COVID-19 High Frequency Phone Survey 2020
Burkina Faso, 2020 - 2021
Get Microdata
Reference ID
BFA_2020_HFPS_v09_M
Producer(s)
Institut National de la Statistique et la Démographie (INSD)
Collection(s)
Metadata
Created on
Aug 20, 2020
Last modified
Sep 23, 2021
Page views
77357
Downloads
17273
Identification
Survey ID Number
BFA_2020_HFPS_v09_M
Title
COVID-19 High Frequency Phone Survey 2020
Translated Title
Enquête Téléphonique sur l’Impact de la Covid-19 sur les Conditions de Vies des Ménages au Burkina Faso
Country/Economy
| Name | Country code |
|---|---|
| Burkina Faso | BFA |
Study type
Other Household Survey [hh/oth]
Series Information
The World Bank is providing technical and financial support to countries to help mitigate the spread and impact of the new corona-virus disease (COVID-19). One area of support is for data collection to inform evidence-based policies that may help mitigate the effects of this disease. Towards this end, the World Bank is leveraging the West Africa Economic Monetary Union (WAEMU) Household Survey harmonization Project (P153702) to produce high frequency longitudinal data in member countries (Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, Cote d’Ivoire, Guinea Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal and Togo).
Abstract
In the West Africa Economic Monetary Union (WAEMU) countries, COVID-19 is expected to affect households in many ways. First, governments might reduce social transfers to households due to the decline in revenue arising from the potential COVID-19 economic recession. Second households deriving income from vulnerable sectors such as tourism and related activities will likely face risk of unemployment or loss of income. Third an increase in prices of imported goods can also negatively impact household welfare, as a direct consequence of the increase of these imported items or as indirect increase of prices of local good manufactured using imported inputs. In this context, there is a need to produce high frequency data to help policy makers in monitoring the channels by which the pandemic affects households and assessing its distributional impact. To do so, the sample of the longitudinal survey is a sub-sample of the Enquête Harmonisée sur les Conditions de Vie des Ménages (EHCVM), a harmonized household survey conducted in 2018/19 household survey in the WAEMU countries.
For Burkina Faso, the survey, which is implemented by the Institut National de la Statistique et la Demographie (INSD), is conducted using cell phone numbers of household members collected during the 2018/19 EHCVM survey. The extensive information collected in the EHCVM provides a rich set of background information for the COVID-19 High Frequency Phone Survey of households. This background information can be leveraged to assess the differential impacts of the pandemic in the country. Every month, the sampled households will be asked a set of core questions on the key channels through which individuals and households are expected to be affected by the COVID-19-related restrictions. Employment, access to basic services, non-labor sources of income are channels likely to be impacted. The core questionnaire is complemented by questions on selected topics that rotate each month. This provides data to the government and development partners in near real-time, supporting an evidence-based response to the crisis.
The main objectives of the survey are to:
• Identify type of households directly or indirectly affected by the pandemic;
• Identify the main channels by which the pandemic affects households;
• Provide relevant data on income and socioeconomic indicators to assess the welfare impact of the pandemic.
For Burkina Faso, the survey, which is implemented by the Institut National de la Statistique et la Demographie (INSD), is conducted using cell phone numbers of household members collected during the 2018/19 EHCVM survey. The extensive information collected in the EHCVM provides a rich set of background information for the COVID-19 High Frequency Phone Survey of households. This background information can be leveraged to assess the differential impacts of the pandemic in the country. Every month, the sampled households will be asked a set of core questions on the key channels through which individuals and households are expected to be affected by the COVID-19-related restrictions. Employment, access to basic services, non-labor sources of income are channels likely to be impacted. The core questionnaire is complemented by questions on selected topics that rotate each month. This provides data to the government and development partners in near real-time, supporting an evidence-based response to the crisis.
The main objectives of the survey are to:
• Identify type of households directly or indirectly affected by the pandemic;
• Identify the main channels by which the pandemic affects households;
• Provide relevant data on income and socioeconomic indicators to assess the welfare impact of the pandemic.
