These programs use the Taylor linearization method to estimate variances for survey estimates that are means, proportions, or ratios. The Jackknife repeated replication method is used 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 report.

Data appraisal

Data Quality Tables

• Household age distribution
• Age distribution of eligible and interviewed women
• Age displacement at age 14/15
• Age displacement at age 49/50
• Pregnancy outcomes by years preceding the survey
• Completeness of reporting
• Observation of handwashing facility
• School attendance by single year of age
• Vaccination cards photographed
• Population pyramid
• Five-year mortality rates

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

Abstract

The DHS is intended to serve as a primary source for international population and health information for policymakers and for the research community. In general, DHS has four objectives: - To provide participating countries with a database and analysis useful for informed choices, - To expand the international population and health database, - To advance survey methodology, and - To help develop in participating countries technical skills and resources necessary to conduct demographic and health surveys.

Apart from estimating fertility and contraceptive prevalence rates, DHS also covers the topic of child health, which has become the focus of many development programs aimed at improving the quality of life in general. The Indonesian DHS survey did not include health-related questions because this information was collected in the 1987 SUSENAS in more detail and with wider geographic coverage. Hence, the Indonesian DHS was named the "National Indonesian Contraceptive Prevalence Survey" (NICPS).

The National Indonesia Contraceptive Prevalence Survey (NICPS) was a collaborative effort between the Indonesian National Family Planning Coordinating Board (NFPCB), the Institute for Resource Development of Westinghouse and the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS). The survey was part of an international program in which similar surveys are being implemented in developing countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

The 1987 NICPS was specifically designed to meet the following objectives: - To provide data on the family planning and fertility behavior of the Indonesian population necessary for program organizers and policymakers in evaluating and enhancing the national family planning program, and - To measure changes in fertility and contraceptive prevalence rates and at the same time study factors which affect the change, such as marriage patterns, urban/rural residence, education, breastfeeding habits, and availability of contraception.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

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

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

The 1987 NICPS sample was drawn from the annual National Socioeconomic Survey (popularly called SUSENAS) which was conducted in January and February 1987. Each year the SUSENAS consists of one set of core questions and several modules which are rotated every three years. The 1987 SUSENAS main modules covered household income, expenditure, and consumption. In addition, in collaboration with the Ministry of Health, information pertaining to children under 5 years of age was collected, including food supplement patterns, and measurement of height, weight, and arm circumference. In this module, information on prenatal care, type of birth attendant, and immunization was also asked.

This national survey covered over 60,000 households which were scattered in almost all of the districts. The data were collected by the "Mantri Statistik", a CBS officer in charge of data collection at the sub-district level. All households covered in the selected census blocks were listed on the SSN 87-LI form. This form was then used in selecting samples for each of the modules included in the SUSENAS. This particular form was also used to select the sample households in the 1987 NICPS.

Sample selection in the 1987 SUSENAS utilized a multistage sampling procedure. The first stage consisted of selecting a number of census blocks with probability proportional to the number of households in the block. Census blocks are statistical areas formed before the 1980 Population Census and contain approximately 100 households. At the second stage, households were selected systematically from each sampled census block.

Selection of the 1987 NICPS sample was also done in two stages. The first stage was to select census blocks from the those selected in the 1987 SUSENAS. At the second stage a number of households was selected systematically from the selected census block.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The household questionnaire was used to record all members of the selected households who usually live in the household. The questionnaire was utilized to identify the eligible respondents in the household, and to provide the numerator for the computation of demographic measurements such as fertility and contraceptive use rates.

The individual questionnaire was used for all ever-married women aged 15-49, and consisted of the following eight sections:

Section 1 Respondent's Background

This part collected information related to the respondent and the household, such as current and past mobility, age, education, literacy, religion, and media exposure. Information related to the household includes source of water for drinking, for bathing and washing, type of toilet, ownership of durable goods, and type of floor.

Section 2 Reproduction

This part gathered information on all children ever born, sex of the child, month and year of birth, survival status of the child, age when the child died, and whether the child lived with the respondent. Using the information collected in this section, one can compute measures of fertility and mortality, especially infant and child mortality rates. With the birth history data collected in this section, it is possible to calculate trends in fertility over time. This section also included a question about whether the respondent was pregnant at the time of interview, and her knowledge regarding women's fertile period in the monthly menstrual cycle.

Section 3 Knowledge and Practice of Family Planning

This section is one of the most important parts of the 1987 NICPS survey. Here the respondent was asked whether she had ever heard of or used any of the family planning methods listed. If the respondent had used a contraceptive method, she was asked detailed questions about the method. For women who gave birth to a child since January 1982, questions on family planning methods used in the intervals between births were also asked. The section also included questions on source of methods, quality of use, reasons for nonuse, and intentions for future use. These data are expected to answer questions on the effectiveness of family planning use. Finally, the section also included questions about whether the respondent had been visited by a family planning field worker, which community-level people she felt were most appropriate to give family planning information, and whether she had ever heard of the condom, DuaLima, the brand being promoted by a social marketing program.

Section 4 Breastfeeding

The objective of this part was to collect information on maternal and child health, primarily that concerning place of birth, type of assistance at birth, breastfeeding practices, and supplementary food. Information was collected for children born since January 1982.

Section 5 Marriage

This section gathered information regarding the respondent's age at first marriage, number of times married, and whether the respondent and her husband ever lived with any of their parents. Several questions in this section were related to the frequency of sexual intercourse to determine the respondent's risk of pregnancy. Not all of the data collected in this section are presented in this report; some require more extensive analysis than is feasible at this stage.

Section 6 Fertility Preferences

Intentions about having another child, preferred birth interval, and ideal number of children were covered in this section.

Section 7 Husband's Background and Respondent's Work

Education, literacy and occupation of the respondent's husband made up this section of the questionnaire. It also collected information on the respondent's work pattern before and after marriage, and whether she was working at the time of interview.

Section 8 Interview Particulars

This section was used to record the language used in the interview and information about whether the interviewer was assisted by an interpreter. The individual questionnaire also included information regarding the duration of interview and presence of other persons at particular points during the interview. In addition to the questionnaires, two manuals were developed. The manual for interviewers contained explanations of how to conduct an interview, how to carry out the field activity, and how to fill out the questionnaires. Since information regarding age was vital in this survey, a table to convert months from Javanese, Sundanese and Islamic calendar systems to the Gregorian calendar was attached to the 1987 NICPS manual for the interviewers.

Response rate

The NICPS covered a sample of nearly 15,000 households to interview 11,884 respondents. Respondents for the individual interview were ever-married women aged 15-49. During the data collection, 14,141 out of the 14,227 existing households and 11,884 out of 12,065 eligible women were successfully interviewed. In general, few problems were encountered during interviewing, and the response rate was high--99 percent for households and 99 percent for individual respondents.

Note: See APPENDIX A in the report for more information.

Sampling error estimates

The results from sample surveys are affected by two types of errors: (1) non-sampling error and (2) sampling error. Non-sampling error is due to mistakes made in carrying out field activities, such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, errors in the way questions are asked, misunderstanding of the questions on the part of either the interviewer or the respondent, data entry errors, etc. Although efforts were made during the design and