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.

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

Graph and download economic data for Real Median Personal Income in the United States (MEPAINUSA672N) from 1974 to 2023 about personal income, personal, median, income, real, and USA.

Abstract

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

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

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

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

Geographic coverage

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

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

Analysis unit

Households and individuals

Universe

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

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

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

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

SAMPLING GUIDELINES FOR WHS

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

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

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

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

STRATIFICATION

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

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

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

MULTI-STAGE CLUSTER SELECTION

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

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

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

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

Graph and download economic data for Mean Personal Income in the United States (MAPAINUSA646N) from 1974 to 2023 about average, personal income, personal, income, and USA.

Abstract

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

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

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

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

Geographic coverage

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

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

Analysis unit

Households and individuals

Universe

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

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

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

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

SAMPLING GUIDELINES FOR WHS

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

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

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

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

STRATIFICATION

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

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

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

MULTI-STAGE CLUSTER SELECTION

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

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

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

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

Abstract

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

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

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Household
• Women age 15-49

Universe

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

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

SAMPLE SIZE AND ALLOCATION

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

THE FRAME AND SAMPLE SELECTION

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

SAMPLE OUTCOME

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

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

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

a) Household questionnaire

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

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

b) Individual questionnaire

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

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

The figure shows the current religious adherence among Italians in 2014, by age. According to the survey, the percentage of the individuals who identified themselves as Catholics increased with age, from 68 percent to 81 percent among individuals over 55 years old.

This table contains data on the number and proportion of persons in the working population who participated in at least one work-related course and the number of persons in the working workforce who did not participate in work-related courses. Of the share of the employed labour force taking a work-related course, the number and proportion that at least one work-related course (partly) paid for by the employer is presented.

The population surveyed is the Dutch population aged 25 to 65. In 2013, figures from the regular, periodically recurring AES will be published for the first time. The frequency has not yet been definitively established at the time of publication of these tables (see 4. Sources and methods).

Data available for 2011

Status of the figures: The figures in this table are final.

Changes as of 23 October 2015: none, this table has been discontinued.

When will there be new figures? No longer applicable.

This table is followed by course participants; personal characteristics, 2011. See paragraph 3.

Abstract

The 2022 Ghana Demographic and Health Survey (2022 GDHS) is the seventh in the series of DHS surveys conducted by the Ghana Statistical Service (GSS) in collaboration with the Ministry of Health/Ghana Health Service (MoH/GHS) and other stakeholders, with funding from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and other partners.

The primary objective of the 2022 GDHS is to provide up-to-date estimates of basic demographic and health indicators. Specifically, the GDHS collected information on: - Fertility levels and preferences, contraceptive use, antenatal and delivery care, maternal and child health, childhood mortality, childhood immunisation, breastfeeding and young child feeding practices, women’s dietary diversity, violence against women, gender, nutritional status of adults and children, awareness regarding HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections, tobacco use, and other indicators relevant for the Sustainable Development Goals - Haemoglobin levels of women and children - Prevalence of malaria parasitaemia (rapid diagnostic testing and thick slides for malaria parasitaemia in the field and microscopy in the lab) among children age 6–59 months - Use of treated mosquito nets - Use of antimalarial drugs for treatment of fever among children under age 5

The information collected through the 2022 GDHS is intended to assist policymakers and programme managers in designing and evaluating programmes and strategies for improving the health of the country’s population.

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), all women aged 15-49, men aged 15-59, and all children aged 0-4 resident in the household.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

To achieve the objectives of the 2022 GDHS, a stratified representative sample of 18,450 households was selected in 618 clusters, which resulted in 15,014 interviewed women age 15–49 and 7,044 interviewed men age 15–59 (in one of every two households selected).