Kind of Data
Sample survey data [ssd]
Unit of Analysis
- Households
- Individuals
- Individuals
Version
Version Description
Version 09: Edited, anonymized dataset for public distribution
Version Date
2021-09-21
Scope
Notes
The Burkina Faso COVID-19 High Frequency Phone Survey covered the following topics:
- Household Roster (Rounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
- Mental Health (Round 10)
- Awareness of the Spread of the COVID-19 (Round 10)
- Knowledge Regarding the Spread of COVID-19 (Rounds 1, 3, 5, 10)
- Behavior and Social Distancing (Rounds 1, 3, 5, 10)
- Access to Basic Needs (Rounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
- Education (Round 5)
- Credit (Rounds 4, 10)
- COVID Testing and Vaccination (Rounds 5, 10)
- Employment and Income (Rounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
- Food Security (Rounds, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11)
- Shocks (Rounds 2, 4, 6, 8, 10)
- Fragility, Conflict and Violence (Rounds 2, 4, 6, 8, 10)
- Other revenues (Rounds 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
- Concerns (Round 11)
- Social protection (Rounds 3, 5, 7, 11)
- Personal Health Questionnaire (Round 7)
- Early Child Development - Parental support (Round 8)
- Household Roster (Rounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
- Mental Health (Round 10)
- Awareness of the Spread of the COVID-19 (Round 10)
- Knowledge Regarding the Spread of COVID-19 (Rounds 1, 3, 5, 10)
- Behavior and Social Distancing (Rounds 1, 3, 5, 10)
- Access to Basic Needs (Rounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
- Education (Round 5)
- Credit (Rounds 4, 10)
- COVID Testing and Vaccination (Rounds 5, 10)
- Employment and Income (Rounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
- Food Security (Rounds, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11)
- Shocks (Rounds 2, 4, 6, 8, 10)
- Fragility, Conflict and Violence (Rounds 2, 4, 6, 8, 10)
- Other revenues (Rounds 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
- Concerns (Round 11)
- Social protection (Rounds 3, 5, 7, 11)
- Personal Health Questionnaire (Round 7)
- Early Child Development - Parental support (Round 8)
Coverage
Geographic Coverage
National coverage, including Ouagadougou, rural and other urban
Universe
The survey covered a sub-sample of the households of the 2018/19 - Enquête Harmonisée sur le Conditions de Vie des Ménages (EHCVM) survey which excluded populations in prisons, hospitals, military barracks, and school dormitories.
Producers and sponsors
Primary investigators
| Name | Affiliation |
|---|---|
| Institut National de la Statistique et la Démographie (INSD) | Gouvernement du Burkina Faso |
Producers
| Name | Role |
|---|---|
| The World Bank | Collaborated in design, implementation and analysis |
Funding Agency/Sponsor
| Name | Abbreviation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| The World Bank | WB | Funded the survey |
| Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation | BMGF | Funded the survey |
| United States Agency for International Development | USAID | Funded the survey |
Sampling
Sampling Procedure
The sample of the HFS is a subsample of the 2018/19 Harmonized Living Conditions Household Survey (EHCVM). The EHCVM 2018/19 is built on a nationally and regionally representative sample of households in Burkina Faso. EHCVM 2018/19 interviewed 7,010 households in urban and rural areas. In the EHCVM interview, households were asked to provide phone numbers of the household head, or a household member, or a non-household member (e.g. friends or neighbors) so that they can be contacted for follow-up questions. At least one valid phone number was obtained for 6877 households. These households established the sampling frame for the HFS. To obtain representative strata at the national, capital (Ouagadougou), urban, and rural level, the target sample size for the HFS is 1,800 household (assuming a 50% non-response rate the minimum required sample is 1479). To account for non-response and attrition, 2500 households were called in baseline round of the HFS. 1,968 households were fully interviewed during the first round of interviews. Those 1,968 households constitute the final successful sample and will be contacted in subsequent rounds of the survey.
In addition to the 1,968 households successfully interviewed in Round 1, in Round 2 242 additional households were sampled from the rural strata, in order to increase the representativeness in this domain.
