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 2017-18 Albania Demographic and Health Survey (2017-18 ADHS) is a nationwide survey with a nationally representative sample of approximately 17,160 households. All women age 15-49 who are usual residents of the selected households or who slept in the households the night before the survey were eligible for the survey. Women 50-59 years old were interviewed with an abbreviated questionnaire that only covered background characteristics and questions related to noncommunicable diseases.

The primary objective of the 2017-2018 ADHS was to provide estimates of basic sociodemographic and health indicators for the country as a whole and the twelve prefectures. Specifically, the survey collected information on basic characteristics of the respondents, fertility, family planning, nutrition, maternal and child health, knowledge of HIV behaviors, health-related lifestyle, and noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). The information collected in the ADHS will assist policymakers and program managers in evaluating and designing programs and in developing strategies for improving the health of the country’s population.

The sample for the 2017-18 ADHS was designed to produce representative results for the country as a whole, for urban and rural areas separately, and for each of the twelve prefectures known as Berat, Diber, Durres, Elbasan, Fier, Gjirokaster, Korce, Kukes, Lezhe, Shkoder, Tirana, and Vlore.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

• Household
• Individual
• Children age 0-5
• Woman age 15-49
• Man age 15-59

Universe

The survey covered all de jure household members (usual residents), children age 0-4 years, women age 15-49 years and men age 15-59 years resident in the household.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The ADHS surveys were done on a nationally representative sample that was representative at the prefecture level as well by rural and urban areas. A total of 715 enumeration areas (EAs) were selected as sample clusters, with probability proportional to each prefecture's population size. The sample design called for 24 households to be randomly selected in every sampling cluster, regardless of its size, but some of the EAs contained fewer than 24 households. In these EAs, all households were included in the survey. The EAs are considered the sample's primary sampling unit (PSU). The team of interviewers updated and listed the households in the selected EAs. Upon arriving in the selected clusters, interviewers spent the first day of fieldwork carrying out an exhaustive enumeration of households, recording the name of each head of household and the location of the dwelling. The listing was done with tablet PCs, using a digital listing application. When interviewers completed their respective sections of the EA, they transferred their files into the supervisor's tablet PC, where the information was automatically compiled into a single file in which all households in the EA were entered. The software and field procedures were designed to ensure there were no duplications or omissions during the household listing process. The supervisor used the software in his tablet to randomly select 24 households for the survey from the complete list of households.

All women age 15-49 who were usual residents of the selected households or who slept in the households the night before the survey were eligible for individual interviews with the full Woman's Questionnaire. Women age 50-59 were also interviewed, but with an abbreviated questionnaire that left out all questions related to reproductive health and mother and child health. A 50% subsample was selected for the survey of men. Every man age 15-59 who was a usual resident of or had slept in the household the night before the survey was eligible for an individual interview in these households.

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

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

Four questionnaires were used in the ADHS, one for the household and others for women age 15-49, for women age 50-59, and for men age 15-59. In addition to these four questionnaires, a form was used to record the vaccination information for children born in the 5 years preceding the survey whose mothers had been successfully interviewed.

Cleaning operations

Supervisors sent the accumulated fieldwork data to INSTAT’s central office via internet every day, unless for some reason the teams did not have access to the internet at the time. The data received from the various teams were combined into a single file, which was used to produce quality control tables, known as field check tables. These tables reveal systematic errors in the data such as omission of potential respondents, age displacement, inaccurate recording of date of birth and age at death, inaccurate measurement of height and weight, and other key indicators of data quality. These tables were reviewed and evaluated by ADHS senior staff, which in turn provided feedback and advice to the teams in the field.

Response rate

A total of 16,955 households were selected for the sample, of which 16,634 were occupied. Of the occupied households, 15,823 were successfully interviewed, which represents a response rate of 95%. In the interviewed households, 11,680 women age 15-49 were identified for individual interviews. Interviews were completed for 10,860 of these women, yielding a response rate of 93%. In the same households, 4,289 women age 50-59 were identified, of which 4,140 were successfully interviewed, yielding a 97% response rate. In the 50% subsample of households selected for the male survey, 7,103 eligible men age 15-59 were identified, of which 6,142 were successfully interviewed, yielding a response rate of 87%.

Response rates were higher in rural than in urban areas, which is a pattern commonly found in household surveys because in urban areas more people work and carry out activities outside the home.

Sampling error estimates

The estimates from a sample survey are affected by two types of errors: nonsampling errors and sampling errors. Nonsampling 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 2017-18 Albania Demographic and Health Survey (ADHS) 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 2017-18 ADHS 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 among all possible samples. Although the degree of variability is not known exactly, it can be estimated from the survey results.