The sampling frame used for the 2022 GDHS is the updated frame prepared by the GSS based on the 2021 Population and Housing Census.1 The sampling procedure used in the 2022 GDHS was stratified two-stage cluster sampling, designed to yield representative results at the national level, for urban and rural areas, and for each of the country’s 16 regions for most DHS indicators. In the first stage, 618 target clusters were selected from the sampling frame using a probability proportional to size strategy for urban and rural areas in each region. Then the number of targeted clusters were selected with equal probability systematic random sampling of the clusters selected in the first phase for urban and rural areas. In the second stage, after selection of the clusters, a household listing and map updating operation was carried out in all of the selected clusters to develop a list of households for each cluster. This list served as a sampling frame for selection of the household sample. The GSS organized a 5-day training course on listing procedures for listers and mappers with support from ICF. The listers and mappers were organized into 25 teams consisting of one lister and one mapper per team. The teams spent 2 months completing the listing operation. In addition to listing the households, the listers collected the geographical coordinates of each household using GPS dongles provided by ICF and in accordance with the instructions in the DHS listing manual. The household listing was carried out using tablet computers, with software provided by The DHS Program. A fixed number of 30 households in each cluster were randomly selected from the list for interviews.

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

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face computer-assisted interviews [capi]

Research instrument

Four questionnaires were used in the 2022 GDHS: the Household Questionnaire, the Woman’s Questionnaire, the Man’s Questionnaire, and the Biomarker Questionnaire. The questionnaires, based on The DHS Program’s model questionnaires, were adapted to reflect the population and health issues relevant to Ghana. In addition, a self-administered Fieldworker Questionnaire collected information about the survey’s fieldworkers.

The GSS organized a questionnaire design workshop with support from ICF and obtained input from government and development partners expected to use the resulting data. The DHS Program optional modules on domestic violence, malaria, and social and behavior change communication were incorporated into the Woman’s Questionnaire. ICF provided technical assistance in adapting the modules to the questionnaires.

Cleaning operations

DHS staff installed all central office programmes, data structure checks, secondary editing, and field check tables from 17–20 October 2022. Central office training was implemented using the practice data to test the central office system and field check tables. Seven GSS staff members (four male and three female) were trained on the functionality of the central office menu, including accepting clusters from the field, data editing procedures, and producing reports to monitor fieldwork.

From 27 February to 17 March, DHS staff visited the Ghana Statistical Service office in Accra to work with the GSS central office staff on finishing the secondary editing and to clean and finalize all data received from the 618 clusters.

Response rate

A total of 18,540 households were selected for the GDHS sample, of which 18,065 were found to be occupied. Of the occupied households, 17,933 were successfully interviewed, yielding a response rate of 99%. In the interviewed households, 15,317 women age 15–49 were identified as eligible for individual interviews. Interviews were completed with 15,014 women, yielding a response rate of 98%. In the subsample of households selected for the male survey, 7,263 men age 15–59 were identified as eligible for individual interviews and 7,044 were successfully interviewed.

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 2022 Ghana Demographic and Health Survey (2022 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 2022 GDHS is only one of many samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and identical size. Each of these samples would yield results that differ somewhat from the results of the actual sample selected. Sampling errors are a measure of the variability between all possible samples. Although the degree of variability is not known exactly, it can be estimated from the survey results. A sampling error is usually measured in terms of the standard error for a particular statistic (mean, percentage, etc.), which is the square root of the variance. The standard error can be used to calculate confidence intervals within which the true value for the population can reasonably be assumed to fall. For example, for any given statistic calculated from a sample survey, the value of that statistic will fall within a range of plus or minus two times the standard error of that statistic in 95% of all possible samples of identical size and design.

If the sample of respondents had been selected as a simple random sample, it would have been possible to use straightforward formulas for calculating sampling errors. However, the 2022 GDHS sample was the result of a multistage stratified design, and, consequently, it was necessary to use more complex formulas. The computer software used to calculate sampling errors for the GDHS 2022 is an SAS program. This program used the Taylor linearization method to estimate variances for survey estimates that are means, proportions, or ratios. The Jackknife repeated replication method is used for variance estimation of more complex statistics such as fertility and mortality rates.

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

Data appraisal

Data Quality Tables

• Age distribution of eligible and interviewed women
• Age distribution of eligible and interviewed men
• Age displacement at age 14/15
• Age displacement at age 49/50
• Pregnancy outcomes by years preceding the survey
• Completeness of reporting
• Standardisation exercise results from anthropometry training
• Height and weight data completeness and quality for children
• Height measurements from random subsample of measured children
• Interference in height and weight measurements of children
• Interference in height and weight measurements of women and men
• Heaping in anthropometric measurements for children (digit preference)
• Observation of mosquito nets
• Observation of handwashing facility
• School attendance by single year of age
• Vaccination cards photographed
• Number of

Socio-demographic characteristics of the study participants (n = 426).