In addition to the 1,968 households successfully interviewed in Round 1, in Round 2 242 additional households were sampled from the rural strata, in order to increase the representativeness in this domain.
Response Rate
BASELINE (ROUND 1): All 2500 households were called in the baseline round of the phone survey. 82.48 percent of sampled households were successfully contacted. Of those contacted, 1,968 households were fully interviewed. These 1,968 households constitute the final successful sample and will be contacted in subsequent rounds of the survey.
ROUND 2: Interviewers attempted to contact and interview all 1,968 households that were successfully interviewed in the Round 1 of the BFA COVID-19 HFPS. 1,891 households (96.1% of the 1,968 attempted) were contacted and 1,860 (94.5%) were successfully interviewed in the second round. Of those contacted, 20 households refused outright to be interviewed and 12 were partially interviewed. In addition to the 1,968 households successfully interviewed in Round 1, in Round 2 242 additional households were sampled from the rural strata, in order to increase the representativeness in this domain. Out of the 242 sample households, 177 households (73.14% of the 242 attempted) were contacted and successfully interviewed. The entire Round 2 sample comprises 2037 households.
ROUND 3: In addition to the 2,037 households successfully interviewed in the second round, in an effort to maintain sample size, additional 173 households that had not been successfully interviewed in previous rounds but did not refuse to participate in the survey were called in this third round. 2,037 households (96.08% of the 2,120 attempted) were contacted and 2,013 (94.95%) were successfully interviewed in the third round. Of those contacted, 21 households refused outright to be interviewed and 2 were partially interviewed.
ROUND 4: In addition to the 2,013 households successfully interviewed in the third round, in an effort to maintain sample size, additional 91 households that had not been successfully interviewed in previous rounds but did not refuse to participate in the survey were called in this third round. 21 households were excluded from the sample of Round 4 as they refused to participate in Round 3. As shown in Table 6, 2,025 households (96.25% of the 2,104 attempted) were contacted and 2,011 (95.58%) were successfully interviewed in Round 4. Of those contacted, 9 households refused outright to be interviewed and 5 were partially interviewed.
ROUND 5: In addition to the 2,011 households successfully interviewed in the fourth round, in an effort to maintain sample size, additional 84 households that had not been successfully interviewed in previous rounds but did not refuse to participate in the survey were called in this fifth round. 9 households were excluded from the sample of Round 5 as they refused to participate in Round 4. As shown in Table 16, 1,968 households (93.94% of the 2,095 attempted) were contacted and 1,944 (92.79%) were successfully interviewed in Round 5. Of those contacted, 24 households refused outright to be interviewed.
ROUND 6: In addition to the 1944 households successfully interviewed in the fifth round, in an effort to maintain sample size, additional 84 households that had not been successfully interviewed in previous rounds but did not refuse to participate in the survey were called in this sixth round. 24 households were excluded from the sample of Round 6 as they refused to participate in Round 5. As shown in Table 19, 2008 households (96.96% of the 2,071 attempted) were contacted and 1,985 (95.85%) were successfully interviewed in Round 6. Of those contacted, 18 households refused outright to be interviewed.
ROUND 7: In addition to the 1985 households successfully interviewed in the sixth round, in an effort to maintain sample size, additional 47 households that had not been successfully interviewed in previous rounds but did not refuse to participate in the survey were called in this seventh round. 18 households were excluded from the sample of Round 7 as they refused to participate in Round 6, and 21 were excluded as they weren’t contacted in the past three consecutive rounds. As shown in Table 22, 1994 households (98.13% of the 2,032 attempted) were contacted and 1,979 (97.39%) were successfully interviewed in Round 7. Of those contacted, 13 households refused outright to be interviewed.
