As of February 2025, China ranked first among the countries with the most internet users worldwide. The world's most populated country had 1.11 billion internet users, more than triple the third-ranked United States, with just around 322 million internet users. Overall, all BRIC markets had over two billion internet users, accounting for four of the ten countries with more than 100 million internet users. Worldwide internet usage As of October 2024, there were more than five billion internet users worldwide. There are, however, stark differences in user distribution according to region. Eastern Asia is home to 1.34 billion internet users, while African and Middle Eastern regions had lower user figures. Moreover, the urban areas showed a higher percentage of internet access than rural areas. Internet use in China China ranks first in the list of countries with the most internet users. Due to its ongoing and fast-paced economic development and a cultural inclination towards technology, more than a billion of the estimated 1.4 billion population in China are online. As of the third quarter of 2023, around 87 percent of Chinese internet users stated using WeChat, the most popular social network in the country. On average, Chinese internet users spent five hours and 33 minutes online daily.

The average for 2023 based on 196 countries was 0.51 percent. The highest value was in India: 17.91 percent and the lowest value was in Andorra: 0 percent. The indicator is available from 1960 to 2023. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

All cities with a population > 1000 or seats of adm div (ca 80.000)Sources and ContributionsSources : GeoNames is aggregating over hundred different data sources. Ambassadors : GeoNames Ambassadors help in many countries. Wiki : A wiki allows to view the data and quickly fix error and add missing places. Donations and Sponsoring : Costs for running GeoNames are covered by donations and sponsoring.Enrichment:add country name

Globally, about 25 percent of the population is under 15 years of age and 10 percent is over 65 years of age. Africa has the youngest population worldwide. In Sub-Saharan Africa, more than 40 percent of the population is below 15 years, and only three percent are above 65, indicating the low life expectancy in several of the countries. In Europe, on the other hand, a higher share of the population is above 65 years than the population under 15 years. Fertility rates The high share of children and youth in Africa is connected to the high fertility rates on the continent. For instance, South Sudan and Niger have the highest population growth rates globally. However, about 50 percent of the world’s population live in countries with low fertility, where women have less than 2.1 children. Some countries in Europe, like Latvia and Lithuania, have experienced a population decline of one percent, and in the Cook Islands, it is even above two percent. In Europe, the majority of the population was previously working-aged adults with few dependents, but this trend is expected to reverse soon, and it is predicted that by 2050, the older population will outnumber the young in many developed countries. Growing global population As of 2025, there are 8.1 billion people living on the planet, and this is expected to reach more than nine billion before 2040. Moreover, the global population is expected to reach 10 billions around 2060, before slowing and then even falling slightly by 2100. As the population growth rates indicate, a significant share of the population increase will happen in Africa.

This dataset provides values for POPULATION reported in several countries. The data includes current values, previous releases, historical highs and record lows, release frequency, reported unit and currency.

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

Chart and table of World population from 1950 to 2025. United Nations projections are also included through the year 2100.

The average for 2023 based on 196 countries was 10.17 percent. The highest value was in Monaco: 36.36 percent and the lowest value was in Qatar: 1.57 percent. The indicator is available from 1960 to 2023. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