Abstract

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

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

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

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

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

Universe

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

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

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

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

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

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

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

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

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

Cleaning operations

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

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

Response rate

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

Sampling error estimates

The estimates from a sample survey are affected by two types of errors: (1) nonsampling errors and (2) sampling errors. Nonsampling errors are the results of mistakes made in implementing data collection and in data processing, such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, misunderstanding of the questions on the part of either the interviewer or the respondent, and data entry errors. Although numerous efforts were made during the implementation of the 2022 Philippines National Demographic and Health Survey (2022 NDHS) to minimize this type of error, nonsampling errors are impossible to avoid and difficult to evaluate statistically.

Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be evaluated statistically. The sample of respondents selected in the 2022 NDHS is only one of many samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and identical size. Each of these samples would yield results that differ somewhat from the results of the actual sample selected. Sampling errors are a measure of the variability between all possible samples. Although the degree of variability is not known exactly, it can be estimated from the survey results.

A sampling error is usually measured in terms of the standard error for a particular statistic (mean, percentage, etc.), which is the square root of the variance. The standard error can be used to calculate confidence intervals within which the true value for the population can reasonably be assumed to fall. For example, for any given statistic calculated from a sample survey, the value of that statistic will fall within a range of plus or minus two times the standard error of that statistic in 95% of all possible samples of identical size and design.

If the sample of respondents had been selected as a simple random sample, it would have been possible to use straightforward formulas for calculating sampling errors. However, the 2022 NDHS sample was the result of a multistage stratified design, and, consequently, it was necessary to use more complex formulas. Sampling errors are computed in SAS using programs developed by ICF. These programs use the Taylor linearization method to estimate variances for survey estimates that are means, proportions, or ratios. The Jackknife repeated replication method is used for variance estimation of more complex statistics such as fertility and mortality rates.

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

Data appraisal

Data Quality Tables

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

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

Abstract

The Zimbabwe Demographic and Health Survey (ZDHS) is one of a series of surveys carried out by the Central Statistical Office (CSO) as part of the Zimbabwe National Household Survey Capability Programme. Conducted immediately following the second round of the Intercensal Demographic survey in 1988, the objective of the ZDHS was to make available to policy-makers and planners current information on fertility and child mortality levels and trends, contraceptive knowledge, approval and use and basic indicators of maternal and child health. To obtain these data, a nationally representative sample of 4201 women 15-49 was interviewed in the survey between September 1988 and January 1989.

The ZDHS is one of a series of surveys undertaken by the Central Statistical Office (CSO) as part of the Zimbabwe National Household Survey Capability Programme (ZNHSCP). The ZDHS was conducted immediately after the second round of the Intercensal Demographic Survey (ICDS) in 1988. The main objective of the ZDHS was to provide information on: - fertility levels, trends and preferences; - family planning awareness, approval and use; - maternal and child health, including infant and child mortality; - and other topics relating to family health.

The survey was designed to obtain information on family planning use similar to that provided by the 1984 Zimbabwe Reproductive Health Survey (ZRHS) and data on fertility and mortality which would complement information collected in the two rounds of the Intercensal Demographic Survey (ICDS). In addition, participation in the worldwide Demographic and Health Survey project offered an opportunity to strengthen survey capability in Zimbabwe, as well as further comparative research by contributing to the international demographic and health database.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

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

Universe

The population covered by the 1988 ZDHS is defined as the universe of all women age 15-49 in Zimbabwe. Eligibility for the individual interview was determined on a de facto basis, i.e., a woman was eligible if she was 15 to 49 years of age and had spent the night prior to the household interview in the household, irrespective of whether she was a usual member of the household or not.

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

To achieve this objective, a nationally representative, self-weighting sample of women 15- 49 was selected and interviewed in the survey. The ZDHS sample was drawn from the Zimbabwe Revised Master Sample (ZRMS). The ZRMS was based on the master sample constructed at the initiation of the Zimbabwe National Household Survey Capability Programme (ZNHSCP) and revised for the first round of the Intercensal Demographic Survey in 1987.