ROUND 8: In addition to the 1979 households successfully interviewed in the seventh round, in an effort to maintain sample size, additional 32 households that had not been successfully interviewed in previous rounds but did not refuse to participate in the survey were called in this seventh round. 13 households were excluded from the sample of Round 8 as they refused to participate in Round 7, and 10 households were excluded as they weren’t contacted in the past three consecutive rounds. As shown in Table 25, 1979 households (98.41% of the 2011 attempted) were contacted and 1967 (97.81%) were successfully interviewed in Round 8. Of those contacted, 8 households refused outright to be interviewed.
ROUND 9: In addition to the 1967 households successfully interviewed in the eighth round, in an effort to maintain sample size, additional 21 households that had not been successfully interviewed in previous rounds but did not refuse to participate in the survey were called in this eighth round. 8 households were excluded from the sample of Round 9 as they refused to participate in Round 8, and 17 households were excluded as they weren’t contacted in the past three consecutive rounds. As shown in Table 25, 1976 households (98.90% of the 1998 attempted) were contacted and 1971 (98.60%) were successfully interviewed in Round 9. Of those contacted, 3 households refused outright to be interviewed and one household could not complete the interview due to language barrier issues.
ROUND 10: In addition to the 1971 households successfully interviewed in the nineth round, in an effort to maintain sample size, additional 15 households that had not been successfully interviewed in previous rounds but did not refuse to participate in the survey were called in this nineth round. 3 households were excluded from the sample of Round 10 as they refused to participate in Round 9, and 9 households were excluded as they weren’t contacted in the past three consecutive rounds. As shown in Table 25, 1957 households (98.54% of the 1986 attempted) were contacted and 1946 (97.99%) were successfully interviewed in Round 10. Of those contacted, 10 households refused outright to be interviewed.
ROUND 11: In addition to the 1946 households successfully interviewed in the tenth round, in an effort to maintain sample size, additional 25 households that had not been successfully interviewed in previous rounds but did not refuse to participate in the survey were called in this tenth round. 10 households were excluded from the sample of Round 11 as they refused to participate in Round 10, and 5 households were excluded as they weren’t contacted in the past three consecutive rounds. 1938 households (98.27% of the 1971 attempted) were contacted and 1924 (97.62%) were successfully interviewed in Round 11. Of those contacted, 3 households refused outright to be interviewed.
RESPONDENTS: Each round of the Burkina Faso COVID-19 HFPS has ONE RESPONDENT per household. The respondent was the household head or a knowledgeable adult household member. The respondent must be a member of the household. Unlike many other household surveys, interviewers were not expected to seek out other household members to provide their own information. The respondent may still consult with other household members as needed to respond to the questions, including to provide all the necessary information on each household member.
Interviewers were instructed to make every effort to reach the same respondent in subsequent rounds of the survey, in order to maintain the consistency of the information collected. However, in cases where the previous respondent was not available, interviewers would identify another knowledgeable adult household member to interview.
ROUND 2: Interviewers attempted to contact and interview all 1,968 households that were successfully interviewed in the Round 1 of the BFA COVID-19 HFPS. 1,891 households (96.1% of the 1,968 attempted) were contacted and 1,860 (94.5%) were successfully interviewed in the second round. Of those contacted, 20 households refused outright to be interviewed and 12 were partially interviewed. In addition to the 1,968 households successfully interviewed in Round 1, in Round 2 242 additional households were sampled from the rural strata, in order to increase the representativeness in this domain. Out of the 242 sample households, 177 households (73.14% of the 242 attempted) were contacted and successfully interviewed. The entire Round 2 sample comprises 2037 households.
ROUND 3: In addition to the 2,037 households successfully interviewed in the second round, in an effort to maintain sample size, additional 173 households that had not been successfully interviewed in previous rounds but did not refuse to participate in the survey were called in this third round. 2,037 households (96.08% of the 2,120 attempted) were contacted and 2,013 (94.95%) were successfully interviewed in the third round. Of those contacted, 21 households refused outright to be interviewed and 2 were partially interviewed.