On March 10, 2023, the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center ceased its collecting and reporting of global COVID-19 data. For updated cases, deaths, and vaccine data please visit: World Health Organization (WHO)For more information, visit the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.COVID-19 Trends MethodologyOur goal is to analyze and present daily updates in the form of recent trends within countries, states, or counties during the COVID-19 global pandemic. The data we are analyzing is taken directly from the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases Dashboard, though we expect to be one day behind the dashboard’s live feeds to allow for quality assurance of the data.DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.125529863/7/2022 - Adjusted the rate of active cases calculation in the U.S. to reflect the rates of serious and severe cases due nearly completely dominant Omicron variant.6/24/2020 - Expanded Case Rates discussion to include fix on 6/23 for calculating active cases.6/22/2020 - Added Executive Summary and Subsequent Outbreaks sectionsRevisions on 6/10/2020 based on updated CDC reporting. This affects the estimate of active cases by revising the average duration of cases with hospital stays downward from 30 days to 25 days. The result shifted 76 U.S. counties out of Epidemic to Spreading trend and no change for national level trends.Methodology update on 6/2/2020: This sets the length of the tail of new cases to 6 to a maximum of 14 days, rather than 21 days as determined by the last 1/3 of cases. This was done to align trends and criteria for them with U.S. CDC guidance. The impact is areas transition into Controlled trend sooner for not bearing the burden of new case 15-21 days earlier.Correction on 6/1/2020Discussion of our assertion of an abundance of caution in assigning trends in rural counties added 5/7/2020. Revisions added on 4/30/2020 are highlighted.Revisions added on 4/23/2020 are highlighted.Executive SummaryCOVID-19 Trends is a methodology for characterizing the current trend for places during the COVID-19 global pandemic. Each day we assign one of five trends: Emergent, Spreading, Epidemic, Controlled, or End Stage to geographic areas to geographic areas based on the number of new cases, the number of active cases, the total population, and an algorithm (described below) that contextualize the most recent fourteen days with the overall COVID-19 case history. Currently we analyze the countries of the world and the U.S. Counties. The purpose is to give policymakers, citizens, and analysts a fact-based data driven sense for the direction each place is currently going. When a place has the initial cases, they are assigned Emergent, and if that place controls the rate of new cases, they can move directly to Controlled, and even to End Stage in a short time. However, if the reporting or measures to curtail spread are not adequate and significant numbers of new cases continue, they are assigned to Spreading, and in cases where the spread is clearly uncontrolled, Epidemic trend.We analyze the data reported by Johns Hopkins University to produce the trends, and we report the rates of cases, spikes of new cases, the number of days since the last reported case, and number of deaths. We also make adjustments to the assignments based on population so rural areas are not assigned trends based solely on case rates, which can be quite high relative to local populations.Two key factors are not consistently known or available and should be taken into consideration with the assigned trend. First is the amount of resources, e.g., hospital beds, physicians, etc.that are currently available in each area. Second is the number of recoveries, which are often not tested or reported. On the latter, we provide a probable number of active cases based on CDC guidance for the typical duration of mild to severe cases.Reasons for undertaking this work in March of 2020:The popular online maps and dashboards show counts of confirmed cases, deaths, and recoveries by country or administrative sub-region. Comparing the counts of one country to another can only provide a basis for comparison during the initial stages of the outbreak when counts were low and the number of local outbreaks in each country was low. By late March 2020, countries with small populations were being left out of the mainstream news because it was not easy to recognize they had high per capita rates of cases (Switzerland, Luxembourg, Iceland, etc.). Additionally, comparing countries that have had confirmed COVID-19 cases for high numbers of days to countries where the outbreak occurred recently is also a poor basis for comparison.The graphs of confirmed cases and daily increases in cases were fit into a standard size rectangle, though the Y-axis for one country had a maximum value of 50, and for another country 100,000, which potentially misled people interpreting the slope of the curve. Such misleading circumstances affected comparing large population countries to small population counties or countries with low numbers of cases to China which had a large count of cases in the early part of the outbreak. These challenges for interpreting and comparing these graphs represent work each reader must do based on their experience and ability. Thus, we felt it would be a service to attempt to automate the thought process experts would use when visually analyzing these graphs, particularly the most recent tail of the graph, and provide readers with an a resulting synthesis to characterize the state of the pandemic in that country, state, or county.The lack of reliable data for confirmed recoveries and therefore active cases. Merely subtracting deaths from total cases to arrive at this figure progressively loses accuracy after two weeks. The reason is 81% of cases recover after experiencing mild symptoms in 10 to 14 days. Severe cases are 14% and last 15-30 days (based on average days with symptoms of 11 when admitted to hospital plus 12 days median stay, and plus of one week to include a full range of severely affected people who recover). Critical cases are 5% and last 31-56 days. Sources:U.S. CDC. April 3, 2020 Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19). Accessed online. Initial older guidance was also obtained online. Additionally, many people who recover may not be tested, and many who are, may not be tracked due to privacy laws. Thus, the formula used to compute an estimate of active cases is: Active Cases = 100% of new cases in past 14 days + 19% from past 15-25 days + 5% from past 26-49 days - total deaths. On 3/17/2022, the U.S. calculation was adjusted to: Active Cases = 100% of new cases in past 14 days + 6% from past 15-25 days + 3% from past 26-49 days - total deaths. Sources: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e4.htm https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#variant-proportions If a new variant arrives and appears to cause higher rates of serious cases, we will roll back this adjustment. We’ve never been inside a pandemic with the ability to learn of new cases as they are confirmed anywhere in the world. After reviewing epidemiological and pandemic scientific literature, three needs arose. We need to specify which portions of the pandemic lifecycle this map cover. The World Health Organization (WHO) specifies six phases. The source data for this map begins just after the beginning of Phase 5: human to human spread and encompasses Phase 6: pandemic phase. Phase six is only characterized in terms of pre- and post-peak. However, these two phases are after-the-fact analyses and cannot ascertained during the event. Instead, we describe (below) a series of five trends for Phase 6 of the COVID-19 pandemic.Choosing terms to describe the five trends was informed by the scientific literature, particularly the use of epidemic, which signifies uncontrolled spread. The five trends are: Emergent, Spreading, Epidemic, Controlled, and End Stage. Not every locale will experience all five, but all will experience at least three: emergent, controlled, and end stage.This layer presents the current trends for the COVID-19 pandemic by country (or appropriate level). There are five trends:Emergent: Early stages of outbreak. Spreading: Early stages and depending on an administrative area’s capacity, this may represent a manageable rate of spread. Epidemic: Uncontrolled spread. Controlled: Very low levels of new casesEnd Stage: No New cases These trends can be applied at several levels of administration: Local: Ex., City, District or County – a.k.a. Admin level 2State: Ex., State or Province – a.k.a. Admin level 1National: Country – a.k.a. Admin level 0Recommend that at least 100,000 persons be represented by a unit; granted this may not be possible, and then the case rate per 100,000 will become more important.Key Concepts and Basis for Methodology: 10 Total Cases minimum threshold: Empirically, there must be enough cases to constitute an outbreak. Ideally, this would be 5.0 per 100,000, but not every area has a population of 100,000 or more. Ten, or fewer, cases are also relatively less difficult to track and trace to sources. 21 Days of Cases minimum threshold: Empirically based on COVID-19 and would need to be adjusted for any other event. 21 days is also the minimum threshold for analyzing the “tail” of the new cases curve, providing seven cases as the basis for a likely trend (note that 21 days in the tail is preferred). This is the minimum needed to encompass the onset and duration of a normal case (5-7 days plus 10-14 days). Specifically, a median of 5.1 days incubation time, and 11.2 days for 97.5% of cases to incubate. This is also driven by pressure to understand trends and could easily be adjusted to 28 days. Source

