The East Asian Social Survey (EASS) is a biennial social survey project that serves as a cross-national network of the following four General Social Survey type surveys in East Asia: Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS), Japanese General Social Survey (JGSS), Korean General Social Survey (KGSS), Taiwan Social Change Survey (TSCS), and comparatively examines diverse aspects of social life in these regions. Survey information in this module focuses on family dynamics and includes demographic variables such as the number of family members, the number of younger and older siblings, the number of sons and daughters, and whether family members are alive or deceased. Respondents were also queried about specific information pertaining to family members and children not co-residing with them, such as, sex and birth order, age, marital status, residence status, contact frequency, employment status, and relation to the respondent. Other information collected includes attitudes toward financial support from family members and how frequently financial and personal support was provided. Questions also include opinions regarding household chores, lifestyle preferences, health of respondent and parents, as well as family obligations. Quality of life questions addressed how satisfied respondents were as well as overall marital happiness. Demographic information specific to the respondent and their spouse includes age, sex, marital status, education, employment status and hours worked, occupation, earnings and income, religion, class, size of community, and region.

Abstract

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

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

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

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

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

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

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

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

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

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cleaning operations

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

Response rate

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

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

Sampling error estimates

The estimates from a sample survey are affected by two types of errors: (1) nonsampling errors, and (2) sampling errors. Nonsampling errors are the results of mistakes made in implementing data collection and data processing, such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, misunderstanding of the questions on the part of either the interviewer or the respondent, and data entry errors. Although numerous efforts were made during the implementation of the 2012 Indonesia Demographic and Health Survey (2012 IDHS) to minimize this type of error, nonsampling errors are impossible to avoid and difficult to evaluate statistically.

Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be evaluated statistically. The sample of respondents selected in the 2012 IDHS is only one of many samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and identical size. Each of these samples would yield results that differ somewhat from the results of the actual sample selected. Sampling error is a measure of the variability between all possible samples. Although the degree of variability is not known exactly, it can be estimated from the survey results.

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

If the sample of respondents had been selected as a simple random sample, it would have been possible to use straightforward formulas for calculating sampling errors. However, the 2012 IDHS sample is the result of a multi-stage stratified design, and, consequently, it was necessary to use more complex formulae. The computer software used to calculate sampling errors for the 2012 IDHS is a SAS program. This program used the Taylor linearization method

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

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

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

SELECTED SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS IN THE UNITED STATES MARITAL STATUS - DP02 Universe - Population 15 Year and over Survey-Program - American Community Survey 5-year estimates Years - 2020, 2021, 2022 The marital status question is asked to determine the status of the person at the time of interview. Many government programs need accurate information on marital status, such as the number of married women in the labor force, elderly widowed individuals, or young single people who may establish homes of their own. The marital history data enables multiple agencies to more accurately measure the effects of federal and state policies and programs that focus on the well-being of families. Marital history data can provide estimates of marriage and divorce rates and duration, as well as flows into and out of marriage. This information is critical for more refined analyses of eligibility for program services and benefits, and of changes resulting from federal policies and programs.

Abstract

The Indonesia Demographic and Health Survey (IDHS) is part of the worldwide Demographic and Health Surveys program, which is designed to collect data on fertility, family planning, and maternal and child health. The 2002-2003 IDHS follows a sequence of several previous surveys: the 1987 National Indonesia Contraceptive Prevalence Survey (NICPS), the 1991 IDHS, the 1994 IDHS, and the 1997 IDHS. The 2002-2003 IDHS is expanded from the 1997 IDHS by including a collection of information on the participation of currently married men and their wives and children in the health care.

The main objective of the 2002-2003 IDHS is to provide policymakers and program managers in population and health with detailed information on population, family planning, and health. In particular, the 2002-2003 IDHS collected information on the female respondents’ socioeconomic background, fertility levels, marriage and sexual activity, fertility preferences, knowledge and use of family planning methods, breastfeeding practices, childhood and adult mortality including maternal mortality, maternal and child health, and awareness and behavior regarding AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections in Indonesia.

The 2002-2003 IDHS was specifically designed to meet the following objectives: - Provide data concerning fertility, family planning, maternal and child health, maternal mortality, and awareness of AIDS/STIs to program managers, policymakers, and researchers to help them evaluate and improve existing programs - Measure trends in fertility and contraceptive prevalence rates, analyze factors that affect such changes, such as marital status and patterns, residence, education, breastfeeding habits, and knowledge, use, and availability of contraception - Evaluate achievement of goals previously set by the national health programs, with special focus on maternal and child health - Assess men’s participation and utilization of health services, as well as of their families - Assist in creating an international database that allows cross-country comparisons that can be used by the program managers, policymakers, and researchers in the area of family planning, fertility, and health in general.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Household
• Children under five years
• Women age 15-49
• Men age 15-54

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

SAMPLE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

Administratively, Indonesia is divided into 30 provinces. Each province is subdivided into districts (regency in areas mostly rural and municipality in urban areas). Districts are subdivided into subdistricts and each subdistrict is divided into villages. The entire village is classified as urban or rural.