The ZRMS can be considered as a two-stage sample, which is self-weighting at the household level. The sample is stratified by eight provinces and six sectors. The sectors, which are determined by land use include: (1) communal lands, (2) large-scale commercial farming areas, (3) small-scale commercial farming areas, (4) urban and semi-urban areas, (5) resettlement schemes, and (6) national parks, forest and other areas.

A subsample of 167 enumeration areas (EAs) from the 273 EAs in the ZRMS was selected for the ZDHS, including 114 in rural areas and 53 in urban areas. The EAs were selected systematically with probability proportional to the number of households in the 1982 census. Household listings prepared prior to the 1987 ICDS were used in selecting the households to be included in the ZDHS from the selected EAs. All women 15-49 present in the households drawn for the ZDHS sample on the night before the interview were eligible for the survey.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

Two questionnaires were used for the ZDHS, a household and an individual woman's questionnaire. The questionnaires were adapted from the DHS Model "B" Questionnaire, intended for use in countries with low contraceptive prevalence. A pretest was conducted, and the questionnaires were modified, taking into account the pretest results. The household and individual questionnaires were administered in Shona, Ndebele, or English, with these major languages appearing on the same questionnaire.

Information on the age and sex of all usual members and visitors in the selected households was recorded on the household questionnaire and used to identify women eligible for the individual questionnaire. Eligibility for the individual interview was determined on a de facto basis, i.e., a woman was eligible if she was 15 to 49 years of age and had spent the night prior to the household interview in the household, irrespective of whether she was a usual member of the household or not.

The individual questionnaire was used to collect information on the following topics: - Respondent's background; - Reproduction; - Contraception; - Health and breastfeeding; - Marriage; - Fertility preferences; - Husband's background and women's work; - Height and weight of children 3-60 months.

Cleaning operations

Data entry and editing began in October 1988 and was completed in February 1989, two weeks after fieldwork ended. The initiation of data processing during the fieldwork allowed the errors that were detected to be communicated immediately to the field teams for corrective measures, thus improving the quality of the data. All data processing activities were carried out in Harare, by a team of five data capture operators under a data processing coordinator. The operators were responsible for office editing and coding, as well as for the entry of the questionnaires. The computer hardware consisted of three IBM-compatible micro-computers. The Integrated System for Survey Analysis (ISSA) software package, developed by IRD for the DHS programme, was used for all phases of the data entry, editing and tabulation. Range, skip and most consistency checks were performed during the data capture itself; only the more sophisticated consistency checks were done during secondary editing.

Response rate

Of the 4789 households selected for the ZDHS, 4337 were located in the field; of these, 4107 households were successfully interviewed. Within the households successfully interviewed, 4467 women were identified as eligible, and, among these eligible women, 4201 women were interviewed. The overall response rate, which is the product of the household (95 percent) and individual (94 percent) response rates was 89 percent.

The overall response rate, which is the product of the household and individual response rate, was 89 percent for the whole sample. It was 90 percent or higher, except in Manicaland (89 percent), Mashonaland East (88 percent) and Harare/Chitungwiza (74 percent).

Sampling error estimates

Sampling error is a measure of the variability between all possible samples that could have been selected from the same population using the same design and size. For the entire population and for large subgroups, the ZDHS sample is sufficiently large so that the sampling error for most estimates is small. However, for small subgroups, sampling errors are larger and, thus, affect the reliability of the data. Sampling error is usually measured in terms of the standard error for a particular statistic (mean, percentage, ratio, etc.), i.e., the square root of the variance. The standard error can be used also 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 as measured in 95 percent of all possible samples with the same design will fall within a range of plus or minus two times the standard error for that statistic.

The computations required to provide sampling errors for survey estimates which are based on complex sample designs like those used for the ZDHS survey are more complicated than those based on simple random samples. The software package CLUSTERS was used to assist in computing the sampling errors with the proper statistical methodology. The CLUSTERS program treats any percentage or average as a ratio estimate, r=y/x, where y represents the total sample value for variable y and x represents the total number of cases in the group or subgroup under consideration.

In addition to the standard errors, CLUSTERS computes the design effect (DEFT) for each estimate, which is defined as the ratio between the standard error using the given sample design and the standard error that would result if a simple random sample had been used. A DEFT value of 1,0 indicates that the sample design is as efficient as a simple random sample, while a value greater than 1,0 indicates the increase in the sampling error due to the use of a more complex and less statistically efficient design. CLUSTERS also computes the relative error and confidence limits for estimates.