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 2017-18 ADHS sample is the result of a multi-stage 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 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

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

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 Jordan Population and Family Health Survey (JPFHS) 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 primary objective of the 2012 Jordan Population and Family Health Survey (JPFHS) is to provide reliable estimates of demographic parameters, such as fertility, mortality, family planning, and fertility preferences, as well as maternal and child health and nutrition, that can be used by program managers and policymakers to evaluate and improve existing programs. The JPFHS data will be useful to researchers and scholars interested in analyzing demographic trends in Jordan, as well as those conducting comparative, regional, or cross-national studies.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

• Household
• Women age 15-49

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Sample Design The 2012 JPFHS sample was designed to produce reliable estimates of major survey variables for the country as a whole, urban and rural areas, each of the 12 governorates, and for the two special domains: the Badia areas and people living in refugee camps. To facilitate comparisons with previous surveys, the sample was also designed to produce estimates for the three regions (North, Central, and South). The grouping of the governorates into regions is as follows: the North consists of Irbid, Jarash, Ajloun, and Mafraq governorates; the Central region consists of Amman, Madaba, Balqa, and Zarqa governorates; and the South region consists of Karak, Tafiela, Ma'an, and Aqaba governorates.

The 2012 JPFHS sample was selected from the 2004 Jordan Population and Housing Census sampling frame. The frame excludes the population living in remote areas (most of whom are nomads), as well as those living in collective housing units such as hotels, hospitals, work camps, prisons, and the like. For the 2004 census, the country was subdivided into convenient area units called census blocks. For the purposes of the household surveys, the census blocks were regrouped to form a general statistical unit of moderate size (30 households or more), called a "cluster", which is widely used in surveys as a primary sampling unit (PSU).

Stratification was achieved by first separating each governorate into urban and rural areas and then, within each urban and rural area, by Badia areas, refugee camps, and other. A two-stage sampling procedure was employed. In the first stage, 806 clusters were selected with probability proportional to the cluster size, that is, the number of residential households counted in the 2004 census. A household listing operation was then carried out in all of the selected clusters, and the resulting lists of households served as the sampling frame for the selection of households in the second stage. In the second stage of selection, a fixed number of 20 households was selected in each cluster with an equal probability systematic selection. A subsample of two-thirds of the selected households was identified for anthropometry measurements.

Refer to Appendix A in the final report (Jordan Population and Family Health Survey 2012) for details of sampling weights calculation.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The 2012 JPFHS used two questionnaires, namely the Household Questionnaire and the Woman’s Questionnaire (see Appendix D). The Household Questionnaire was used to list all usual members of the sampled households, and visitors who slept in the household the night before the interview, and to obtain information on each household member’s age, sex, educational attainment, relationship to the head of the household, and marital status. In addition, questions were included on the socioeconomic characteristics of the household, such as source of water, sanitation facilities, and the availability of durable goods. Moreover, the questionnaire included questions about child discipline. The Household Questionnaire was also used to identify women who were eligible for the individual interview (ever-married women age 15-49 years). In addition, all women age 15-49 and children under age 5 living in the subsample of households were eligible for height and weight measurement and anemia testing.

The Woman’s Questionnaire was administered to ever-married women age 15-49 and collected information on the following topics: • Respondent’s background characteristics • Birth history • Knowledge, attitudes, and practice of family planning and exposure to family planning messages • Maternal health (antenatal, delivery, and postnatal care) • Immunization and health of children under age 5 • Breastfeeding and infant feeding practices • Marriage and husband’s background characteristics • Fertility preferences • Respondent’s employment • Knowledge of AIDS and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) • Other health issues specific to women • Early childhood development • Domestic violence

In addition, information on births, pregnancies, and contraceptive use and discontinuation during the five years prior to the survey was collected using a monthly calendar.

The Household and Woman’s Questionnaires were based on the model questionnaires developed by the MEASURE DHS program. Additions and modifications to the model questionnaires were made in order to provide detailed information specific to Jordan. The questionnaires were then translated into Arabic.

Anthropometric data were collected during the 2012 JPFHS in a subsample of two-thirds of the selected households in each cluster. All women age 15-49 and children age 0-4 in these households were measured for height using Shorr height boards and for weight using electronic Seca scales. In addition, a drop of capillary blood was taken from these women and children in the field to measure their hemoglobin level using the HemoCue system. Hemoglobin testing was used to estimate the prevalence of anemia.

Cleaning operations

Fieldwork and data processing activities overlapped. Data processing began two weeks after the start of the fieldwork. After field editing of questionnaires for completeness and consistency, the questionnaires for each cluster were packaged together and sent to the central office in Amman, where they were registered and stored. Special teams were formed to carry out office editing and coding of the openended questions.

Data entry and verification started after two weeks of office data processing. The process of data entry, including 100 percent reentry, editing, and cleaning, was done by using PCs and the CSPro (Census and Survey Processing) computer package, developed specially for such surveys. The CSPro program allows data to be edited while being entered. Data processing operations were completed by early January 2013. A data processing specialist from ICF International made a trip to Jordan in February 2013 to follow up on data editing and cleaning and to work on the tabulation of results for the survey preliminary report, which was published in March 2013. The tabulations for this report were completed in April 2013.

Response rate

In all, 16,120 households were selected for the survey and, of these, 15,722 were found to be occupied households. Of these households, 15,190 (97 percent) were successfully interviewed.

In the households interviewed, 11,673 ever-married women age 15-49 were identified and interviews were completed with 11,352 women, or 97 percent of all eligible women.