The primary objective of the 2002-2003 IDHS is to provide estimates with acceptable precision for the following domains: · Indonesia as a whole; · Each of 26 provinces covered in the survey. The four provinces excluded due to political instability are Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam, Maluku, North Maluku and Papua. These provinces cover 4 percent of the total population. · Urban and rural areas of Indonesia; · Each of the five districts in Central Java and the five districts in East Java covered in the Safe Motherhood Project (SMP), to provide information for the monitoring and evaluation of the project. These districts are: - in Central Java: Cilacap, Rembang, Jepara, Pemalang, and Brebes. - in East Java: Trenggalek, Jombang, Ngawi, Sampang and Pamekasan.

The census blocks (CBs) are the primary sampling unit for the 2002-2003 IDHS. CBs were formed during the preparation of the 2000 Population Census. Each CB includes approximately 80 households. In the master sample frame, the CBs are grouped by province, by regency/municipality within a province, and by subdistricts within a regency/municipality. In rural areas, the CBs in each district are listed by their geographical location. In urban areas, the CBs are distinguished by the urban classification (large, medium and small cities) in each subdistrict.

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

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

The 2002-2003 IDHS used three questionnaires: the Household Questionnaire, the Women’s Questionnaire for ever-married women 15-49 years old, and the Men’s Questionnaire for currently married men 15-54 years old. The Household Questionnaire and the Women’s Questionnaire were based on the DHS Model “A” Questionnaire, which is designed for use in countries with high contraceptive prevalence. In consultation with the NFPCB and MOH, BPS modified these questionnaires to reflect relevant issues in family planning and health in Indonesia. Inputs were also solicited from potential data users to optimize the IDHS in meeting the country’s needs for population and health data. The questionnaires were translated from English into the national language, Bahasa Indonesia.

The Household Questionnaire was used to list all the usual members and visitors in the selected households. Basic information collected for each person listed includes the following: age, sex, education, and relationship to the head of the household. The main purpose of the Household Questionnaire was to identify women and men who were eligible for the individual interview. In addition, the Household Questionnaire also identifies unmarried women and men age 15-24 who are eligible for the individual interview in the Indonesia Young Adult Reproductive Health Survey (IYARHS). Information on characteristics of the household’s dwelling unit, such as the source of water, type of toilet facilities, construction materials used for the floor and outer walls of the house, and ownership of various durable goods were also recorded in the Household Questionnaire. These items reflect the household’s socioeconomic status.

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

The Men’s Questionnaire was administered to all currently married men age 15-54 in every third household in the IDHS sample. The Men’s Questionnaire collected much of the same information included in the Women’s Questionnaire, but was shorter because it did not contain questions on reproductive history, maternal and child health, nutrition, and maternal mortality. Instead, men were asked about their knowledge and participation in the health-seeking practices for their children.

Cleaning operations

All completed questionnaires for IDHS, accompanied by their control forms, were returned to the BPS central office in Jakarta for data processing. This process consisted of office editing, coding of open-ended questions, data entry, verification, and editing computer-identified errors. A team of about 40 data entry clerks, data editors, and two data entry supervisors processed the data. Data entry and editing started on November 4, 2002 using a computer package program called CSPro, which was specifically designed to process DHS-type survey data. To prepare the data entry programs, two BPS staff spent three weeks in ORC Macro offices in Calverton, Maryland in April 2002.

Response rate

A total of 34,738 households were selected for the survey, of which 33,419 were found. Of the encountered households, 33,088 (99 percent) were successfully interviewed. In these households, 29,996 ever-married women 15-49 were identified, and complete interviews were obtained from 29,483 of them (98 percent). From the households selected for interviews with men, 8,740 currently married men 15-54 were identified, and complete interviews were obtained from 8,310 men, or 95 percent of all eligible men. The generally high response rates for both household and individual interviews (for eligible women and men) were due mainly to the strict enforcement of the rule to revisit the originally selected household if no one was at home initially. No substitution for the originally selected households was allowed. Interviewers were instructed to make at least three visits in an effort to contact the household, eligible women, and eligible men.

Note: See summarized response rates by place of residence in Table 1.2 of the survey report.

Sampling error estimates

The estimates from a sample survey are affected by two types of errors: (1) nonsampling errors, and (2) sampling errors. Nonsampling errors are the results of mistakes made in implementing data collection and data processing, such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, misunderstanding of the questions on the part of either the interviewer or the respondent, and data entry errors. Although numerous efforts were made during the implementation of the 2002-2003 Indonesia Demographic and Health Survey (IDHS) to minimize this type of error, nonsampling errors are impossible to avoid and difficult to evaluate statistically.

Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be evaluated statistically. The sample of respondents

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

The data on relationship to householder were derived from answers to Question 2 in the 2015 American Community Survey (ACS), which was asked of all people in housing units. The question on relationship is essential for classifying the population information on families and other groups. Information about changes in the composition of the American family, from the number of people living alone to the number of children living with only one parent, is essential for planning and carrying out a number of federal programs.

The responses to this question were used to determine the relationships of all persons to the householder, as well as household type (married couple family, nonfamily, etc.). From responses to this question, we were able to determine numbers of related children, own children, unmarried partner households, and multi-generational households. We calculated average household and family size. When relationship was not reported, it was imputed using the age difference between the householder and the person, sex, and marital status.