Sampling errors are presented below for selected variables considered to be of major interest. Results are presented in the Final Report for the whole country, urban and rural areas, three broad age groups and three educationaI levels. For each variable, the type of statistic (mean, proportion) and the base population are given in B.1 of the Final Report. For each variable, Tables B.2-B.5 present the value of the statistic, its standard error, the number of unweighted and weighted cases, the design effect, the relative standard errors, and the 95 percent confidence limits.

The relative standard error for most

Abstract

The primary objective of the 2018 NDHS is to provide up-to-date estimates of basic demographic and health indicators. Specifically, the NDHS collected information on fertility, awareness and use of family planning methods, breastfeeding practices, nutritional status of women and children, maternal and child health, adult and childhood mortality, women’s empowerment, domestic violence, female genital cutting, prevalence of malaria, awareness and behaviour regarding HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), disability, and other health-related issues such as smoking.

The information collected through the 2018 NDHS is intended to assist policymakers and programme managers in evaluating and designing programmes and strategies for improving the health of the country’s population. The 2018 NDHS also provides indicators relevant to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for Nigeria.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

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

Universe

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

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The sampling frame used for the 2018 NDHS is the Population and Housing Census of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (NPHC), which was conducted in 2006 by the National Population Commission. Administratively, Nigeria is divided into states. Each state is subdivided into local government areas (LGAs), and each LGA is divided into wards. In addition to these administrative units, during the 2006 NPHC each locality was subdivided into convenient areas called census enumeration areas (EAs). The primary sampling unit (PSU), referred to as a cluster for the 2018 NDHS, is defined on the basis of EAs from the 2006 EA census frame. Although the 2006 NPHC did not provide the number of households and population for each EA, population estimates were published for 774 LGAs. A combination of information from cartographic material demarcating each EA and the LGA population estimates from the census was used to identify the list of EAs, estimate the number of households, and distinguish EAs as urban or rural for the survey sample frame. Before sample selection, all localities were classified separately into urban and rural areas based on predetermined minimum sizes of urban areas (cut-off points); consistent with the official definition in 2017, any locality with more than a minimum population size of 20,000 was classified as urban.

The sample for the 2018 NDHS was a stratified sample selected in two stages. Stratification was achieved by separating each of the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory into urban and rural areas. In total, 74 sampling strata were identified. Samples were selected independently in every stratum via a two-stage selection. Implicit stratifications were achieved at each of the lower administrative levels by sorting the sampling frame before sample selection according to administrative order and by using a probability proportional to size selection during the first sampling stage.

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

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

Four questionnaires were used for the 2018 NDHS: the Household Questionnaire, the Woman’s Questionnaire, the Man’s Questionnaire, and the Biomarker Questionnaire. The questionnaires, based on The DHS Program’s standard Demographic and Health Survey (DHS-7) questionnaires, were adapted to reflect the population and health issues relevant to Nigeria. Comments were solicited from various stakeholders representing government ministries and agencies, nongovernmental organisations, and international donors. In addition, information about the fieldworkers for the survey was collected through a self-administered Fieldworker Questionnaire.

Cleaning operations

The processing of the 2018 NDHS data began almost immediately after the fieldwork started. As data collection was completed in each cluster, all electronic data files were transferred via the IFSS to the NPC central office in Abuja. These data files were registered and checked for inconsistencies, incompleteness, and outliers. The field teams were alerted to any inconsistencies and errors. Secondary editing, carried out in the central office, involved resolving inconsistencies and coding the open-ended questions. The NPC data processor coordinated the exercise at the central office. The biomarker paper questionnaires were compared with electronic data files to check for any inconsistencies in data entry. Data entry and editing were carried out using the CSPro software package. The concurrent processing of the data offered a distinct advantage because it maximised the likelihood of the data being error-free and accurate. Timely generation of field check tables allowed for effective monitoring. The secondary editing of the data was completed in the second week of April 2019.