United States US: Income Share Held by Highest 10% data was reported at 30.600 % in 2016. This records an increase from the previous number of 30.100 % for 2013. United States US: Income Share Held by Highest 10% data is updated yearly, averaging 30.100 % from Dec 1979 (Median) to 2016, with 11 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 30.600 % in 2016 and a record low of 25.300 % in 1979. United States US: Income Share Held by Highest 10% data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.World Bank.WDI: Poverty. Percentage share of income or consumption is the share that accrues to subgroups of population indicated by deciles or quintiles.; ; World Bank, Development Research Group. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm).; ; The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than one thousand six hundred household surveys across 164 countries in six regions and 25 other high income countries (industrialized economies). While income distribution data are published for all countries with data available, poverty data are published for low- and middle-income countries and countries eligible to receive loans from the World Bank (such as Chile) and recently graduated countries (such as Estonia) only. See PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/WhatIsNew.aspx) for definitions of geographical regions and industrialized countries.

Abstract

This multi-country harmonized dataset concerning forcibly displaced populations (FDPs) and their host communities was produced by the World Bank’s Poverty and Equity Global Practice. It incorporates representative surveys conducted in 10 countries across five regions that hosted FDPs in the period 2015 to 2020. The goal of this harmonization exercise is to provide researchers and policymakers with a valuable input for comparative analyses of forced displacement across key developing country settings.

Geographic coverage

The datasets included in the harmonization effort cover key recent displacement contexts: the Venezuelan influx in Latin America’s Andean states; the Syrian crisis in the Mashreq; the Rohingya displacement in Bangladesh; and forcible displacement in Sub-Saharan Africa (Sahel and East Africa). The harmonization exercise encompasses 10 different surveys. These include nationally representative surveys with a separate representative stratum for displaced populations; sub-national representative surveys covering displaced populations and their host communities; and surveys designed specifically to provide insights on displacement contexts. Most of the surveys were collected between 2015 and 2020.

Analysis unit

Household

Universe

Forcibly displaced populations and their hosts communities.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

The average for 2023 based on 196 countries was 38.64 percent. The highest value was in Papua New Guinea: 86.28 percent and the lowest value was in Bermuda: 0 percent. The indicator is available from 1960 to 2023. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

Associated with manuscript titled: Fifty Muslim-majority countries have fewer COVID-19 cases and deaths than the 50 richest non-Muslim countriesThe objective of this research was to determine the difference in the total number of COVID-19 cases and deaths between Muslim-majority and non-Muslim countries, and investigate reasons for the disparities. Methods: The 50 Muslim-majority countries had more than 50.0% Muslims with an average of 87.5%. The non-Muslim country sample consisted of 50 countries with the highest GDP while omitting any Muslim-majority countries listed. The non-Muslim countries’ average percentage of Muslims was 4.7%. Data pulled on September 18, 2020 included the percentage of Muslim population per country by World Population Review15 and GDP per country, population count, and total number of COVID-19 cases and deaths by Worldometers.16 The data set was transferred via an Excel spreadsheet on September 23, 2020 and analyzed. To measure COVID-19’s incidence in the countries, three different Average Treatment Methods (ATE) were used to validate the results. Results published as a preprint at https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/84zq5(15) Muslim Majority Countries 2020 [Internet]. Walnut (CA): World Population Review. 2020- [Cited 2020 Sept 28]. Available from: http://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/muslim-majority-countries (16) Worldometers.info. Worldometer. Dover (DE): Worldometer; 2020 [cited 2020 Sept 28]. Available from: http://worldometers.info

Abstract

Gallup Worldwide Research continually surveys residents in more than 150 countries, representing more than 98% of the world's adult population, using randomly selected, nationally representative samples. Gallup typically surveys 1,000 individuals in each country, using a standard set of core questions that has been translated into the major languages of the respective country. In some regions, supplemental questions are asked in addition to core questions. Face-to-face interviews are approximately 1 hour, while telephone interviews are about 30 minutes. In many countries, the survey is conducted once per year, and fieldwork is generally completed in two to four weeks. The Country Dataset Details spreadsheet displays each country's sample size, month/year of the data collection, mode of interviewing, languages employed, design effect, margin of error, and details about sample coverage.