Household – A household includes all the people who occupy a housing unit. (People not living in households are classified as living in group quarters.) A housing unit is a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied (or if vacant, is intended for occupancy) as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live separately from any other people in the building and which have direct access from the outside of the building or through a common hall. The occupants may be a single family, one person living alone, two or more families living together, or any other group of related or unrelated people who share living arrangements.

Average Household Size – A measure obtained by dividing the number of people in households by the number of households. In cases where people in households are cross-classified by race or Hispanic origin, people in the household are classified by the race or Hispanic origin of the householder rather than the race or Hispanic origin of each individual.

Average household size is rounded to the nearest hundredth.

Comparability – The relationship categories for the most part can be compared to previous ACS years and to similar data collected in the decennial census, CPS, and SIPP. With the change in 2008 from “In-law” to the two categories of “Parent-in-law” and “Son-in-law or daughter-in-law,” caution should be exercised when comparing data on in-laws from previous years. “In-law” encompassed any type of in-law such as sister-in-law. Combining “Parent-in-law” and “son-in-law or daughter-in-law” does not represent all “in-laws” in 2008.

The same can be said of comparing the three categories of “biological” “step,” and “adopted” child in 2008 to “Child” in previous years. Before 2008, respondents may have considered anyone under 18 as “child” and chosen that category. The ACS includes “foster child” as a category. However, the 2010 Census did not contain this category, and “foster children” were included in the “Other nonrelative” category. Therefore, comparison of “foster child” cannot be made to the 2010 Census. Beginning in 2013, the “spouse” category includes same-sex spouses.

Abstract (en): How Couples Meet and Stay Together (HCMST) surveyed how Americans met their spouses and romantic partners, and compared traditional to non-traditional couples. This collection covers data that was gathered over five waves. During the first wave, respondents were asked about their relationship status, including the gender, ethnicity, and race of their current partner, as well as the level of education of their parents. They were also asked about their living arrangements with their partner, the country, state, and city the respondent and/or the respondent's partner resided in most from birth to age 16, and whether the couple attended the same high school/college/university, or grew up in the same town. Information was collected on the legal status of the relationship, the city/state where the partnership was legalized, and how many times the respondent had previously been married. Additionally, respondents were asked about how often they visited with relatives, which gender they were most attracted to, their earned income in 2008, and the length of their current relationship. Finally, respondents were asked to recall how, when, and where they met their partner, how their parents felt about their partner, and to describe the perceived quality of their relationship. The second wave followed up with respondents one year after Wave 1. Information was collected on respondents' changes, if any, in marital status, relationship status, living arrangements, and reasons for separation where applicable. The third wave followed up with respondents one year after the second wave, and collected information on respondents' relationships reported in the first two waves, again including any changes in the status of the relationship and reasons for separation. The fourth wave followed up with respondents two years after Wave 3. In addition to information on relationship status and reasons for separation, Wave 4 includes the subjective level of attractiveness for the respondent and their partner. Wave 5 collected updated data on respondents' changes, if any, in marital status, relationship status, and reasons for separation where applicable. Information about respondents' sexual orientations, sex frequencies, and attitudes towards sexual monogamy were also collected. Demographic information includes age, race/ethnicity, gender, level of education, household composition, religion, political party affiliation, and household income. The data is being released in two parts: part one is available for public use and part two is available for restricted use. The public use data contains Waves 1-5, including the addition of nine variables collecting information such as race, household income, whether the respondent was born outside of the United States, zip code relative to rural area, and respondents' living arrangements between birth and 16 years of age. The restricted use data contains Waves 1-3, and differs from the public use data by including FIPS codes for state of marriage and state of residence, town or city where the respondent was raised, and qualitative variables revised by the Principal Investigator (Waves 1-5), consisting of respondent's answers to how they first met their partner, the quality of their relationship in their own words, why they broke up if applicable and if they have an open relationship. The survey was carried out by survey firm Knowledge Networks. The survey respondents were recruited from an ongoing panel. Panelists are recruited via random digit dial phone survey. Survey questions were mostly answered online; some follow-up surveys were conducted by phone. Panelists who did not have internet access at home were given an internet access device (WebTV). For further information about how the Knowledge Networks hybrid phone-internet survey compares to other survey methodology, see the accompanying documentation. The data are not weighted; however, this collection contains eight weight variables; WEIGHT1-WEIGHT7 and WEIGHT_COUPLES_CORESIDENT. Please refer to the ICPSR codebook for further information about weighting. ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Standardized...

Meta-regression predicting estimates of childfree prevalence in Japan.

