UGA_1995_DHS_v01_M
Demographic and Health Survey 1995
Name | Country code |
---|---|
Uganda | UGA |
Demographic and Health Survey (standard) - DHS III
The Uganda Demographic and Health Survey 1995 UDHS-II is the second survey of its kind to be conducted in Uganda. The first one was conducted in 1988.
Sample survey data
The Uganda Demographic and Health Survey 1995 covers the following topics:
The 1995 Uganda Demographic and Health Survey (UDHS-II) is a nationally-representative survey. For the purpose of the 1995 UDHS, the following domains were utilised: Uganda as a whole; urban and rural areas separately; each of the four regions: Central, Eastern, Northern, and Western; areas in the USAID-funded DISH project to permit calculation of contraceptive prevalence rates.
The population covered by the 1995 UDHS is defined as the universe of all women age 15-49 in Uganda. But because of insecurity, eight EAs could not be surveyed (six in Kitgum District, one in Apac District, and one in Moyo District). An additional two EAs (one in Arua and one in Moroto) could not be surveyed, but substitute EAs were selected in their place.
Name | Affiliation |
---|---|
Department of Statistics | Ministry of Finance & Economic Planning |
Name | Role |
---|---|
Macro International Inc | Technical assistance |
Name | Role |
---|---|
U.S. Agency for International Development | Funding |
Government of Uganda | Funding |
Name | Role |
---|---|
Population Secretariat | Collaboration |
Ministry of Health | Collaboration |
A sample of 303 primary sampling units (PSU) consisting of enumeration areas (EAs) was selected from a sampling frame of the 1991 Population and Housing Census. For the purpose of the 1995 UDHS, the following domains were utilised: Uganda as a whole; urban and rural areas separately; each of the four regions: Central, Eastern, Northern, and Western; areas in the USAID-funded DISH project to permit calculation of contraceptive prevalence rates.
Districts in the DISH project area were grouped by proximity into the following five reporting domains:
The sample for the 1995 UDHS was selected in two stages. In the first stage, 303 EAs were selected with probability proportional to size. Then, within each selected EA, a complete household listing and mapping exercise was conducted in December 1994 forming the basis for the second-stage sampling. For the listing exercise, 11 listers from the Statistics Department were trained. Institutional populations (army barracks, hospitals, police camps, etc.) were not listed.
From these household lists, households to be included in the UDHS were selected with probability inversely proportional to size based on the household listing results. All women age 15-49 years in these households were eligible to be interviewed in the UDHS. In one-third of these selected households, all men age 15-54 years were eligible for individual interview as well. The overall target sample was 6,000 women and 2,000 men. Because of insecurity, eight EAs could not be surveyed (six in Kitgum District, one in Apac District, and one in Moyo District). An additional two EAs (one in Arua and one in Moroto) could not be surveyed, but substitute EAs were selected in their place.
Since one objective of the survey was to produce estimates of specific demographic and health indicators for the areas included in the DISH project, the sample design allowed for oversampling of households in these districts relative to their actual proportion in the population. Thus, the 1995 UDHS sample is not self-weighting at the national level; weights are required to estimate national-level indicators. Due to the weighting factor and rounding of estimates, figures may not add to totals. In addition, the percent total may not add to 100.0 due to rounding.
Out of 8,093 households selected, 7,671were occupied, the shortfall being a result mostly of vacant houses. Of the existing households, 7,550 were interviewed, for a response rate of 98 percent. The main reason for non-response was the interviewer's failure to find a respondent at home after at least three visits.
In the interviewed households, 7,377 eligible women were identified and of these, 7,070 were interviewed, yielding a response rate of 96 percent. In the subsample of households selected for the man's interview, 2,224 eligible men were identified, of which 1,996 were successfully interviewed (90 percent response). The principal reason for non-response among both eligible men and visits to the household. The lower response rate among men than women was due to the more frequent and longer absences of men.
The response rates are lower in urban areas due to long absence of respondents. One-member households are more common in urban areas and are more difficult to interview as they keep their houses locked up most of the time. In urban settings, neighbours often do not know the whereabouts of such people.
Four questionnaires were used in the 1995 UDHS.
a) A Household Schedule was used to list the names and certain individual characteristics of all usual members of the household and visitors who had spent the previous night in the household. Some basic information was collected on characteristics of each person listed, including his/her age, sex, education, and relationship to the head of the household. The main purpose of the Household Questionnaire was to identify women and men who were eligible for the individual interview. In addition, the Household Questionnaire collected information on characteristics of the household's dwelling unit, such as the source of water, type of toilet facilities, materials used for the floor of the house, and ownership of various consumer and durable goods.
b) The Women's Questionnaire was used to collect information from women age 15-49. These women were asked questions on the following topics:
c) The Men' s Questionnaire was used to collect information from a subsample of men age 15-54 (those living in every third household). The Men's Questionnaire collected much of the same information found in the Women's Questionnaire, but was shorter because it did not contain questions on reproductive history and maternal and child health.
d) The Service Availability Questionnaire was used to collect community level information on the health and family planning services near each selected LC 1 (see section 1.1 for explanation). An enumeration area sometimes consists of more than one LC1. In such cases, one questionnaire was completed for each of the LC I s within the selected enumeration area.
The questionnaires were developed in English by a Steering Committee which was chaired by the Population Secretariat. All except the Service Availability Questionnaire were translated into and printed in six major languages (Ateso, Luganda, Lugbara, Luo, Runyankole/Rukiga, and Runyoro/Rutoro).