Gallup is entirely responsible for the management, design, and control of Gallup Worldwide Research. For the past 70 years, Gallup has been committed to the principle that accurately collecting and disseminating the opinions and aspirations of people around the globe is vital to understanding our world. Gallup's mission is to provide information in an objective, reliable, and scientifically grounded manner. Gallup is not associated with any political orientation, party, or advocacy group and does not accept partisan entities as clients. Any individual, institution, or governmental agency may access the Gallup Worldwide Research regardless of nationality. The identities of clients and all surveyed respondents will remain confidential.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

SAMPLING AND DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY With some exceptions, all samples are probability based and nationally representative of the resident population aged 15 and older. The coverage area is the entire country including rural areas, and the sampling frame represents the entire civilian, non-institutionalized, aged 15 and older population of the entire country. Exceptions include areas where the safety of interviewing staff is threatened, scarcely populated islands in some countries, and areas that interviewers can reach only by foot, animal, or small boat.

Telephone surveys are used in countries where telephone coverage represents at least 80% of the population or is the customary survey methodology (see the Country Dataset Details for detailed information for each country). In Central and Eastern Europe, as well as in the developing world, including much of Latin America, the former Soviet Union countries, nearly all of Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, an area frame design is used for face-to-face interviewing.

The typical Gallup Worldwide Research survey includes at least 1,000 surveys of individuals. In some countries, oversamples are collected in major cities or areas of special interest. Additionally, in some large countries, such as China and Russia, sample sizes of at least 2,000 are collected. Although rare, in some instances the sample size is between 500 and 1,000. See the Country Dataset Details for detailed information for each country.

FACE-TO-FACE SURVEY DESIGN

FIRST STAGE In countries where face-to-face surveys are conducted, the first stage of sampling is the identification of 100 to 135 ultimate clusters (Sampling Units), consisting of clusters of households. Sampling units are stratified by population size and or geography and clustering is achieved through one or more stages of sampling. Where population information is available, sample selection is based on probabilities proportional to population size, otherwise simple random sampling is used. Samples are drawn independent of any samples drawn for surveys conducted in previous years.

There are two methods for sample stratification:

METHOD 1: The sample is stratified into 100 to 125 ultimate clusters drawn proportional to the national population, using the following strata: 1) Areas with population of at least 1 million 2) Areas 500,000-999,999 3) Areas 100,000-499,999 4) Areas 50,000-99,999 5) Areas 10,000-49,999 6) Areas with less than 10,000

The strata could include additional stratum to reflect populations that exceed 1 million as well as areas with populations less than 10,000. Worldwide Research Methodology and Codebook Copyright © 2008-2012 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. 8

METHOD 2:

A multi-stage design is used. The country is first stratified by large geographic units, and then by smaller units within geography. A minimum of 33 Primary Sampling Units (PSUs), which are first stage sampling units, are selected. The sample design results in 100 to 125 ultimate clusters.

SECOND STAGE

Random route procedures are used to select sampled households. Unless an outright refusal occurs, interviewers make up to three attempts to survey the sampled household. To increase the probability of contact and completion, attempts are made at different times of the day, and where possible, on different days. If an interviewer cannot obtain an interview at the initial sampled household, he or she uses a simple substitution method. Refer to Appendix C for a more in-depth description of random route procedures.

THIRD STAGE

Respondents are randomly selected within the selected households. Interviewers list all eligible household members and their ages or birthdays. The respondent is selected by means of the Kish grid (refer to Appendix C) in countries where face-to-face interviewing is used. The interview does not inform the person who answers the door of the selection criteria until after the respondent has been identified. In a few Middle East and Asian countries where cultural restrictions dictate gender matching, respondents are randomly selected using the Kish grid from among all eligible adults of the matching gender.

TELEPHONE SURVEY DESIGN

In countries where telephone interviewing is employed, random-digit-dial (RDD) or a nationally representative list of phone numbers is used. In select countries where cell phone penetration is high, a dual sampling frame is used. Random respondent selection is achieved by using either the latest birthday or Kish grid method. At least three attempts are made to reach a person in each household, spread over different days and times of day. Appointments for callbacks that fall within the survey data collection period are made.