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 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 2012 Jordan Population and Family Health Survey (JPFHS) 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 2012 JPFHS 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 error is 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 2012 JPFHS sample is the result of a multistage stratified design, and, consequently, it was necessary to use more complex formulae. The computer

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

This data collection is comprised of responses from the March and April installments of the 2008 Current Population Survey (CPS). Both the March and April surveys used two sets of questions, the basic CPS and a separate supplement for each month.The CPS, administered monthly, is a labor force survey providing current estimates of the economic status and activities of the population of the United States. Specifically, the CPS provides estimates of total employment (both farm and nonfarm), nonfarm self-employed persons, domestics, and unpaid helpers in nonfarm family enterprises, wage and salaried employees, and estimates of total unemployment.In addition to the basic CPS questions, respondents were asked questions from the March supplement, known as the Annual Social and Economic (ASEC) supplement. The ASEC provides supplemental data on work experience, income, noncash benefits, and migration. Comprehensive work experience information was given on the employment status, occupation, and industry of persons 15 years old and older. Additional data for persons 15 years old and older are available concerning weeks worked and hours per week worked, reason not working full time, total income and income components, and place of residence on March 1, 2007. The March supplement also contains data covering nine noncash income sources: food stamps, school lunch program, employer-provided group health insurance plan, employer-provided pension plan, personal health insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, CHAMPUS or military health care, and energy assistance. Questions covering training and assistance received under welfare reform programs, such as job readiness training, child care services, or job skill training were also asked in the March supplement.The April supplement, sponsored by the Department of Health and Human Services, queried respondents on the economic situation of persons and families for the previous year. Moreover, all household members 15 years of age and older that are a biological parent of children in the household that have an absent parent were asked detailed questions about child support and alimony. Information regarding child support was collected to determine the size and distribution of the population with children affected by divorce or separation, or other relationship status change. Moreover, the data were collected to better understand the characteristics of persons requiring child support, and to help develop and maintain programs designed to assist in obtaining child support. These data highlight alimony and child support arrangements made at the time of separation or divorce, amount of payments actually received, and value and type of any property settlement.The April supplement data were matched to March supplement data for households that were in the sample in both March and April 2008. In March 2008, there were 4,522 household members eligible, of which 1,431 required imputation of child support data. When matching the March 2008 and April 2008 data sets, there were 170 eligible people on the March file that did not match to people on the April file. Child support data for these 170 people were imputed. The remaining 1,261 imputed cases were due to nonresponse to the child support questions. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, Hispanic origin, marital status, veteran status, educational attainment, occupation, and income. Data on employment and income refer to the preceding year, although other demographic data refer to the time at which the survey was administered.

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.

Participants could select multiple demographic groups for questions asking which country they grew up in, which country they reside in, their gender identity, sexual orientation, race and ethnicity, field of study, and professional affiliation. Because participants could select more than 1 response for each of these questions, totals for some demographic questions sum to more than 100%. Sample sizes vary by demographic because not all participants responded to each demographic question. Please refer to the Methods section for more information about how participant demographic data were analyzed.

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 2005-2006 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, 2005-2006 (The base of the Demographic dataset + all data from medical examinations).

2. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), Demographic & Laboratory Data, 2005-2006 (The base of the Demographic dataset + all data from medical laboratories).

3. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), Demographic & Questionnaire Data, 2005-2006 (The base of the Demographic dataset + all data from questionnaires)

Not all files from the 2005-2006 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.html" Target="_blank">NHANES website at the CDC:

Examination: Dietary Interview (Individual Foods -- First Day)
Examination: Dietary Interview (Individual Foods -- Second Day)
Examination: Food Frequency Questionnaire -- DietCalc Output
Examination: Physical Activity Monitor
Questionnaire: Dietary Supplement Use -- Ingredient Information
Questionnaire: Dietary Supplement Use -- Supplement Blend
Questionnaire: Dietary Supplement Use -- Supplement Information
Questionnaire: Dietary Supplement Use -- 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.html" Target="_blank">NHANES website.

This documentation includes the instruction pages presented to annotators, along with the demographic questionnaire and a sample annotation page (1 of 80) from our annotation task interface.