Start | End |
---|---|
1995-03 | 1995-08 |
Name |
---|
Statistics Department of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning |
Supervisors and editors were trained exclusively for three days to discuss their duties and responsibilities. Emphasis was given to the importance of ensuring data quality.
The 1995 UDHS questionnaires were pretested in November 1994. Fourteen interviewers (seven teams of one female and one male interviewer) were trained for two weeks to implement the pretest. The pretest field work in the six local languages was carried out in seven districts for three days. Approximately 150 pretest interviews were conducted, debriefing sessions were subsequently held with the pretest field staff, and modifications to the questionnaire were made based on lessons drawn from the exercise.
Training of field staff for the main survey was conducted over a three-week period in March 1995. Permanent staff from the Statistics Department, guest lecturers, and staff and consultants from Macro International Inc. trained 94 interviewers and data entry operators. Computer operators participated in interviewing during the first rounds of fieldwork to acquaint themselves with the questionnaires. The training course consisted of instruction in general interviewing techniques, field procedures, a detailed review of items on the questionnaires, instruction and practice in weighing and measuring children, mock interviews between participants in the classroom, and practice interviews with real respondents in areas outside the 1995 UDHS sample points. Supervisors and editors were trained exclusively for three days to discuss their duties and responsibilities. Emphasis was given to the importance of ensuring data quality.
Fieldwork for the 1995 UDHS started in the fourth week of March and ended in mid- August 1995. Ten interviewing teams were deployed, each consisting of one supervisor/team leader, one female field editor, three female interviewers, one male interviewer, one reserve interviewer of either sex, and a driver. In addition, a senior officer from the Statistics Department was assigned to each of the major languages.
All the questionnaires for the UDHS were returned to the Statistics Department for data processing, which consisted of office editing, coding of open-ended questions, data entry, and editing of computer- identified errors. All data were processed on microcomputers. Data entry and editing were accomplished using the computer program ISSA (Integrated System for Survey Analysis) that was specially designed for the DHS programme. Data processing was performed during April-October 1995.
Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be evaluated statistically. The sample of respondents selected in the UDHS 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 standarderrorfor 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 UDHS 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 UDHS is the ISSA Sampling Error Module (ISSAS). This module used the Taylor linearization method of variance estimation for survey estimates that are means or proportions. The Jacknife repeated replication method is used for variance estimation of more complex statistics such as fertility and mortality rates.
The Jacknife repeated replication method derives estimates of complex rates from each of several replications of the parent sample, and calculates standard errors for these estimates using simple formulae. Each replication considers all but one clusters in the calculation of the estimates. Pseudo-independent replications are thus created. In the UDHS, there were 295 non-empty clusters. Hence, 295 replications were created.
In addition to the standard error, ISSAS computes the design effect (DEFT) for each estimate, which is defined as the ratio between the standard error using the given sample design and the standard error that would result if a simple random sample had been used. A DEFT value of 1.0 indicates that the sample design is as efficient as a simple random sample, while a value greater than 1.0 indicates the increase in the sampling error due to the use of a more complex and less statistically efficient design. ISSAS also computes the relative error and confidence limits for the estimates.
Sampling errors for the UDHS are calculated for selected variables considered to be of primary interest. The results are presented in an appendix to the Final Report for the country as a whole, for urban and rural areas, and for each of the four regions: Central, Eastern, Northern, and Western. For each variable, the type of statistic (mean, proportion, or rate) and the base population are given in Table B.1 of the Final Report. Tables B.2 to B.8 present the value of the statistic (R), its standard error (SE), the number of unweighted (N) and weighted (WN) cases, the design effect (DEFT), the relative standard error (SE/R), and the 95 percent confidence limits (R±2SE), for each variable. The DEFT is considered undefined when the standard error considering simple ramdom sample is zero (when the estimate is close to 0 or I ).
In general, the relative standard error for most estimates for the country as a whole is small, except for estimates of very small proportions. There are some differentials in the relative standard error for the estimates of sub-populations. For example, for the variable contraceptive use for currently married women age 15-49, the relative standard errors as a percent of the estimated mean for the whole country, for urban areas, and for rural areas are 5.2 percent, 5.0 percent, and 6.2 percent, respectively.
The confidence interval (e.g., as calculated for contraceptive use for currently married women age 15-49) can be interpreted as follows: the overall national sample proportion is 0.148 and its standard error is .008. Therefore, to obtain the 95 percent confidence limits, one adds and subtracts twice the standard error to the sample estimate, i.e. 0.148--_2(.008). There is a high probability (95 percent) that the true average proportion of contraceptive use for currently married women age 15 to 49 is between 0.132 and 0.164.
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 UDHS to minimize this type of error, nonsampling errors are impossible to avoid and difficult to evaluate statistically.
Name | Affiliation | URL | |
---|---|---|---|
MEASURE DHS | ICF International | www.measuredhs.com | archive@measuredhs.com |
Use of the dataset must be acknowledged using a citation which would include:
The user of the data acknowledges that the original collector of the data, the authorized distributor of the data, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.
Name | URL | |
---|---|---|
General Inquiries | info@measuredhs.com | www.measuredhs.com |
Data and Data Related Resources | archive@measuredhs.com | www.measuredhs.com |
DDI_UGA_1995_DHS_v01_M
Name | Role |
---|---|
World Bank, Development Economics Data Group | Generation of DDI documentation |
2012-04-05
This site uses cookies to optimize functionality and give you the best possible experience. If you continue to navigate this website beyond this page, cookies will be placed on your browser. To learn more about cookies, click here.