PANEL SURVEY DESIGN

Prior to 2009, United States data were collected using The Gallup Panel. The Gallup Panel is a probability-based, nationally representative panel, for which all members are recruited via random-digit-dial methodology and is only used in the United States. Participants who elect to join the panel are committing to the completion of two to three surveys per month, with the typical survey lasting 10 to 15 minutes. The Gallup Worldwide Research panel survey is conducted over the telephone and takes approximately 30 minutes. No incentives are given to panel participants. Worldwide Research Methodology and Codebook Copyright © 2008-2012 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. 9

Research instrument

QUESTION DESIGN

Many of the Worldwide Research questions are items that Gallup has used for years. When developing additional questions, Gallup employed its worldwide network of research and political scientists1 to better understand key issues with regard to question development and construction and data gathering. Hundreds of items were developed, tested, piloted, and finalized. The best questions were retained for the core questionnaire and organized into indexes. Most items have a simple dichotomous ("yes or no") response set to minimize contamination of data because of cultural differences in response styles and to facilitate cross-cultural comparisons.

The Gallup Worldwide Research measures key indicators such as Law and Order, Food and Shelter, Job Creation, Migration, Financial Wellbeing, Personal Health, Civic Engagement, and Evaluative Wellbeing and demonstrates their correlations with world development indicators such as GDP and Brain Gain. These indicators assist leaders in understanding the broad context of national interests and establishing organization-specific correlations between leading indexes and lagging economic outcomes.

Gallup organizes its core group of indicators into the Gallup World Path. The Path is an organizational conceptualization of the seven indexes and is not to be construed as a causal model. The individual indexes have many properties of a strong theoretical framework. A more in-depth description of the questions and Gallup indexes is included in the indexes section of this document. In addition to World Path indexes, Gallup Worldwide Research questions also measure opinions about national institutions, corruption, youth development, community basics, diversity, optimism, communications, religiosity, and numerous other topics. For many regions of the world, additional questions that are specific to that region or country are included in surveys. Region-specific questions have been developed for predominantly Muslim nations, former Soviet Union countries, the Balkans, sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, China and India, South Asia, and Israel and the Palestinian Territories.

The questionnaire is translated into the major conversational languages of each country. The translation process starts with an English, French, or Spanish version, depending on the region. One of two translation methods may be used.

METHOD 1: Two independent translations are completed. An independent third party, with some knowledge of survey research methods, adjudicates the differences. A professional translator translates the final version back into the source language.

METHOD 2: A translator

Abstract

In order to develop various methods of comparable data collection on health and health system responsiveness WHO started a scientific survey study in 2000-2001. This study has used a common survey instrument in nationally representative populations with modular structure for assessing health of indviduals in various domains, health system responsiveness, household health care expenditures, and additional modules in other areas such as adult mortality and health state valuations.

The health module of the survey instrument was based on selected domains of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and was developed after a rigorous scientific review of various existing assessment instruments. The responsiveness module has been the result of ongoing work over the last 2 years that has involved international consultations with experts and key informants and has been informed by the scientific literature and pilot studies.

Questions on household expenditure and proportionate expenditure on health have been borrowed from existing surveys. The survey instrument has been developed in multiple languages using cognitive interviews and cultural applicability tests, stringent psychometric tests for reliability (i.e. test-retest reliability to demonstrate the stability of application) and most importantly, utilizing novel psychometric techniques for cross-population comparability.

The study was carried out in 61 countries completing 71 surveys because two different modes were intentionally used for comparison purposes in 10 countries. Surveys were conducted in different modes of in- person household 90 minute interviews in 14 countries; brief face-to-face interviews in 27 countries and computerized telephone interviews in 2 countries; and postal surveys in 28 countries. All samples were selected from nationally representative sampling frames with a known probability so as to make estimates based on general population parameters.

The survey study tested novel techniques to control the reporting bias between different groups of people in different cultures or demographic groups ( i.e. differential item functioning) so as to produce comparable estimates across cultures and groups. To achieve comparability, the selfreports of individuals of their own health were calibrated against well-known performance tests (i.e. self-report vision was measured against standard Snellen's visual acuity test) or against short descriptions in vignettes that marked known anchor points of difficulty (e.g. people with different levels of mobility such as a paraplegic person or an athlete who runs 4 km each day) so as to adjust the responses for comparability . The same method was also used for self-reports of individuals assessing responsiveness of their health systems where vignettes on different responsiveness domains describing different levels of responsiveness were used to calibrate the individual responses.

This data are useful in their own right to standardize indicators for different domains of health (such as cognition, mobility, self care, affect, usual activities, pain, social participation, etc.) but also provide a better measurement basis for assessing health of the populations in a comparable manner. The data from the surveys can be fed into composite measures such as "Healthy Life Expectancy" and improve the empirical data input for health information systems in different regions of the world. Data from the surveys were also useful to improve the measurement of the responsiveness of different health systems to the legitimate expectations of the population.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

BRIEF FACE-TO-FACE

The metropolitan, urban and rural population and all .administrative regional units. as defined in Official Europe Union Statistics (NUTS 2) covered proportionately the respective population aged 18 and above. The country was divided into an appropriate number of areas, grouping NUTS regions at whatever level appropriately.

The NUTS covered in the Netherlands were the following; Drente, Flevoland, Friesland, Gelderland, Gröningen, Limburg, Noord-Brabant, Noord-Holland, Overijssel, Utrecht, Zeeland, Zuid-Holland.