In 1997, Louisiana enacted a covenant marriage law which gave couples an alternative to a conventional marriage license. By requiring premarital counseling and proof of fault for a subsequent divorce, along with other features, covenant marriages were intended to be more difficult both to enter and to exit. The Marriage Matters panel survey was designed to examine the effects of covenant marriage on rates of marital dissolution, relationship quality, and other outcomes. The data were collected in three waves. Wave 1 was collected approximately 3 to 6 months after marriage. Respondents were asked questions about their recent marriage, the time leading up to their recent marriage, premarital counseling, convenant marriage, previous marriages, biological and adopted children, feelings about children, their views on marriage and divorce in general, their religious views, satisfaction in marriage, household responsibilities, their background, health and happiness, their social and political views, and about the questionnaire itself. Wave 2 was administered approximately 18 months after the first wave. The second wave queried respondents on their marriage today, their views on marriage and divorce in general, their religious views, household responsibilities, satisfaction in marriage, convenant marriage, biological and adopted children, feelings about children, problems in their marriage, advice and counseling, their health and happiness, employment, housing, and income, household composition, and their social and political views. Wave 3 was administered 12 to 24 months after the second wave. Respondents answered questions on their marriage today, views about marriage and divorce in general, their religious views, household responsibilities, satisfaction in marriage, the celebration of holidays, convenant marriage, biological and adopted children, feelings about children, problems in their marriage, advice and counseling, their health and happiness, employment, housing, and income, household composition, and their social and political views. In the divorce questionnaire, the following topics were addressed: how things stand at the moment, feelings about their marriage, arguments during their marriage, social life since the separation or divorce, their health and well-being, moving to a divorce agreement, advice and counseling, the divorce process and convenant marriage, and household income the year before and after the separation. Demographic information collected across all three waves includes: age, gender, religious participation, employment status, education level, number of children birthed or adopted, household composition, and household income. Demographic information collected in Wave 1 only includes: race, religious affiliation, number of previous marriages, and political affiliation. Demographic information collected through the divorce questionnaire includes: gender, marital status, and personal and partner income.

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.

Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, the decennial census is the official source of population totals for April 1st of each decennial year. In between censuses, the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities, and towns and estimates of housing units and the group quarters population for states and counties..Information about the American Community Survey (ACS) can be found on the ACS website. Supporting documentation including code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing, and a full list of ACS tables and table shells (without estimates) can be found on the Technical Documentation section of the ACS website.Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section..Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.ACS data generally reflect the geographic boundaries of legal and statistical areas as of January 1 of the estimate year. For more information, see Geography Boundaries by Year..Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see ACS Technical Documentation). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables..Users must consider potential differences in geographic boundaries, questionnaire content or coding, or other methodological issues when comparing ACS data from different years. Statistically significant differences shown in ACS Comparison Profiles, or in data users' own analysis, may be the result of these differences and thus might not necessarily reflect changes to the social, economic, housing, or demographic characteristics being compared. For more information, see Comparing ACS Data..Foreign born excludes people born outside the United States to a parent who is a U.S. citizen..When information is missing or inconsistent, the Census Bureau logically assigns an acceptable value using the response to a related question or questions. If a logical assignment is not possible, data are filled using a statistical process called allocation, which uses a similar individual or household to provide a donor value. The "Allocated" section is the number of respondents who received an allocated value for a particular subject..Estimates of urban and rural populations, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on 2020 Census data. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization..Explanation of Symbols:- The estimate could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of sample observations. For a ratio of medians estimate, one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or highest interval of an open-ended distribution. For a 5-year median estimate, the margin of error associated with a median was larger than the median itself.N The estimate or margin of error cannot be displayed because there were an insufficient number of sample cases in the selected geographic area. (X) The estimate or margin of error is not applicable or not available.median- The median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution (for example "2,500-")median+ The median falls in the highest interval of an open-ended distribution (for example "250,000+").** The margin of error could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of sample observations.*** The margin of error could not be computed because the median falls in the lowest interval or highest interval of an open-ended distribution.***** A margin of error is not appropriate because the corresponding estimate is controlled to an independent population or housing estimate. Effectively, the corresponding estimate has no sampling error and the margin of error may be treated as zero.

Abstract

The Jordan Population and Family Health Survey (JPFHS) is part of the worldwide Demographic and Health Surveys Program, which is designed to collect data on fertility, family planning, and maternal and child health.

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

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

• Household
• Women age 15-49

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

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

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

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

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

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

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

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

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

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

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

Cleaning operations

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

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

Response rate

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

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

Sampling error estimates

The estimates from a sample survey are affected by two types of errors: (1) nonsampling errors and (2) sampling errors. Nonsampling errors are the results of mistakes made in implementing data collection and data processing, such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, misunderstanding of the questions on the part of either the interviewer or the respondent, and data entry errors. Although numerous efforts were made during the implementation of the 2012 Jordan Population and Family Health Survey (JPFHS) to minimize this type of error, nonsampling errors are impossible to avoid and difficult to evaluate statistically.

Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be evaluated statistically. The sample of respondents selected in the 2012 JPFHS is only one of many samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and identical size. Each of these samples would yield results that differ somewhat from the results of the actual sample selected. Sampling error is a measure of the variability between all possible samples. Although the degree of variability is not known exactly, it can be estimated from the survey results.