ROUND 4: In addition to the 2,013 households successfully interviewed in the third round, in an effort to maintain sample size, additional 91 households that had not been successfully interviewed in previous rounds but did not refuse to participate in the survey were called in this third round. 21 households were excluded from the sample of Round 4 as they refused to participate in Round 3. As shown in Table 6, 2,025 households (96.25% of the 2,104 attempted) were contacted and 2,011 (95.58%) were successfully interviewed in Round 4. Of those contacted, 9 households refused outright to be interviewed and 5 were partially interviewed.
ROUND 5: In addition to the 2,011 households successfully interviewed in the fourth round, in an effort to maintain sample size, additional 84 households that had not been successfully interviewed in previous rounds but did not refuse to participate in the survey were called in this fifth round. 9 households were excluded from the sample of Round 5 as they refused to participate in Round 4. As shown in Table 16, 1,968 households (93.94% of the 2,095 attempted) were contacted and 1,944 (92.79%) were successfully interviewed in Round 5. Of those contacted, 24 households refused outright to be interviewed.
ROUND 6: In addition to the 1944 households successfully interviewed in the fifth round, in an effort to maintain sample size, additional 84 households that had not been successfully interviewed in previous rounds but did not refuse to participate in the survey were called in this sixth round. 24 households were excluded from the sample of Round 6 as they refused to participate in Round 5. As shown in Table 19, 2008 households (96.96% of the 2,071 attempted) were contacted and 1,985 (95.85%) were successfully interviewed in Round 6. Of those contacted, 18 households refused outright to be interviewed.
ROUND 7: In addition to the 1985 households successfully interviewed in the sixth round, in an effort to maintain sample size, additional 47 households that had not been successfully interviewed in previous rounds but did not refuse to participate in the survey were called in this seventh round. 18 households were excluded from the sample of Round 7 as they refused to participate in Round 6, and 21 were excluded as they weren’t contacted in the past three consecutive rounds. As shown in Table 22, 1994 households (98.13% of the 2,032 attempted) were contacted and 1,979 (97.39%) were successfully interviewed in Round 7. Of those contacted, 13 households refused outright to be interviewed.
ROUND 8: In addition to the 1979 households successfully interviewed in the seventh round, in an effort to maintain sample size, additional 32 households that had not been successfully interviewed in previous rounds but did not refuse to participate in the survey were called in this seventh round. 13 households were excluded from the sample of Round 8 as they refused to participate in Round 7, and 10 households were excluded as they weren’t contacted in the past three consecutive rounds. As shown in Table 25, 1979 households (98.41% of the 2011 attempted) were contacted and 1967 (97.81%) were successfully interviewed in Round 8. Of those contacted, 8 households refused outright to be interviewed.
ROUND 9: In addition to the 1967 households successfully interviewed in the eighth round, in an effort to maintain sample size, additional 21 households that had not been successfully interviewed in previous rounds but did not refuse to participate in the survey were called in this eighth round. 8 households were excluded from the sample of Round 9 as they refused to participate in Round 8, and 17 households were excluded as they weren’t contacted in the past three consecutive rounds. As shown in Table 25, 1976 households (98.90% of the 1998 attempted) were contacted and 1971 (98.60%) were successfully interviewed in Round 9. Of those contacted, 3 households refused outright to be interviewed and one household could not complete the interview due to language barrier issues.
ROUND 10: In addition to the 1971 households successfully interviewed in the nineth round, in an effort to maintain sample size, additional 15 households that had not been successfully interviewed in previous rounds but did not refuse to participate in the survey were called in this nineth round. 3 households were excluded from the sample of Round 10 as they refused to participate in Round 9, and 9 households were excluded as they weren’t contacted in the past three consecutive rounds. As shown in Table 25, 1957 households (98.54% of the 1986 attempted) were contacted and 1946 (97.99%) were successfully interviewed in Round 10. Of those contacted, 10 households refused outright to be interviewed.
ROUND 11: In addition to the 1946 households successfully interviewed in the tenth round, in an effort to maintain sample size, additional 25 households that had not been successfully interviewed in previous rounds but did not refuse to participate in the survey were called in this tenth round. 10 households were excluded from the sample of Round 11 as they refused to participate in Round 10, and 5 households were excluded as they weren’t contacted in the past three consecutive rounds. 1938 households (98.27% of the 1971 attempted) were contacted and 1924 (97.62%) were successfully interviewed in Round 11. Of those contacted, 3 households refused outright to be interviewed.