The basic sample design was a multi-stage, random probability sample. 100 sampling points were drawn with probability proportional to population size, for a total coverage of the country. The sampling points were drawn after stratification by NUTS 2 region and by degree of urbanisation. They represented the whole territory of the country surveyed and are selected proportionally to the distribution of the population in terms of metropolitan, urban and rural areas. In each of the selected sampling points, one address was drawn at random. This starting address forms the first address of a cluster of a maximum of 20 addresses. The remainder of the cluster was selected as every Nth address by standard random route procedure from the initial address. In theory, there is no maximum number of addresses issued per country. Procedures for random household selection and random respondent selection are independent of the interviewer.s decision and controlled by the institute responsible. They should be as identical as possible from to country, full functional equivalence being a must.

At every address up to 4 recalls were made to attempt to achieve an interview with the selected respondent. There was only one interview per household. The final sample size is 1,085 completed interviews.

POSTAL

The Municipal Population Registry (GBA) was used to select a representative sample of 3,000 individuals, aged 18 and over, of the Dutch population. Municipals were selected first and then the individual sample was drawn up.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Cleaning operations

Data Coding At each site the data was coded by investigators to indicate the respondent status and the selection of the modules for each respondent within the survey design. After the interview was edited by the supervisor and considered adequate it was entered locally.

Data Entry Program A data entry program was developed in WHO specifically for the survey study and provided to the sites. It was developed using a database program called the I-Shell (short for Interview Shell), a tool designed for easy development of computerized questionnaires and data entry (34). This program allows for easy data cleaning and processing.

The data entry program checked for inconsistencies and validated the entries in each field by checking for valid response categories and range checks. For example, the program didn’t accept an age greater than 120. For almost all of the variables there existed a range or a list of possible values that the program checked for.

In addition, the data was entered twice to capture other data entry errors. The data entry program was able to warn the user whenever a value that did not match the first entry was entered at the second data entry. In this case the program asked the user to resolve the conflict by choosing either the 1st or the 2nd data entry value to be able to continue. After the second data entry was completed successfully, the data entry program placed a mark in the database in order to enable the checking of whether this process had been completed for each and every case.

Data Transfer The data entry program was capable of exporting the data that was entered into one compressed database file which could be easily sent to WHO using email attachments or a file transfer program onto a secure server no matter how many cases were in the file. The sites were allowed the use of as many computers and as many data entry personnel as they wanted. Each computer used for this purpose produced one file and they were merged once they were delivered to WHO with the help of other programs that were built for automating the process. The sites sent the data periodically as they collected it enabling the checking procedures and preliminary analyses in the early stages of the data collection.

Data quality checks Once the data was received it was analyzed for missing information, invalid responses and representativeness. Inconsistencies were also noted and reported back to sites.

Data Cleaning and Feedback After receipt of cleaned data from sites, another program was run to check for missing information, incorrect information (e.g. wrong use of center codes), duplicated data, etc. The output of this program was fed back to sites regularly. Mainly, this consisted of cases with duplicate IDs, duplicate cases (where the data for two respondents with different IDs were identical), wrong country codes, missing age, sex, education and some other important variables.

Abstract

In order to develop various methods of comparable data collection on health and health system responsiveness WHO started a scientific survey study in 2000-2001. This study has used a common survey instrument in nationally representative populations with modular structure for assessing health of indviduals in various domains, health system responsiveness, household health care expenditures, and additional modules in other areas such as adult mortality and health state valuations.

The health module of the survey instrument was based on selected domains of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and was developed after a rigorous scientific review of various existing assessment instruments. The responsiveness module has been the result of ongoing work over the last 2 years that has involved international consultations with experts and key informants and has been informed by the scientific literature and pilot studies.

Questions on household expenditure and proportionate expenditure on health have been borrowed from existing surveys. The survey instrument has been developed in multiple languages using cognitive interviews and cultural applicability tests, stringent psychometric tests for reliability (i.e. test-retest reliability to demonstrate the stability of application) and most importantly, utilizing novel psychometric techniques for cross-population comparability.

The study was carried out in 61 countries completing 71 surveys because two different modes were intentionally used for comparison purposes in 10 countries. Surveys were conducted in different modes of in- person household 90 minute interviews in 14 countries; brief face-to-face interviews in 27 countries and computerized telephone interviews in 2 countries; and postal surveys in 28 countries. All samples were selected from nationally representative sampling frames with a known probability so as to make estimates based on general population parameters.

The survey study tested novel techniques to control the reporting bias between different groups of people in different cultures or demographic groups ( i.e. differential item functioning) so as to produce comparable estimates across cultures and groups. To achieve comparability, the selfreports of individuals of their own health were calibrated against well-known performance tests (i.e. self-report vision was measured against standard Snellen's visual acuity test) or against short descriptions in vignettes that marked known anchor points of difficulty (e.g. people with different levels of mobility such as a paraplegic person or an athlete who runs 4 km each day) so as to adjust the responses for comparability . The same method was also used for self-reports of individuals assessing responsiveness of their health systems where vignettes on different responsiveness domains describing different levels of responsiveness were used to calibrate the individual responses.