Response rate

A total of 41,668 households were selected for the sample, of which 40,666 were occupied. Of the occupied households, 40,427 were successfully interviewed, yielding a response rate of 99%. In the households interviewed, 42,121 women age 15-49 were identified for individual interviews; interviews were completed with 41,821 women, yielding a response rate of 99%. In the subsample of households selected for the male survey, 13,422 men age 15-59 were identified and 13,311 were successfully interviewed, yielding a response rate of 99%.

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 2018 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) 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 2018 NDHS 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 2018 NDHS sample is the result of a multistage stratified design, and, consequently, it was necessary to use more complex formulas. Sampling errors are computed in SAS, using programs developed by ICF. These programs use the Taylor linearisation 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.

Note: A more detailed description of estimates of sampling errors are presented in APPENDIX B of the survey report.

Data appraisal

Data Quality Tables - Household age distribution - Age distribution of eligible and interviewed women - Age 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 - Standardisation exercise results from anthropometry training - Height and weight data completeness and quality for children - Height measurements from random subsample of measured children - Sibship size and sex ratio of siblings - Pregnancy-related mortality trends - Data collection period - Malaria prevalence according to rapid diagnostic test (RDT)

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

In 2022, San Francisco had the highest median household income of cities ranking within the top 25 in terms of population, with a median household income in of 136,692 U.S. dollars. In that year, San Jose in California was ranked second, and Seattle, Washington third.

Following a fall after the great recession, median household income in the United States has been increasing in recent years. As of 2022, median household income by state was highest in Maryland, Washington, D.C., Utah, and Massachusetts. It was lowest in Mississippi, West Virginia, and Arkansas. Families with an annual income of 25,000 and 49,999 U.S. dollars made up the largest income bracket in America, with about 25.26 million households.

Data on median household income can be compared to statistics on personal income in the U.S. released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Personal income rose to around 21.8 trillion U.S. dollars in 2022, the highest value recorded. Personal income is a measure of the total income received by persons from all sources, while median household income is “the amount with divides the income distribution into two equal groups,” according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Half of the population in question lives above median income and half lives below. Though total personal income has increased in recent years, this wealth is not distributed throughout the population. In practical terms, income of most households has decreased. One additional statistic illustrates this disparity: for the lowest quintile of workers, mean household income has remained more or less steady for the past decade at about 13 to 16 thousand constant U.S. dollars annually. Meanwhile, income for the top five percent of workers has actually risen from about 285,000 U.S. dollars in 1990 to about 499,900 U.S. dollars in 2020.

Demographic and baseline characteristicsa.

Abstract

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

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

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

Geographic coverage

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

Analysis unit

Household, individual

Universe

Population aged 18 or older

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

SUMMARY

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

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

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

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

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

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

MORE DETAILED INFORMATION

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

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

Sample universe:

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

Sampling frame:

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

Type of sample:

Three stage random representative stratified sample

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

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

Stratification, purpose and method

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Sample size N=1036 respondents

• Sampling error Marginal error +/-3.0%

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

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

Cleaning operations

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

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

Response rate

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

The number of households with a computer in Australia was forecast to continuously increase between 2024 and 2029 by in total 0.3 million households (+5.21 percent). After the fifteenth consecutive increasing year, the computer households is estimated to reach 6.1 million households and therefore a new peak in 2029. Notably, the number of households with a computer of was continuously increasing over the past years.Computer households are defined as households possessing at least one computer.The shown data are an excerpt of Statista's Key Market Indicators (KMI). The KMI are a collection of primary and secondary indicators on the macro-economic, demographic and technological environment in up to 150 countries and regions worldwide. All indicators are sourced from international and national statistical offices, trade associations and the trade press and they are processed to generate comparable data sets (see supplementary notes under details for more information).Find more key insights for the number of households with a computer in countries like Fiji and New Zealand.

Background: Suboptimal quality of care and disparities in services by healthcare providers are often reported in Nepal. Experience and perceptions about quality of care may differ according to women's socio-cultural background, individual characteristics, their exposure and expectations. This study aimed to compare perceptions of the quality of maternal healthcare services between two groups that are consistently considered vulnerable, women with disabilities from both the non-Dalit population and Dalit population and their peers without disabilities from both non-Dalit and Dalit communities.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 343 total women that included women with disabilities, Dalits and non-Dalits. Women were recruited for interview, who were aged 15–49 years, had been pregnant within the last five years and who had used maternal care services in one of the public health facilities of Rupandehi district. A 20-item, Likert-type scale with four sub-scales or dimensions: 'Health Facility', 'Healthcare Delivery', 'Inter-personal' and 'Access to Care' was used to measure women's perceptions of quality of care. Chi-square test and t test were used to compare groups and to assess differences in perceptions; and linear regression was applied to assess confounding effects of socio-demographic factors. The mean score was compared for each item and separately for each dimension.