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

If the sample of respondents had been selected as a simple random sample, it would have been possible to use straightforward formulas for calculating sampling errors. However, the 2012 JPFHS sample is the result of a multistage stratified design, and, consequently, it was necessary to use more complex formulae. The computer

Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, the decennial census is the official source of population totals for April 1st of each decennial year. In between censuses, the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities, and towns and estimates of housing units and the group quarters population for states and counties..Information about the American Community Survey (ACS) can be found on the ACS website. Supporting documentation including code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing, and a full list of ACS tables and table shells (without estimates) can be found on the Technical Documentation section of the ACS website.Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section..Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.ACS data generally reflect the geographic boundaries of legal and statistical areas as of January 1 of the estimate year. For more information, see Geography Boundaries by Year..Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see ACS Technical Documentation). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables..Users must consider potential differences in geographic boundaries, questionnaire content or coding, or other methodological issues when comparing ACS data from different years. Statistically significant differences shown in ACS Comparison Profiles, or in data users' own analysis, may be the result of these differences and thus might not necessarily reflect changes to the social, economic, housing, or demographic characteristics being compared. For more information, see Comparing ACS Data..When information is missing or inconsistent, the Census Bureau logically assigns an acceptable value using the response to a related question or questions. If a logical assignment is not possible, data are filled using a statistical process called allocation, which uses a similar individual or household to provide a donor value. The "Allocated" section is the number of respondents who received an allocated value for a particular subject..Estimates of urban and rural populations, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on 2020 Census data. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization..Explanation of Symbols:- The estimate could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of sample observations. For a ratio of medians estimate, one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or highest interval of an open-ended distribution. For a 5-year median estimate, the margin of error associated with a median was larger than the median itself.N The estimate or margin of error cannot be displayed because there were an insufficient number of sample cases in the selected geographic area. (X) The estimate or margin of error is not applicable or not available.median- The median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution (for example "2,500-")median+ The median falls in the highest interval of an open-ended distribution (for example "250,000+").** The margin of error could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of sample observations.*** The margin of error could not be computed because the median falls in the lowest interval or highest interval of an open-ended distribution.***** A margin of error is not appropriate because the corresponding estimate is controlled to an independent population or housing estimate. Effectively, the corresponding estimate has no sampling error and the margin of error may be treated as zero.

Abstract

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

The main objective of 2007 IDHS was to provide detailed information on population, family planning, and health for policymakers and program managers. The 2007 IDHS was conducted in all 33 provinces in Indonesia. The survey collected information on respondents’ socioeconomic background, fertility levels, marriage and sexual activity, fertility preferences, knowledge and use of family planning methods, breastfeeding practices, childhood and adult mortality including maternal mortality, maternal and child health, and awareness and behavior regarding HIV/AIDS and other sexually-transmitted infections.

The 2007 IDHS was specifically designed to meet the following objectives: - Provide data concerning fertility, family planning, maternal and child health, maternal mortality, and awareness of AIDS/STIs to program managers, policymakers, and researchers to help them evaluate and improve existing programs; - Measure trends in fertility and contraceptive prevalence rates, analyze factors that affect such changes, such as marital status and patterns, residence, education, breastfeeding habits, and knowledge, use, and availability of contraception.; - Evaluate achievement of goals previously set by the national health programs, with special focus on maternal and child health; - Assess men’s participation and utilization of health services, as well as of their families; - Assist in creating an international database that allows cross-country comparisons that can be used by the program managers, policymakers, and researchers in the area of family planning, fertility, and health in general.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Household
• Children under five years
• Women age 15-49
• Men age 15-54

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

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

The 2007 IDHS sample is designed to provide estimates with acceptable precision for the following domains: - Indonesia as a whole; - Each of 33 provinces covered in the survey, and - Urban and rural areas of Indonesia

The census blocks (CBs) are the primary sampling unit for the 2007 IDHS. The sample developed for the 2007 National Labor Force Survey (Sakernas) was used as a frame for the selection of the 2007 IDHS sample. Household listing was done in all CBs covered in the 2007 Sakernas. This eliminates the need to conduct a separate household listing for the 2007 IDHS.

A minimum of 40 CBs per province has been imposed in the 2007 IDHS design. Since the sample was designed to provide reliable indicators for each province, the number of CBs in each province was not allocated proportional to the population of the province nor proportional by urban-rural classification. Therefore, a final weighing adjustment procedure was done to obtain estimates for all domains.

The 2007 IDHS sample is selected using a stratified two-stage design consisting of 1,694 CBs. Once the number of households was allocated to each province by urban and rural areas, the number of CBs was calculated based on an average sample take of 25 selected households. All evermarried women age 15-49 and all unmarried persons age 15-24 in these households are eligible for individual interview. Eight households in each CB selected for the women sample were selected for male interview.

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

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The 2007 IDHS used three questionnaires: the Household Questionnaire (HQ), the Ever-Married Women’s Questionnaire (EMWQ) and the Married Men’s Questionnaire (MMQ). In consultation with BKKBN and MOH, BPS made a decision to base the 2007 IDHS survey instruments largely on the questionnaires used in the 2002-03 IDHS to facilitate trend analysis. Input was solicited from other potential data users, and several modifications were made to optimize the draft 2007 IDHS instruments to collect the needs for population and health data. The draft IDHS questionnaires were also compared with the most recent version of the standard questionnaires used in the DHS program and minor modifications incorporated to facilitate international comparison.