This data are useful in their own right to standardize indicators for different domains of health (such as cognition, mobility, self care, affect, usual activities, pain, social participation, etc.) but also provide a better measurement basis for assessing health of the populations in a comparable manner. The data from the surveys can be fed into composite measures such as "Healthy Life Expectancy" and improve the empirical data input for health information systems in different regions of the world. Data from the surveys were also useful to improve the measurement of the responsiveness of different health systems to the legitimate expectations of the population.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

As there has been no census since 1930 and due to ongoing unrest, there are no available national sampling frames in Lebanon except a geographical frame by administrative districts and based on urban data such as blocks, buildings and apartments. Postal addresses remain incomplete with respect to both coverage and validity particularly for rural areas.

The sample selection was therefore based on local standards for nationwide samples which consist in a cluster sampling of district areas from which housing blocks were randomly selected. Households were then selected randomly from the blocks.

The individual selected from the household was 18+ years in age and the closest birthday method was used to select the respondent.

2,500 households were visited and from each one of them, two individuals were selected.

Mode of data collection

Mail Questionnaire [mail]

Cleaning operations

Data Coding At each site the data was coded by investigators to indicate the respondent status and the selection of the modules for each respondent within the survey design. After the interview was edited by the supervisor and considered adequate it was entered locally.

Data Entry Program A data entry program was developed in WHO specifically for the survey study and provided to the sites. It was developed using a database program called the I-Shell (short for Interview Shell), a tool designed for easy development of computerized questionnaires and data entry (34). This program allows for easy data cleaning and processing.

The data entry program checked for inconsistencies and validated the entries in each field by checking for valid response categories and range checks. For example, the program didn’t accept an age greater than 120. For almost all of the variables there existed a range or a list of possible values that the program checked for.

In addition, the data was entered twice to capture other data entry errors. The data entry program was able to warn the user whenever a value that did not match the first entry was entered at the second data entry. In this case the program asked the user to resolve the conflict by choosing either the 1st or the 2nd data entry value to be able to continue. After the second data entry was completed successfully, the data entry program placed a mark in the database in order to enable the checking of whether this process had been completed for each and every case.

Data Transfer The data entry program was capable of exporting the data that was entered into one compressed database file which could be easily sent to WHO using email attachments or a file transfer program onto a secure server no matter how many cases were in the file. The sites were allowed the use of as many computers and as many data entry personnel as they wanted. Each computer used for this purpose produced one file and they were merged once they were delivered to WHO with the help of other programs that were built for automating the process. The sites sent the data periodically as they collected it enabling the checking procedures and preliminary analyses in the early stages of the data collection.

Data quality checks Once the data was received it was analyzed for missing information, invalid responses and representativeness. Inconsistencies were also noted and reported back to sites.

Data Cleaning and Feedback After receipt of cleaned data from sites, another program was run to check for missing information, incorrect information (e.g. wrong use of center codes), duplicated data, etc. The output of this program was fed back to sites regularly. Mainly, this consisted of cases with duplicate IDs, duplicate cases (where the data for two respondents with different IDs were identical), wrong country codes, missing age, sex, education and some other important variables.

In 2022, China topped the list of surveilled countries worldwide. Nearly the whole population in the country was affected by the internet usage restrictions set by the government. India and Pakistan followed as the governmental authorities in these countries also put limitations on internet usage for their citizens.

The average for 2021 based on 121 countries was 22.26 percent. The highest value was in Canada: 82.74 percent and the lowest value was in Afghanistan: 0 percent. The indicator is available from 2011 to 2021. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

Abstract

In order to develop various methods of comparable data collection on health and health system responsiveness WHO started a scientific survey study in 2000-2001. This study has used a common survey instrument in nationally representative populations with modular structure for assessing health of indviduals in various domains, health system responsiveness, household health care expenditures, and additional modules in other areas such as adult mortality and health state valuations.

The health module of the survey instrument was based on selected domains of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and was developed after a rigorous scientific review of various existing assessment instruments. The responsiveness module has been the result of ongoing work over the last 2 years that has involved international consultations with experts and key informants and has been informed by the scientific literature and pilot studies.

Questions on household expenditure and proportionate expenditure on health have been borrowed from existing surveys. The survey instrument has been developed in multiple languages using cognitive interviews and cultural applicability tests, stringent psychometric tests for reliability (i.e. test-retest reliability to demonstrate the stability of application) and most importantly, utilizing novel psychometric techniques for cross-population comparability.