RESPONDENTS: Each round of the Burkina Faso COVID-19 HFPS has ONE RESPONDENT per household. The respondent was the household head or a knowledgeable adult household member. The respondent must be a member of the household. Unlike many other household surveys, interviewers were not expected to seek out other household members to provide their own information. The respondent may still consult with other household members as needed to respond to the questions, including to provide all the necessary information on each household member.
Interviewers were instructed to make every effort to reach the same respondent in subsequent rounds of the survey, in order to maintain the consistency of the information collected. However, in cases where the previous respondent was not available, interviewers would identify another knowledgeable adult household member to interview.
Weighting
To obtain unbiased estimates from the sample, the information reported by households needs to be adjusted by a sampling weight (or raising factor) w_h. To construct the sampling weights, we follow the steps outlined in Himelein, K. (2014), which outlines eight steps, of which we follow six, to construct the sampling weights for the BFA-HFPS:
1. Begin with base weights from the EHCVM 2018/19 for each household
2. Incorporate probability of sub-selection of round 1 unit for each of the phone survey households. We calculate the probability of selection for each of the 3 strata in the EHCVM (urban, rural and other urban) by creating the numerators as the number of completed phone interviews and the denominator as the number of households in the EHCVM for each stratum.
3. Pool the weights in Steps 1 and 2.
4. To cater for non-responses, derive attrition-adjusted weights for all individuals by running a logistic response propensity model based on characteristics of the household head (i.e. education, labor force status, demographic characteristics), characteristics of the household (consumption, assets, financial characteristics), and characteristics of the dwelling (house ownership, overcrowding).
5. Trim weights by replacing the top two percent of observations with the 98th percentile cut-off point; and
6. Post-stratify weights to known population totals to correct for the imbalances across our urban and rural sample. In doing so, we ensure that the distribution in the survey matches the distribution in the EHCVM 2018/19.
1. Begin with base weights from the EHCVM 2018/19 for each household
2. Incorporate probability of sub-selection of round 1 unit for each of the phone survey households. We calculate the probability of selection for each of the 3 strata in the EHCVM (urban, rural and other urban) by creating the numerators as the number of completed phone interviews and the denominator as the number of households in the EHCVM for each stratum.
3. Pool the weights in Steps 1 and 2.
4. To cater for non-responses, derive attrition-adjusted weights for all individuals by running a logistic response propensity model based on characteristics of the household head (i.e. education, labor force status, demographic characteristics), characteristics of the household (consumption, assets, financial characteristics), and characteristics of the dwelling (house ownership, overcrowding).
5. Trim weights by replacing the top two percent of observations with the 98th percentile cut-off point; and
6. Post-stratify weights to known population totals to correct for the imbalances across our urban and rural sample. In doing so, we ensure that the distribution in the survey matches the distribution in the EHCVM 2018/19.
Data Collection
Dates of Data Collection
| Start | End | Cycle |
|---|---|---|
| 2020-06-09 | 2020-07-01 | Round 1 (Baseline) |
| 2020-07-20 | 2020-08-14 | Round 2 |
| 2020-09-12 | 2020-10-21 | Round 3 |
| 2020-11-06 | 2020-12-02 | Round 4 |
| 2020-12-09 | 2020-12-30 | Round 5 |
| 2021-01-15 | 2021-02-01 | Round 6 |
| 2021-02-12 | 2021-03-02 | Round 7 |
| 2021-03-13 | 2021-04-01 | Round 8 |
| 2021-04-20 | 2021-05-04 | Round 9 |
| 2021-05-25 | 2021-06-15 | Round 10 |
| 2021-06-28 | 2021-07-20 | Round 11 |
Data Collection Mode
Computer Assisted Telephone Interview [cati]
Data Collection Notes
The Burkina Faso - COVID-19 High Frequency Phone Survey was conducted using Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) techniques. The survey team was composed of 20 enumerators and 5 supervisors. Each enumerator was given a tablet and mobile phone (including sim card and data bundles) to be used for the interviews. The household questionnaire was implemented using the CAPI software Survey Solutions.