analyze the current population survey (cps) annual social and economic supplement (asec) with r the annual march cps-asec has been supplying the statistics for the census bureau's report on income, poverty, and health insurance coverage since 1948. wow. the us census bureau and the bureau of labor statistics ( bls) tag-team on this one. until the american community survey (acs) hit the scene in the early aughts (2000s), the current population survey had the largest sample size of all the annual general demographic data sets outside of the decennial census - about two hundred thousand respondents. this provides enough sample to conduct state- and a few large metro area-level analyses. your sample size will vanish if you start investigating subgroups b y state - consider pooling multiple years. county-level is a no-no. despite the american community survey's larger size, the cps-asec contains many more variables related to employment, sources of income, and insurance - and can be trended back to harry truman's presidency. aside from questions specifically asked about an annual experience (like income), many of the questions in this march data set should be t reated as point-in-time statistics. cps-asec generalizes to the united states non-institutional, non-active duty military population. the national bureau of economic research (nber) provides sas, spss, and stata importation scripts to create a rectangular file (rectangular data means only person-level records; household- and family-level information gets attached to each person). to import these files into r, the parse.SAScii function uses nber's sas code to determine how to import the fixed-width file, then RSQLite to put everything into a schnazzy database. you can try reading through the nber march 2012 sas importation code yourself, but it's a bit of a proc freak show. this new github repository contains three scripts: 2005-2012 asec - download all microdata.R down load the fixed-width file containing household, family, and person records import by separating this file into three tables, then merge 'em together at the person-level download the fixed-width file containing the person-level replicate weights merge the rectangular person-level file with the replicate weights, then store it in a sql database create a new variable - one - in the data table 2012 asec - analysis examples.R connect to the sql database created by the 'download all microdata' progr am create the complex sample survey object, using the replicate weights perform a boatload of analysis examples replicate census estimates - 2011.R connect to the sql database created by the 'download all microdata' program create the complex sample survey object, using the replicate weights match the sas output shown in the png file below 2011 asec replicate weight sas output.png statistic and standard error generated from the replicate-weighted example sas script contained in this census-provided person replicate weights usage instructions document. click here to view these three scripts for more detail about the current population survey - annual social and economic supplement (cps-asec), visit: the census bureau's current population survey page the bureau of labor statistics' current population survey page the current population survey's wikipedia article notes: interviews are conducted in march about experiences during the previous year. the file labeled 2012 includes information (income, work experience, health insurance) pertaining to 2011. when you use the current populat ion survey to talk about america, subract a year from the data file name. as of the 2010 file (the interview focusing on america during 2009), the cps-asec contains exciting new medical out-of-pocket spending variables most useful for supplemental (medical spending-adjusted) poverty research. confidential to sas, spss, stata, sudaan users: why are you still rubbing two sticks together after we've invented the butane lighter? time to transition to r. :D

Abstract

The Gallup Poll Social Series (GPSS) is a set of public opinion surveys designed to monitor U.S. adults' views on numerous social, economic, and political topics. The topics are arranged thematically across 12 surveys. Gallup administers these surveys during the same month every year and includes the survey's core trend questions in the same order each administration. Using this consistent standard allows for unprecedented analysis of changes in trend data that are not susceptible to question order bias and seasonal effects.

Introduced in 2001, the GPSS is the primary method Gallup uses to update several hundred long-term Gallup trend questions, some dating back to the 1930s. The series also includes many newer questions added to address contemporary issues as they emerge.

The dataset currently includes responses from up to and including 2025.

Methodology

Gallup conducts one GPSS survey per month, with each devoted to a different topic, as follows:

January: Mood of the Nation

February: World Affairs

March: Environment

April: Economy and Finance

May: Values and Beliefs

June: Minority Rights and Relations (discontinued after 2016)

July: Consumption Habits

August: Work and Education

September: Governance

October: Crime

November: Health

December: Lifestyle (conducted 2001-2008)

The core questions of the surveys differ each month, but several questions assessing the state of the nation are standard on all 12: presidential job approval, congressional job approval, satisfaction with the direction of the U.S., assessment of the U.S. job market, and an open-ended measurement of the nation's "most important problem." Additionally, Gallup includes extensive demographic questions on each survey, allowing for in-depth analysis of trends.

Interviews are conducted with U.S. adults aged 18 and older living in all 50 states and the District of Columbia using a dual-frame design, which includes both landline and cellphone numbers. Gallup samples landline and cellphone numbers using random-digit-dial methods. Gallup purchases samples for this study from Dynata. Gallup chooses landline respondents at random within each household based on which member had the next birthday. As of June 2023, each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 80% cellphone respondents and 20% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. Gallup conducts interviews in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking.

Gallup interviews a minimum of 1,000 U.S. adults aged 18 and older for each GPSS survey. Samples for the June Minority Rights and Relations survey (conducted periodically between 2001 and 2021) were significantly larger because Gallup oversampled Black and Hispanic adults to allow for reliable estimates among these key subgroups.

Gallup weights samples to correct for unequal selection probability, nonresponse, and double coverage of landline and cellphone users in the two sampling frames. Gallup also weights its final samples to match the U.S. population according to gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, population density, and phone status (cellphone only, landline only, both, and cellphone mostly).

Demographic weighting targets are based on the most recent Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older U.S. population. Phone status targets are based on the most recent National Health Interview Survey. Population density targets are based on the most recent U.S. Census.

Usage

The year appended to each table name represents when the data was last updated. For example, January: Mood of the Nation - 2025** **has survey data collected up to and including 2025.

For more information about what survey questions were asked over time, see the Supporting Files.

Bulk Data Access

Data access is required to view this section.

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.

Abstract

The primary objective of the 2012 Indonesia Demographic and Health Survey (IDHS) is to provide policymakers and program managers with national- and provincial-level data on representative samples of all women age 15-49 and currently-married men age 15-54.

The 2012 IDHS was specifically designed to meet the following objectives: • Provide data on fertility, family planning, maternal and child health, adult mortality (including maternal mortality), and awareness of AIDS/STIs to program managers, policymakers, and researchers to help them evaluate and improve existing programs; • Measure trends in fertility and contraceptive prevalence rates, and analyze factors that affect such changes, such as marital status and patterns, residence, education, breastfeeding habits, and knowledge, use, and availability of contraception; • Evaluate the achievement of goals previously set by national health programs, with special focus on maternal and child health; • Assess married men’s knowledge of utilization of health services for their family’s health, as well as participation in the health care of their families; • Participate in creating an international database that allows cross-country comparisons that can be used by the program managers, policymakers, and researchers in the areas of family planning, fertility, and health in general

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

• Household
• Women age 15-49
• Ever married men age 15-54
• Never married men age 15-24

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Indonesia is divided into 33 provinces. Each province is subdivided into districts (regency in areas mostly rural and municipality in urban areas). Districts are subdivided into subdistricts, and each subdistrict is divided into villages. The entire village is classified as urban or rural.