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

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

The MMQ was administered to all currently married men age 15-54 living in every third household in the IDHS sample. The MMQ collected much of the same information included in the EMWQ, but was shorter because it did not contain questions on reproductive history, maternal and child health, nutrition and maternal mortality. Instead, men were asked about their knowledge and participation in health-care-seeking practices for their children.

Cleaning operations

All completed questionnaires for the IDHS, accompanied by their control forms, were returned to the BPS central office in Jakarta for data processing. This consisted of office editing, coding of openended questions, data entry, verification, and editing computer-identified errors. A team of 42 data entry clerks, data editors and data entry supervisors processed the data. Data entry and editing was carried using a computer package program called CSPro, which was specifically designed to process DHS-type survey data. During the preparation of the data entry programs, a BPS staff spent several weeks at ORC Macro offices in Calverton, Maryland. Data entry and editing activities, which began in September, 2007 were completed in March 2008.

Response rate

In general, the response rates for both the household and individual interviews in the 2007 IDHS are high. A total of 42,341 households were selected in the sample, of which 41,131 were occupied. Of these households, 40,701 were successfully interviewed, yielding a household response rate of 99 percent.

In the interviewed households, 34,227 women were identified for individual interview and of these completed interviews were conducted with 32,895 women, yielding a response rate of 96 percent. In a third of the households, 9,716 eligible men were identified, of which 8,758 were successfully interviewed, yielding a response rate of 90 percent. The lower response rate for men was due to the more frequent and longer absence of men from the household.

Note: See summarized response rates by place of residence in Table 1.2 of the survey report.

Sampling error estimates

The estimates from a sample survey are affected by two types of errors: (1) nonsampling errors, and (2) sampling errors. Nonsampling errors are the results of mistakes made in implementing data collection and data processing, such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, misunderstanding of the questions on the part of either the interviewer or the respondent, and data entry errors. Although numerous efforts were made during the implementation of the 2007 Indonesia Demographic and Health Survey (IDHS) to minimize this type of error, nonsampling errors are impossible to avoid and difficult to evaluate statistically.

Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be evaluated statistically. The sample of respondents selected in the 2007 IDHS 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.

Abstract

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

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

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Household
• Women age 15-49

Universe

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

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

SAMPLE SIZE AND ALLOCATION

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

THE FRAME AND SAMPLE SELECTION

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

SAMPLE OUTCOME

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

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

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

a) Household questionnaire

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

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

b) Individual questionnaire

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

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

Abstract

The 1995 Kazakstan Demographic and Health Survey (KDHS) is part of the worldwide Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) program, which is designed to collect data on fertility, family planning and maternal and child health. The 1995 KDHS was the first national level population and health survey in Kazakstan. The purpose of the survey was to provide the Ministry of Health of Kazakstan with information on fertility, reproductive practices of women, maternal care, child health and mortality, child nutrition practices, breastfeeding, nutritional status and anemia. This information is important for understanding the factors that influence the reproductive health of women and the health and survival of infants and young children. It can be used in planning effective policies and programs regarding the health and nutrition of women and their children. This is especially important now during this the time of economic transition which involves virtually all aspects of life for the people of Kazakstan. The survey provides data important to the assessment of the overall demographic situation in the country. It is expected that the findings of the KDHS will become a useful source of information necessary for the ongoing health care reform in Kazakstan.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

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

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

The 1995 KDHS employed a nationally representative probability sample of women age 15-49. The country was divided into five survey regions. Four survey regions consisted of groups of contiguous oblasts (except the East Kazakstanskaya oblast which is not contiguous). Almaty City constituted a survey region by itself although it is part of the Almatinskaya oblast. The five survey regions were defined as follows:

I) Almaty City 2) South Region: Taldy-Korganskaya, Almatinskaya (except Almaty city), Dzhambylskaya, South Kazakstanskaya, and Kzyl-Ordinskaya 3) West Region: Aktiubinskaya, Mangistauskaya, Atyrauskaya, and West Kazakstanskaya 4) Central Region: Semipalatinskaya, Zhezkazganskaya, and Tourgaiskaya 5) North and East Region: East Kazakstanskaya, Pavlodarskaya, Karagandinskaya, Akmolinskaya, Kokchetauskaya, North Kazakstanskaya, and Koustanaiskaya

It is important to note that the oblast composition of regions outside of Almaty City was determined on the basis of geographic proximity, and in order to achieve similarity with respect to reproductive practices within regions. The South and West Regions are comprised of oblasts which traditionally have a high proportion of Kazak population and high fertility levels. The Central Region contains three oblasts in which the fertility level is similar to the national average. The North and East Region contains seven oblasts situated in northern Kazakstan in which a relatively high proportion of the population is of Russian origin, and the fertility level is lower than the national average.

In Almaty City, the sample for the 1995 KDHS was selected in two stages. In the first stage, 40 census counting blocks were selected with equal probability from the 1989 list of census counting blocks. A complete listing of the households in the selected counting blocks was carried out. The lists of households served as the frame for second-stage sampling; i.e., the selection of the households to be visited by the KDHS interviewing teams. In each selected household, women age 15-49 were eligible to be interviewed.