ORGANIZATION OF FIELDWORK: Data were collected by trained NBS INSD interviewers who individually made phone calls from their respective homes. Since the country was on lockdown during the preparation and data collection exercise for the baseline round, interviewers were not allowed to be in the office. Therefore, all interviews were conducted from interviewers’ homes. Although the lockdown restrictions were partially lifted following the baseline, interviewers will continue to conduct interviews from home in subsequent rounds until it is deemed safe for them to return to the office. Every day, completed and partially completed call were reviewed and data were synchronized each evening.
PRE-LOADED INFORMATION: Basic information on every household was pre-loaded in the CATI assignments for each interviewer. The information was pre-loaded to (1) assist interviewers in calling and identifying the household and (2) ensure that each pre-loaded person is properly addressed and easily matched to the most recent interviews. Basic household information (location, household head name, phone number, etc.) was pre-loaded. The list of individuals from the previous interview and their basic characteristics were uploaded. This helped maintain the panel of individuals and ensured the status of each individual in the subsequent round of the survey.
ORGANIZATION OF FIELDWORK: Data were collected by trained NBS INSD interviewers who individually made phone calls from their respective homes. Since the country was on lockdown during the preparation and data collection exercise for the baseline round, interviewers were not allowed to be in the office. Therefore, all interviews were conducted from interviewers’ homes. Although the lockdown restrictions were partially lifted following the baseline, interviewers will continue to conduct interviews from home in subsequent rounds until it is deemed safe for them to return to the office. Every day, completed and partially completed call were reviewed and data were synchronized each evening.
PRE-LOADED INFORMATION: Basic information on every household was pre-loaded in the CATI assignments for each interviewer. The information was pre-loaded to (1) assist interviewers in calling and identifying the household and (2) ensure that each pre-loaded person is properly addressed and easily matched to the most recent interviews. Basic household information (location, household head name, phone number, etc.) was pre-loaded. The list of individuals from the previous interview and their basic characteristics were uploaded. This helped maintain the panel of individuals and ensured the status of each individual in the subsequent round of the survey.
Data Collectors
| Name | Abbreviation | Affiliation |
|---|---|---|
| Institut National de la Statistique et la Démographie | INSD | Governement du Burkina Faso |
Questionnaires
Questionnaires
BASELINE (ROUND 1): The Household Questionnaire provides information on demographics; knowledge regarding the spread of COVID-19; behaviour and social distancing; access to basic services; employment.
ROUND 2: Household Roster; Access to Basic Services; Employment (with a focus on non-farm enterprises); Food Security; Shocks; Fragility, conflict and violence.
ROUND 3: Household Roster; Knowledge regarding the spread of COVID-19; Behavior and social distancing; Access to Basic Services; Employment (with a focus on farm household activities); Food Security; Other revenues; Social protection.
ROUND 4: The following modules were administered in Round 4: Household Roster; Access to Basic Services; Credit; Employment and revenue (with a focus on livestock activities); Food Security; Other revenues; Shocks; Fragility, Conflict and Violence.
ROUND 5: Household Roster; Knowledge regarding the spread of COVID-19; Behavior and social distancing; Access to Basic Services; Education at individual level; Employment; Food Security; Other revenues; Social protection.
ROUND 6: Household Roster; Access to Basic Services; Education; Employment and revenues (with a focus on harvest activities and revenues from crop selling); Food Security; Other revenues; Shocks; Fragility, conflict and violence.
ROUND 7: Household Roster; Access to Basic Services; Education; Employment and revenues (with a focus on harvest activities and revenues from crop selling); Food Security; Other revenues; Shocks; Fragility, conflict and violence.
ROUND 8: Household Roster; Early Child Development; Access to Basic Services; Employment and revenues; Food Security; Other revenues; Shocks; Fragility, conflict and violence.