The study was carried out in 61 countries completing 71 surveys because two different modes were intentionally used for comparison purposes in 10 countries. Surveys were conducted in different modes of in- person household 90 minute interviews in 14 countries; brief face-to-face interviews in 27 countries and computerized telephone interviews in 2 countries; and postal surveys in 28 countries. All samples were selected from nationally representative sampling frames with a known probability so as to make estimates based on general population parameters.

The survey study tested novel techniques to control the reporting bias between different groups of people in different cultures or demographic groups ( i.e. differential item functioning) so as to produce comparable estimates across cultures and groups. To achieve comparability, the selfreports of individuals of their own health were calibrated against well-known performance tests (i.e. self-report vision was measured against standard Snellen's visual acuity test) or against short descriptions in vignettes that marked known anchor points of difficulty (e.g. people with different levels of mobility such as a paraplegic person or an athlete who runs 4 km each day) so as to adjust the responses for comparability . The same method was also used for self-reports of individuals assessing responsiveness of their health systems where vignettes on different responsiveness domains describing different levels of responsiveness were used to calibrate the individual responses.

This data are useful in their own right to standardize indicators for different domains of health (such as cognition, mobility, self care, affect, usual activities, pain, social participation, etc.) but also provide a better measurement basis for assessing health of the populations in a comparable manner. The data from the surveys can be fed into composite measures such as "Healthy Life Expectancy" and improve the empirical data input for health information systems in different regions of the world. Data from the surveys were also useful to improve the measurement of the responsiveness of different health systems to the legitimate expectations of the population.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The Austrian Microcensus is the main household sample survey of Statistics Austria.

The gross sample size is 31,500 dwellings and the net sample size of about 23,000 households. It includes nine samples for the Austrian Länder, ranging between 2,700 and 4,600 dwellings (gross sample size).

In all Länder, except for the city of Vienna and Vorarlberg where the sample is a one-stage stratified-random sample, there is a two-stage-stratified-random sample.

Addresses were drawn from the housing census from 1991 and from the yearly register of newly built dwellings.

Mode of data collection

Mail Questionnaire [mail]

Cleaning operations

Data Coding At each site the data was coded by investigators to indicate the respondent status and the selection of the modules for each respondent within the survey design. After the interview was edited by the supervisor and considered adequate it was entered locally.

Data Entry Program A data entry program was developed in WHO specifically for the survey study and provided to the sites. It was developed using a database program called the I-Shell (short for Interview Shell), a tool designed for easy development of computerized questionnaires and data entry (34). This program allows for easy data cleaning and processing.

The data entry program checked for inconsistencies and validated the entries in each field by checking for valid response categories and range checks. For example, the program didn’t accept an age greater than 120. For almost all of the variables there existed a range or a list of possible values that the program checked for.

In addition, the data was entered twice to capture other data entry errors. The data entry program was able to warn the user whenever a value that did not match the first entry was entered at the second data entry. In this case the program asked the user to resolve the conflict by choosing either the 1st or the 2nd data entry value to be able to continue. After the second data entry was completed successfully, the data entry program placed a mark in the database in order to enable the checking of whether this process had been completed for each and every case.

Data Transfer The data entry program was capable of exporting the data that was entered into one compressed database file which could be easily sent to WHO using email attachments or a file transfer program onto a secure server no matter how many cases were in the file. The sites were allowed the use of as many computers and as many data entry personnel as they wanted. Each computer used for this purpose produced one file and they were merged once they were delivered to WHO with the help of other programs that were built for automating the process. The sites sent the data periodically as they collected it enabling the checking procedures and preliminary analyses in the early stages of the data collection.

Data quality checks Once the data was received it was analyzed for missing information, invalid responses and representativeness. Inconsistencies were also noted and reported back to sites.

Data Cleaning and Feedback After receipt of cleaned data from sites, another program was run to check for missing information, incorrect information (e.g. wrong use of center codes), duplicated data, etc. The output of this program was fed back to sites regularly. Mainly, this consisted of cases with duplicate IDs, duplicate cases (where the data for two respondents with different IDs were identical), wrong country codes, missing age, sex, education and some other important variables.

Pakistan PK: Income Share Held by Highest 10% data was reported at 28.900 % in 2015. This records an increase from the previous number of 26.000 % for 2013. Pakistan PK: Income Share Held by Highest 10% data is updated yearly, averaging 27.100 % from Dec 1987 (Median) to 2015, with 12 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 28.900 % in 2015 and a record low of 25.200 % in 1996. Pakistan PK: Income Share Held by Highest 10% data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Pakistan – Table PK.World Bank.WDI: Poverty. Percentage share of income or consumption is the share that accrues to subgroups of population indicated by deciles or quintiles.; ; World Bank, Development Research Group. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm).; ; The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than one thousand six hundred household surveys across 164 countries in six regions and 25 other high income countries (industrialized economies). While income distribution data are published for all countries with data available, poverty data are published for low- and middle-income countries and countries eligible to receive loans from the World Bank (such as Chile) and recently graduated countries (such as Estonia) only. See PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/WhatIsNew.aspx) for definitions of geographical regions and industrialized countries.