In the rural areas, the primary sampling units (PSUs) were the raions which were selected with probability proportional to size, the size being the 1993 population published by Goskomstat (1993). At the second stage, one village was selected in each selected raion, from the 1989 Registry of Villages. This resulted in 50 rural clusters being selected. At the third stage, households were selected in each cluster following the household listing operation as in Almaty City.

In the urban areas other than Almaty City, the PSUs were the cities and towns themselves. In the second stage, one health block was selected from each town except in self-representing cities (large cities that were selected with certainty) where more than one health block was selected. The selected health blocks were segmented prior to the household listing operation which provided the household lists for the third stage selection of households. In total, 86 health blocks were selected.

On average, 22 households were selected in each urban cluster, and 33 households were selected in each rural cluster. It was expected that the sample would yield interviews with approximately 4,000 women between the ages of 15 and 49.

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

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

Two questionnaires were used for the 1995 KDHS: the Household Questionnaire and the Individual Questionnaire. The questionnaires were based on the model survey instruments developed in the DHS program. They were adapted to the data needs of Kazakhstan during consultations with specialists in the areas of reproductive health, child health and nutrition in Kazakhstan.

The Household Questionnaire was used to enumerate all usual members and visitors in tile sample households and to collect information relating to the socioeconomic position of a household. In the: first part of the Household Questionnaire, information was collected on age, sex, educational attainment, marital status, and relationship to the head of household of each person listed as a household member or visitor. A primary objective of the first part of the Household Questionnaire was to identify women who were eligible for the individual interview. In the second part of the Household Questionnaire, questions were included on the dwelling unit, such as the number of rooms, the flooring material, the source of water, the type of toilet facilities, and on the availability of a variety of consumer goods.

The Individual Questionnaire was used to collect information from women age 15-49. These women were asked questions on the following major topics: - Background characteristics - Pregnancy history - Outcome of pregnancies and antenatal care - Child health and nutrition practices - Child immunization and episodes of diarrhea and respiratory illness - Knowledge and use of contraception - Marriage and fertility preferences - Husband's background and woman's work - Anthropometry of children and mothers - Hemoglobin measurement of women and children

One of the major efforts of the 1995 KDHS was testing women and children for iron-deficiency anemia. Testing was done by measuring hemoglobin levels in the blood using the Hemocue technique. Before collecting the blood sample, each woman was asked to sign a consent form giving permission for the collection of a finger-stick blood droplet from herself and her children. Results of anemia testing were kept confidential (as are all KDHS data); however, strictly with the consent of respondents, local health care facilities were informed of women and children who had severely low levels of hemoglobin (less than 7 g/dl).

Cleaning operations

Questionnaires were returned to the Institute of Nutrition in Almaty for data processing. The office editing staff checked that the questionnaires for all selected households and eligible respondents were returned from the field. The few questions which had not been pre-coded (e.g., occupation, type of chronic disease) were coded at this time. Data were then entered and edited on microcomputers using the ISSA (Integrated System for Survey Analysis) package, with the data entry software translated into Russian. Office editing and data entry activities began in May 1995 (i.e., the same time that fieldwork started) and were completed in September 1995.

Response rate

A total of 4,480 households were selected in the sample, of which 4,241 were occupied at the time of fieldwork. The main reason for the difference was that some dwelling units which were occupied at the time of the household listing operation were either vacant or the household members were away for an extended period at the time of interviewing. Of the 4,241 occupied households, 4,178 were interviewed, yielding a household response rate of 99 percent.

In the interviewed households, 3,899 women were eligible for the individual interview (i.e., all women 15-49 years of age who were either usual residents or visitors who had spent the previous night in the household). Interviews were successfully completed with 3,771 of these women, yielding a response rate of 97 percent. The principal reason for non-response was the failure to find an eligible woman at home after repeated visits to the household. The overall response rate for the survey--the product of the household and the individual response rates--was 95 percent.

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) non-sampling errors, and (2) sampling errors. Non-sampling errors are the results of mistakes made in implementing data collection and data processing, such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, misunderstanding of the questions on the part of either the interviewer or the respondent, and data entry errors. Although numerous efforts were made during the implementation of the KDHS to minimize this type of error, non-sampling errors are impossible to avoid and difficult to evaluate

Abstract

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

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

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

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

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

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

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

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

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

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

Cleaning operations

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

Abstract

From 2002-2005 the Agincourt Integrated Family Survey project collected data in Limpopo Province, at the Agincourt Demographic Surveillance Site through the auspices of Philani Nutrition and Development Project. The work was funded by the National Institute on Aging under grant numbers R01 AG20275-01, P01 AG05842-14, and P30 AG024361. The project used integrated health and economic surveys in South Africa to investigate the links between health status and economic status. Our survey instruments collected data on a range of traditional and non-traditional measures of well-being including income and consumption, measures of health status (including mental health), morbidity, crime, social connectedness, intra-household relationships, and direct hedonic measures of well-being.

In 2004, the households who had been interviewed in 2002 were re-interviewed (if they were willing and if they could be found), for part 1 of the second wave. In 2005, the households who were interviewed in 2003 were re-interviewed (if they were willing and if they could be found), for part 2 of the second wave. For all of the studies, the methodology for conducting the surveys was the same. The questions varied some from year to year. The crosswalk (see table of contents) identifies these variations. In study years 2003, 2004, and 2005, detailed questions in the household questionnaire about the impact of the most recent death in the household were asked of the most knowledgeable household member.