The 2012 IDHS sample is aimed at providing reliable estimates of key characteristics for women age 15-49 and currently-married men age 15-54 in Indonesia as a whole, in urban and rural areas, and in each of the 33 provinces included in the survey. To achieve this objective, a total of 1,840 census blocks (CBs)-874 in urban areas and 966 in rural areas-were selected from the list of CBs in the selected primary sampling units formed during the 2010 population census.

Because the sample was designed to provide reliable indicators for each province, the number of CBs in each province was not allocated in proportion to the population of the province or its urban-rural classification. Therefore, a final weighing adjustment procedure was done to obtain estimates for all domains. A minimum of 43 CBs per province was imposed in the 2012 IDHS design.

Refer to Appendix B in the final report for details of sample design and implementation.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The 2012 IDHS used four questionnaires: the Household Questionnaire, the Woman’s Questionnaire, the Currently Married Man’s Questionnaire, and the Never-Married Man’s Questionnaire. Because of the change in survey coverage from ever-married women age 15-49 in the 2007 IDHS to all women age 15-49 in the 2012 IDHS, the Woman’s Questionnaire now has questions for never-married women age 15-24. These questions were part of the 2007 Indonesia Young Adult Reproductive Survey questionnaire.

The Household and Woman’s Questionnaires are largely based on standard DHS phase VI questionnaires (March 2011 version). The model questionnaires were adapted for use in Indonesia. Not all questions in the DHS model were adopted in the IDHS. In addition, the response categories were modified to reflect the local situation.

The Household Questionnaire was used to list all the usual members and visitors who spent the previous night in the selected households. Basic information collected on each person listed includes age, sex, education, marital status, education, and relationship to the head of the household. Information on characteristics of the housing unit, such as the source of drinking water, type of toilet facilities, construction materials used for the floor, roof, and outer walls of the house, and ownership of various durable goods were also recorded in the Household Questionnaire. These items reflect the household’s socioeconomic status and are used to calculate the household wealth index. The main purpose of the Household Questionnaire was to identify women and men who were eligible for an individual interview.

The Woman’s Questionnaire was used to collect information from all women age 15-49. These women were asked questions on the following topics: • Background characteristics (marital status, education, media exposure, etc.) • Reproductive history and fertility preferences • Knowledge and use of family planning methods • Antenatal, delivery, and postnatal care • Breastfeeding and infant and young children feeding practices • Childhood mortality • Vaccinations and childhood illnesses • Marriage and sexual activity • Fertility preferences • Woman’s work and husband’s background characteristics • Awareness and behavior regarding HIV-AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) • Sibling mortality, including maternal mortality • Other health issues

Questions asked to never-married women age 15-24 addressed the following: • Additional background characteristics • Knowledge of the human reproduction system • Attitudes toward marriage and children • Role of family, school, the community, and exposure to mass media • Use of tobacco, alcohol, and drugs • Dating and sexual activity

The Man’s Questionnaire was administered to all currently married men age 15-54 living in every third household in the 2012 IDHS sample. This questionnaire includes much of the same information included in the Woman’s Questionnaire, but is shorter because it did not contain questions on reproductive history or maternal and child health. Instead, men were asked about their knowledge of and participation in health-careseeking practices for their children.

The questionnaire for never-married men age 15-24 includes the same questions asked to nevermarried women age 15-24.

Cleaning operations

All completed questionnaires, along with the control forms, were returned to the BPS central office in Jakarta for data processing. The questionnaires were logged and edited, and all open-ended questions were coded. Responses were entered in the computer twice for verification, and they were corrected for computeridentified errors. Data processing activities were carried out by a team of 58 data entry operators, 42 data editors, 14 secondary data editors, and 14 data entry supervisors. A computer package program called Census and Survey Processing System (CSPro), which was specifically designed to process DHS-type survey data, was used in the processing of the 2012 IDHS.

Response rate

The response rates for both the household and individual interviews in the 2012 IDHS are high. A total of 46,024 households were selected in the sample, of which 44,302 were occupied. Of these households, 43,852 were successfully interviewed, yielding a household response rate of 99 percent.

Refer to Table 1.2 in the final report for more detailed summarized results of the of the 2012 IDHS fieldwork for both the household and individual interviews, by urban-rural residence.