Results: All groups, women with disabilities and women without disabilities, Dalit and non-Dalit rated their perceptions and experiences of quality of care lowly in a number of items. While perceived quality of care between women with disabilities and without disabilities in the 'Health Facility' dimension and associated items, was found to differ (p<0.05), this difference was linked to disability status, but was not linked to caste differences. For example, differences in mean scores relating to 'Cleanliness and Facilities', 'Open and Friendliness' and 'Compassion and Kindness' were highly significant (p<0.001), with women with disabilities rating these as better than women without disabilities. On the other hand, women without disabilities rated the 'Availability of cash Incentives' more highly (p<0.01). No significant differences were found between Dalit and non-Dalit women in perceived quality of care, except in relation to 'Cleanliness and facilities', which Dalit women rated lower than non-Dalits (p<0.05).

Conclusions: Perceptions about the quality of care differed significantly by disability status but not by caste. All groups rated the quality of healthcare delivery, interpersonal and personal factors as well as access to services 'low.' Poor service user experiences and perceptions of quality of care undermine opportunities to translate increased healthcare coverage into improved access and outcomes. Greater attention is required by policy makers, health planners and providers to the improvement of quality of care in health facilities.

Abstract

The Trinidad and Tobago DHS survey--a national-level self-weighting random sample survey--was funded by the United States Agency for International Development (US/AID) and executed by the Family Planning Association of Trinidad and Tobago (FPATT). Technical assisstance was provided by the Demographic and Health Surveys Program at the Institute for Resource Development (IRD), a subsidiary of Westinghouse located in Columbia, Maryland.

The sampling frame for the TTDHS was the Continuous Sample Survey of Population (CSSP), an ongoing survey conducted by the Central Statistical Office based on the 1980 Population and Housing Census.

The TTDHS used a household schedule to collect information on residents of selected households, and to identify women eligible for the individual questionnaire. The individual questionnaire was based on DHS's Model "A" Questionnaire for High Contraceptive Prevalence countries, which was modified for use in Trinidad and Tobago. It covered four main areas: (1) background information on the respondent, her partner and marital status, (2) fertility and fertility preferences, (3) contraception, and (4) the health of children.

The short term objective of the Trinidad and Tobago Demographic and Health Survey (TTDHS) is to collect and analyse data on the demographic characteristics of women in the reproductive years, and the health status of their young children. Policymakers and programme managers in public and private agencies will be able to utilize the data in designing and administering programmes.

The long term objective of the project is to enhance the ability of organisations involved in the TTDHS to undertake surveys of excellent technical quality.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Household
• Women age 15-49

Universe

The population covered by the 1988 TTDHS is defined as the universe of all women age 15-49.

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

The sample for the TTDHS was based on the Continuous Sample Survey of Population (CSSP), used by the Central Statistical Office since 1968, and redesigned on the basis of the 1980 Population and Housing Census. The country is divided into 14 domains of study, comprising a total of 1,638 enumeration districts (EDs). Results from the 1980 Census indicated that some EDs were too large (more than 300 households) and some too small (fewer than 30 households) to be appropriate primary sampling units (PSUs) for the TFDHS. Therefore, the largest units were further subdivided, and the smaller units combined with contiguous ones for the CSSP sample.

The CSSP sample is selected in two stages. In the first, PSUs are systematically selected, with probability proportional to size (size equals the number of households in the PSU). Following an operation to list all households in each selected PSU, individual households are selected, with probability of selection inversely proportional to the PSU's size.

The CSSP grand sample, which provides an overall sampling fraction of one household in forty (1/40) has been divided into 9 sub-samples, each with an overall sampling fraction of one in three-hundred sixty (1/360). Each CSSP survey round, conducted quarterly, uses three of the nine sub-samples, with an overall sampling fraction of one in one-hundred twenty (1/120).