Geographic coverage

The survey covered a rural sub-district in Mpumalanga Province, South Africa

Analysis unit

Households and individuals

Universe

The Agincourt Integrated Family Survey universe included all household residents, Woman aged 60 and above and men aged 65 and above in the household

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

In January 2004, using Agincourt Health and Population Unit (AHPU) census information, the Agincourt Integrated Family Survey project team drew a stratified random sample of 475 households across all villages in the Agincourt Demographic Surveillance Site, with stratification on both citizenship (South African versus Mozambican) and on whether the household had lost a member to death in the period from June 1, 2002 to May 31, 2003. By "Mozambican household" in the sample design we mean that the nationality of the head of household is Mozambican.

Sampling deviation

The sample was designed to be 60 percent South African, and 40 percent Mozambican. In execution, slightly fewer South African households without a death were interviewed (187 instead of 190), and one extra South African household with a death was interviewed (96 instead of 95).

These discrepancies were the result of confusion over which households were considered to have a complete interview in cases where the head of household refused to be interviewed. The survey is composed of a household module, to be completed by a knowledgeable household member; an adult module, to be completed by each member aged 18 or older; and a child module, to be completed for each child aged 12 or younger. Some adult household members were migrants who were not in the field site to be interviewed (although the field team made a great effort to make appointments with the household to return at month-end, or at Easter, to interview returning migrants). In addition, some adult members refused to be interviewed. It was decided that if the household module was completed, and at least one adult was interviewed, the household had a complete interview. In the South African-Death Stratum, an extra household was interviewed because the household head came home for Easter, after the rest of the household had been interviewed, and refused to participate. The field team then interviewed a replacement household, but need not have as a decision had previously been made that if the head refused to participate, but did not stop other members from doing so, then that household's information would be used. However, if a returning head refused to let any members participate (even if they had already been interviewed),that household was not used in the analysis.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

Household Questionnaire: The most knowledgeable household member (khhm) was the initial person interviewed within the household. He or she would list all of the members of the household. This list of household members was then used as a guide for the entire interview process. The khhm first answered questions about the individual members of the household: age, gender, education, marital status, is that person?s partner in the household, is that person?s parent in the household. Additionally, the khhm was asked about the source and amount of income of each household member. Summary information was gathered from the khhm about the household members who had died and the household members who had moved. In study years starting in 2003, detailed questions were posed about the effect the most recent death had on the household. Detailed questions were asked of the khhm about the living conditions: access to toilet facilities and running water, a stove, a phone. Questions about household expenditure were asked

Adult Questionnaire: In 2002 there were two separate adult questionnaires. One questionnaire was for adults whose ages fell between 18 and 54; the second questionnaire was for adults 55 years old and up. In subsequent study years there was one questionnaire for adults 18 and older. Every adult from the household, who was available and willing to, answered these questions. Questions about age, marital status, number of living children, and number of children who have died were included. Detailed questions were asked about their sources of income and their expenditures. For older adults, there were questions about pensions and grants, for mothers there were questions about childcare grants. Individuals described the type of jobs they held over the years, how much money they earned and how they spent that money. Detailed health questions were posed; both physical and mental health issues were covered. Physical measurements were taken of the individuals interviewed: their height, weight, waist size; blood pressure and pulse.

Child Questionnaire: The parent or guardian of each child was questioned about the child. Questions included those on birth weight, history of breastfeeding and health of the child. With the parent's or guardian's permission the child?s height and weight were measured. Detailed information was recorded about the child?s immunization history.

IntroductionNon-consensual condom removal (NCCR) refers to the act of removing a condom during sex without the other person’s permission. It poses physical and psychological risks to women’s health. Views and attitudes regarding this sexual practice are not well understood in the UK. This study aimed to explore young people’s views on the morality and criminality of NCCR and how their views are affected by negative health outcomes, relationship status, and socio-demographic characteristics.MethodsA quantitative online survey of people aged 18–25 living in the UK was conducted. The survey consisted of two NCCR scenarios, varied by health outcome and relationship status, followed by questions about the morality and criminality of NCCR and respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics. Statistical analysis included Chi-square testing and logistic regression modelling.ResultsMost of the 1729 respondents considered NCCR to be a violation of consent to sex (97.4%-98.1%), to be wrong (99.3%-99.5%), and to be sexual assault (86.3%-89.2%). Respondents were more likely to support prison time for NCCR if the victim got pregnant (52.1%) (rather than depressed (41.6%)) or was part of a casual hook-up (53.9%) (as opposed to a long-term dating relationship (47.2%). Respondents who were female or non-heterosexual were more likely to view NCCR as sexual assault and support prison as a penalty for NCCR.ConclusionThe majority of young UK adults in this survey considered condom removal during sex without the other person’s permission to be a violation of consent, morally wrong, and a form of sexual assault. Support for prison as a penalty was lower. These findings can inform future campaigns on consent in sexual relationships and legislation to provide support for women affected by NCCR.