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 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 2012 Indonesia Demographic and Health Survey (2012 IDHS) 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 2012 IDHS 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 error is 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 2012 IDHS sample is the result of a multi-stage stratified design, and, consequently, it was necessary to use more complex formulae. The computer software used to calculate sampling errors for the 2012 IDHS is a SAS program. This program used the Taylor linearization method

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

Abstract

The principal objective of the Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) is to provide current and reliable data on fertility and family planning behavior, child mortality, children’s nutritional status, the utilization of maternal and child health services, and knowledge of HIV/AIDS. This information is essential for informed policy decisions, planning, monitoring, and evaluation of programs on health in general and reproductive health in particular at both the national and regional levels. A long-term objective of the survey is to strengthen the technical capacity of the Central Statistical Authority to plan, conduct, process, and analyze data from complex national population and health surveys. Moreover, the 2000 Ethiopia DHS is the first survey of its kind in the country to provide national and regional estimates on population and health that are comparable to data collected in similar surveys in other developing countries. As part of the worldwide DHS project, the Ethiopia DHS data add to the vast and growing international database on demographic and health variables. The Ethiopia DHS collected demographic and health information from a nationally representative sample of women and men in the reproductive age groups 15-49 and 15-59, respectively.

The Ethiopia DHS was carried out under the aegis of the Ministry of Health and was implemented by the Central Statistical Authority. ORC Macro provided technical assistance through its MEASURE DHS+ project. The survey was principally funded by the Essential Services for Health in Ethiopia (ESHE) project through a bilateral agreement between the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Funding was also provided by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).

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 Ethiopia DHS used the sampling frame provided by the list of census enumeration areas (EAs) with population and household information from the 1994 Population and Housing Census. A proportional sample allocation was discarded because this procedure yielded a distribution in which 80 percent of the sample came from three regions, 16 percent from four regions and 4 percent from five regions. To avoid such an uneven sample allocation among regions, it was decided that the sample should be allocated by region in proportion to the square root of the region's population size. Additional adjustments were made to ensure that the sample size for each region included at least 700 households, in order to yield estimates with reasonable statistical precision.

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

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

The Ethiopia DHS used three questionnaires: the Household Questionnaire, the Women’s Questionnaire, and the Men’s Questionnaire, which were based on model survey instruments developed for the international MEASURE DHS+ project. The questionnaires were specifically geared toward obtaining the kind of information needed by health and family planning program managers and policymakers. The model questionnaires were then adapted to local conditions and a number of additional questions specific to on-going health and family planning programs in Ethiopia were added. These questionnaires were developed in the English language and translated into the five principal languages in use in the country: Amarigna, Oromigna, Tigrigna, Somaligna, and Afarigna. They were then independently translated back to English and appropriate changes were made in the translation of questions in which the back-translated version did not compare well with the original English version. A pretest of all three questionnaires was conducted in the five local languages in November 1999.

All usual members in a selected household and visitors who stayed there the previous night were enumerated using the Household Questionnaire. Specifically, the Household Questionnaire obtained information on the relationship to the head of the household, residence, sex, age, marital status, parental survivorship, and education of each usual resident or visitor. This information was used to identify women and men who were eligible for the individual interview. Women age 15-49 in all selected households and all men age 15-59 in every fifth selected household, whether usual residents or visitors, were deemed eligible, and were interviewed. The Household Questionnaire also obtained information on some basic socioeconomic indicators such as the number of rooms, the flooring material, the source of water, the type of toilet facilities, and the ownership of a variety of durable items. Information was also obtained on the use of impregnated bednets, and the salt used in each household was tested for its iodine content. All eligible women and all children born since Meskerem 1987 in the Ethiopian Calendar, which roughly corresponds to September 1994 in the Gregorian Calendar, were weighed and measured.

The Women’s Questionnaire collected information on female respondent’s background characteristics, reproductive history, contraceptive knowledge and use, antenatal, delivery and postnatal care, infant feeding practices, child immunization and health, marriage, fertility preferences, and attitudes about family planning, husband’s background characteristics and women’s work, knowledge of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

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

Response rate

A total of 14,642 households were selected for the Ethiopia DHS, of which 14,167 were found to be occupied. Household interviews were completed for 99 percent of the occupied households. A total of 15,716 eligible women from these households and 2,771 eligible men from every fifth household were identified for the individual interviews. The response rate for eligible women is slightly higher than for eligible men (98 percent compared with 94 percent, respectively). Interviews were successfully completed for 15,367 women and 2,607 men.

There is no difference by urban-rural residence in the overall response rate for eligible women; however, rural men are slightly more likely than urban men to have completed an interview (94 percent and 92 percent, respectively). The overall response rate among women by region is relatively high and ranges from 93 percent in the Affar Region to 99 percent in the Oromiya Region. The response rate among men ranges from 83 percent in the Affar Region to 98 percent in the Tigray and Benishangul-Gumuz regions.

Note: See summarized response rates by place of residence in Table A.1.1 and Table A.1.2 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 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 Ethiopia DHS to minimise 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 Ethiopia DHS 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 Ethiopia DHS 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 Ethiopia DHS is the ISSA Sampling Error Module (SAMPERR). This module used the Taylor linearisation 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.

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

Data appraisal

Data Quality Tables - Household age

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 2013 Turkey Demographic and Health Survey (TDHS-2013) is a nationally representative sample survey. The primary objective of the TDHS-2013 is to provide data on socioeconomic characteristics of households and women between ages 15-49, fertility, childhood mortality, marriage patterns, family planning, maternal and child health, nutritional status of women and children, and reproductive health. The survey obtained detailed information on these issues from a sample of women of reproductive age (15-49). The TDHS-2013 was designed to produce information in the field of demography and health that to a large extent cannot be obtained from other sources.