The DHS sample was taken from the CSSP sample selected for the January-March 1987 quarter. The main objectives of the DHS sample were: - a self-weighting sample of households, - a sample take in each selected PSU of about 25 women aged 15-49, and - a total of 4,000 completed interviews with women aged 15-49.

To achieve this sample size, 5,000 households were selected. This figure assumes an average of one eligible woman per household, and 294,400 eligible women nationwide, giving an overall sampling fraction of one in sixty (1/60). It also allows for 10 percent non-response at both the household and the individual interview level, commensurate with CSO experience in similar recent surveys. In total, 178 PSUs were selected throughout Trinidad and Tobago.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

The individual questionnaire was based on DHS's Model "A" Questionnaire for High Contraceptive Prevalence countries, which was modified for use in Trinidad and Tobago. It covered four main areas: (1) background information on the respondent, her partner and marital status, (2) fertility and fertility preferences, (3) contraception, and (4) the health of children.

The DHS model "A" questionnaire was adapted for use in Trinidad and Tobago, and pretested during February 1987. Thirteen pretest interviewers were trained for two weeks by FPATI', CSO, and IRD staff, and carded out two days of interviews. The questionnaire was further modified based on pretest results and interviewer comments.

Cleaning operations

The data processing staff consisted of a chief editor, 3 data entry clerks, and a control clerk who logged in questionnaires when they reached the office. All data entry staff completed the main interviewer training, in addition to data processing instruction by IRD staff. Data entry, editing, and tabulations were performed on microcomputers using the Integrated System for Survey Analysis (ISSA) programme, developed by IRD. The system performed range, skip, and consistency checks upon data entry, so that relatively little machine or manual editing was required. The chief editor was responsible for supervising data entry, and for resolving inconsistencies in the questionnaires detected during secondary machine editing.

Response rate

4,122 households were successfully interviewed, out of the 4,799 selected for the sample. The household response rate was 94 percent. This represents households for which the interview was successfully completed out of 4,371 households for which an interview could have been conducted. This latter group includes households not interviewed due to the absence of a competent respondent, refusal, or the interviewer not finding the selected household. Among the 677 selected households which were not interviewed, 604 were missed because of contact difficulties: addresses not found, houses vacant, or those in which the occupants were not at home during repeated visits. Fewer than one percent of households refused to be interviewed.

The household questionnaires identified 4,196 women eligible for the individual questionnaire. This figure represents a yield of one eligible woman per household, which was the average expected. Questionnaires were completed for 3,806 women. The response rate at the individual level was 92 percent, which represents the proportion of interviews successfully completed out of the total number of women identified by the household schedule. The overall response rate, the product of response rates at the household and individual levels is 87 percent.

Contact was not made with 199 eligible women, either because the respondent was not at home during any of three visits by the interviewer, or was temporarily away from the household. Sixty-eight cases were missed due to "Other" reasons, and 83 women refused to be interviewed.

The response rates for the urban and rural areas were similar. In the urban areas, the overall response rate was 86 percent, compared with 88 percent for the rural areas.

Sampling error estimates

Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be evaluated statistically. The sample of women selected in the 'IIDHS is only one of many samples of the same size that could have been drawn from the population using the same design. Each sample would have yielded slightly different results from the sample actually selected. The variability observed among all possible samples constitutes sampling error, which can be estimated from survey results (though not measured exact/y).

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

If simple random sampling had been used to select women for the TTDHS, it would have been possible to use straightforward formulas for calculating sampling errors. However, the TTDHS sample design used two stages and clusters of households, and it was necessary to use more complex formulas. Therefore, the computer package CLUSTERS, developed for the World Fertility Survey, was used to compute sampling errors.

In addition to the standard errors, CLUSTERS computes the design effect (DEFT) for each estimate, which is defined as the ratio between the standard error using the given sample design, and the standard error that would result if a simple random sample had been used. A DEFT value of 1 indicates that the sample design is as efficient as a simple random sample; a value greater than 1 indicates that the increase in the sampling error is due to the use of a more complex and less statistically efficient design.

Sampling errors are presented in Table B.1 of the Final Report for 35 variables considered to be of primary interest. Results are presented for the whole