Specifically, the objectives of the TDHS-2013 included: - Collecting data at the national level that allows the calculation of some demographic and health indicators, particularly fertility rates and childhood mortality rates, - Obtaining information on direct and indirect factors that determine levels and trends in fertility and childhood mortality, - Measuring the level of contraceptive knowledge and practice by contraceptive method and some background characteristics, i.e., region and urban-rural residence, - Collecting data relative to maternal and child health, including immunizations, antenatal care, and postnatal care, assistance at delivery, and breastfeeding, - Measuring the nutritional status of children under five and women in the reproductive ages, - Collecting data on reproductive-age women about marriage, employment status, and social status

The TDHS-2013 information is intended to provide data to assist policy makers and administrators to evaluate existing programs and to design new strategies for improving demographic, social and health policies in Turkey. Another important purpose of the TDHS-2013 is to sustain the flow of information for the interested organizations in Turkey and abroad on the Turkish population structure in the absence of a reliable and sufficient vital registration system. Additionally, like the TDHS-2008, TDHS-2013 is accepted as a part of the Official Statistic Program.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

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

Universe

The survey covered all de jure household members (usual residents), children age 0-5 years and women age 15-49 years resident in the household.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The sample design and sample size for the TDHS-2013 makes it possible to perform analyses for Turkey as a whole, for urban and rural areas, and for the five demographic regions of the country (West, South, Central, North, and East). The TDHS-2013 sample is of sufficient size to allow for analysis on some of the survey topics at the level of the 12 geographical regions (NUTS 1) which were adopted at the second half of the year 2002 within the context of Turkey’s move to join the European Union.

In the selection of the TDHS-2013 sample, a weighted, multi-stage, stratified cluster sampling approach was used. Sample selection for the TDHS-2013 was undertaken in two stages. The first stage of selection included the selection of blocks as primary sampling units from each strata and this task was requested from the TURKSTAT. The frame for the block selection was prepared using information on the population sizes of settlements obtained from the 2012 Address Based Population Registration System. Settlements with a population of 10,000 and more were defined as “urban”, while settlements with populations less than 10,000 were considered “rural” for purposes of the TDHS-2013 sample design. Systematic selection was used for selecting the blocks; thus settlements were given selection probabilities proportional to their sizes. Therefore more blocks were sampled from larger settlements.

The second stage of sample selection involved the systematic selection of a fixed number of households from each block, after block lists were obtained from TURKSTAT and were updated through a field operation; namely the listing and mapping fieldwork. Twentyfive households were selected as a cluster from urban blocks, and 18 were selected as a cluster from rural blocks. The total number of households selected in TDHS-2013 is 14,490.

The total number of clusters in the TDHS-2013 was set at 642. Block level household lists, each including approximately 100 households, were provided by TURKSTAT, using the National Address Database prepared for municipalities. The block lists provided by TURKSTAT were updated during the listing and mapping activities.

All women at ages 15-49 who usually live in the selected households and/or were present in the household the night before the interview were regarded as eligible for the Women’s Questionnaire and were interviewed. All analysis in this report is based on de facto women.

Note: A more technical and detailed description of the TDHS-2013 sample design, selection and implementation is presented in Appendix B of the final report of the survey.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

Two main types of questionnaires were used to collect the TDHS-2013 data: the Household Questionnaire and the Individual Questionnaire for all women of reproductive age. The contents of these questionnaires were based on the DHS core questionnaire. 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 TDHS-2013 findings with previous demographic surveys carried out by the Hacettepe Institute of Population Studies. In the process of designing the TDHS-2013 questionnaires, national and international population and health agencies were consulted for their comments.

The questionnaires were developed in Turkish and translated into English.

Cleaning operations

TDHS-2013 questionnaires were returned to the Hacettepe University 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 selected households and eligible respondents were returned from the field. A total of 29 data entry staff were trained for data entry activities of the TDHS-2013. The data entry of the TDHS-2013 began in late September 2013 and was completed at the end of January 2014.

The data were entered and edited on microcomputers using the Census and Survey Processing System (CSPro) software. CSPro is designed to fulfill the census and survey data processing needs of data-producing organizations worldwide. CSPro is developed by MEASURE partners, the U.S. Bureau of the Census, ICF International’s DHS Program, and SerPro S.A. CSPro allows range, skip, and consistency errors to be detected and corrected at the data entry stage. During the data entry process, 100% verification was performed by entering each questionnaire twice using different data entry operators and comparing the entered data.

Response rate

In all, 14,490 households were selected for the TDHS-2013. At the time of the listing phase of the survey, 12,640 households were considered occupied and, thus, eligible for interview. Of the eligible households, 93 percent (11,794) households were successfully interviewed. The main reasons the field teams were unable to interview some households were because some dwelling units that had been listed were found to be vacant at the time of the interview or the household was away for an extended period.

In the interviewed 11,794 households, 10,840 women were identified as eligible for the individual interview, aged 15-49 and were present in the household on the night before the interview. Interviews were successfully completed with 9,746 of these women (90 percent). Among the eligible women not interviewed in the survey, the principal reason for nonresponse was the failure to find the women at home after repeated visits to the household.

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 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 TDHS-2013 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 TDHS-2013 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

Abstract

The Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS) is the first of this kind of study conducted in Bangladesh. It provides rapid feedback on key demographic and programmatic indicators to monitor the strength and weaknesses of the national family planning/MCH program. The wealth of information collected through the 1993-94 BDHS will be of immense value to the policymakers and program managers in order to strengthen future program policies and strategies.

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: - asses 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 BDHS was designed to: - provide data on the family planning and fertility behavior of the Bangladesh population to evaluate the national family planning programs, - measure changes in fertility and contraceptive prevalence and, at the same time, study the factors which affect these changes, such as marriage patterns, urban/rural residence, availability of contraception, breastfeeding patterns, and other socioeconomic factors, and - examine the basic indicators of maternal and child health in Bangladesh.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

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

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

Bangladesh is divided into five administrative divisions, 64 districts (zillas), and 489 thanas. In rural areas, thanas are divided into unions and then mauzas, an administrative land unit. Urban areas are divided into wards and then mahallas. The 1993-94 BDHS employed a nationally-representative, two-stage sample. It was selected from the Integrated Multi-Purpose Master Sample (IMPS), newly created by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. The IMPS is based on 1991 census data. Each of the five divisions was stratified into three groups: 1) statistical metropolitan areas (SMAs) 2) municipalities (other urban areas), and 3) rural areas. In 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 to make the BDHS selection equivalent to selection with probability proportional to size. A total of 304 primary sampling units were selected for the BDHS (30 in SMAs, 40 in municipalities, and 234 in rural areas), out of the 372 in the IMPS. Fieldwork in three sample points was not possible, so a total of 301 points were covered in the survey.

Since one objective of the BDHS is to provide separate survey estimates for each division as well as for urban and rural areas separately, it was necessary to increase the sampling rate for Barisal Division und 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.

After the selection of the BDHS sample points, field staffs were trained by Mitra and Associates and conducted a household listing operation in September and October 1993. A systematic sample of households was then selected from these lists, with an average "take" of 25 households in the urban clusters and 37 households in rural clusters. Every second household was identified as selected for the husband's survey, meaning that, in addition to interviewing all ever-married women age 10-49, interviewers also interviewed the husband of any woman who was successfully interviewed. It was expected that the sample would yield interviews with approximately 10,000 ever-married women age 10-49 and 4,200 of their husbands.

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

Sampling deviation

Data collected for women 10-49, indicators calculated for women 15-49. A total of 304 primary sampling units were selected, but fieldwork in 3 sample points was not possible.

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 Husbands' Questionnaire, and a Service Availability 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. Additions and modifications to the model questionnaires were made during a series of meetings with representatives of various organizations, including the Asia Foundation, the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, the Cambridge Consulting Corporation, the Family Planning Association of Bangladesh, GTZ, the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research (ICDDR,B), Pathfinder International, Population Communications Services, the Population Council, the Social Marketing Company, UNFPA, UNICEF, University Research Corporation/Bangladesh, and the World Bank. The questionnaires were developed in English and then translated into and printed in Bangla.

The Household Questionnaire was used to list all the usual members and visitors of 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 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 three, - Marriage, - Fertility preferences, and - Husband's background and respondent's work.

The Husbands' Questionnaire was used to interview the husbands of a subsample of women who were interviewed. The questionnaire included many of the same questions as the Women's Questionnaire, except that it omitted the detailed birth history, as well as the sections on maternal care, breastfeeding and child health.

The Service Availability Questionnaire was used to collect information on the family planning and health services available in and near the sampled areas. It consisted of a set of three questionnaires: one to collect data on characteristics of the community, one for interviewing family welfare visitors and one for interviewing family planning field workers, whether government or non-governent supported. One set of service availability questionnaires was to be completed in each cluster (sample point).

Cleaning operations

All questionnaires for the BDHS were returned to Dhaka for data processing at Mitra and Associates. The processing operation consisted of office editing, coding of open-ended questions, data entry, and editing inconsistencies found by the computer programs. One senior staff member, 1 data processing supervisor, questionnaire administrator, 2 office editors, and 5 data entry operators were responsible for the data processing operation. The data were processed on five microcomputers. The DHS data entry and editing programs were written in ISSA (Integrated System for Survey Analysis). Data processing commenced in early February and was completed by late April 1994.

Response rate

A total of 9,681 households were selected for the sample, of which 9,174 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 9,255 households that were occupied, 99 percent were successfully interviewed. In these households, 9,900 women were identified as eligible for the individual interview and interviews were completed for 9,640 or 97 percent of these. In one-half of the households that were selected for inclusion in the husbands' survey, 3,874 eligible husbands were identified, of which 3,284 or 85 percent were interviewed.

The principal reason for non-response among eligible women and men was failure to find them at home despite repeated visits to the household. The refusal rate was very low (less than one-tenth of one percent among women and husbands). Since the main reason for interviewing husbands was to match the information with that from their wives, survey procedures called for interviewers not to interview husbands of women who were not interviewed. Such cases account for about one-third of the non-response among husbands. Where husbands and wives were both interviewed, they were interviewed simultaneously but separately.

Note: See summarized response rates by residence (urban/rural) in Table 1.1 of the survey final report.

Sampling error estimates

The estimates from a sample survey are affected by two types of errors: non-sampling errors and 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