ROUND 9: Household Roster; Access to Basic Services; Employment and revenues; Food Security and Other revenues.
ROUND 10: Household Roster; Mental health; Knowledge regarding the spread of COVID-19; Behavior and social distancing; Covid-19 Testing and Vaccination; Access to Basic Services; Credit; Employment and revenue (with a focus on livestock activities); Food Security; Other revenues; Shocks; Concerns regarding the impact of COVID-19 on personal health and financial wealth of the household; Fragility, Conflict and Violence.
Round 11: Household basic information; Access to Basic Services; Employment and revenue (with a focus on agricultural activities); Food Security; Other revenues; Concerns regarding the current situation; Social Safety Nets.
All the interview materials were translated in French for the INSD. The questionnaire was administered in local languages with about varying length (about 25 minutes).
ROUND 2: Household Roster; Access to Basic Services; Employment (with a focus on non-farm enterprises); Food Security; Shocks; Fragility, conflict and violence.
ROUND 3: Household Roster; Knowledge regarding the spread of COVID-19; Behavior and social distancing; Access to Basic Services; Employment (with a focus on farm household activities); Food Security; Other revenues; Social protection.
ROUND 4: The following modules were administered in Round 4: Household Roster; Access to Basic Services; Credit; Employment and revenue (with a focus on livestock activities); Food Security; Other revenues; Shocks; Fragility, Conflict and Violence.
ROUND 5: Household Roster; Knowledge regarding the spread of COVID-19; Behavior and social distancing; Access to Basic Services; Education at individual level; Employment; Food Security; Other revenues; Social protection.
ROUND 6: Household Roster; Access to Basic Services; Education; Employment and revenues (with a focus on harvest activities and revenues from crop selling); Food Security; Other revenues; Shocks; Fragility, conflict and violence.
ROUND 7: Household Roster; Access to Basic Services; Education; Employment and revenues (with a focus on harvest activities and revenues from crop selling); Food Security; Other revenues; Shocks; Fragility, conflict and violence.
ROUND 8: Household Roster; Early Child Development; Access to Basic Services; Employment and revenues; Food Security; Other revenues; Shocks; Fragility, conflict and violence.
ROUND 9: Household Roster; Access to Basic Services; Employment and revenues; Food Security and Other revenues.
ROUND 10: Household Roster; Mental health; Knowledge regarding the spread of COVID-19; Behavior and social distancing; Covid-19 Testing and Vaccination; Access to Basic Services; Credit; Employment and revenue (with a focus on livestock activities); Food Security; Other revenues; Shocks; Concerns regarding the impact of COVID-19 on personal health and financial wealth of the household; Fragility, Conflict and Violence.
Round 11: Household basic information; Access to Basic Services; Employment and revenue (with a focus on agricultural activities); Food Security; Other revenues; Concerns regarding the current situation; Social Safety Nets.
All the interview materials were translated in French for the INSD. The questionnaire was administered in local languages with about varying length (about 25 minutes).
Data Processing
Data Editing
At the end of data collection, the raw dataset was cleaned by the INSD with the support of the WB team. This included formatting, and correcting results based on monitoring issues, enumerator feedback and survey changes.
Access policy
Contacts
| Name | Affiliation | |
|---|---|---|
| Marco Tiberti | WB | mtiberti@worldbank.org |
| Clarence Tsimpo Nkengne | WB | ctsimponkengne@worldbank.org |
Access conditions
Before being granted access to the dataset, all users have to formally agree:
1. To make no copies of any files or portions of files to which s/he is granted access except those authorized by the data depositor.
2. Not to use any technique in an attempt to learn the identity of any person, establishment, or sampling unit not identified on public use data files.
3. To hold in strictest confidence the identification of any establishment or individual that may be inadvertently revealed in any documents or discussion, or analysis. Such inadvertent identification revealed in her/his analysis will be immediately brought to the attention of the data depositor.
1. To make no copies of any files or portions of files to which s/he is granted access except those authorized by the data depositor.
2. Not to use any technique in an attempt to learn the identity of any person, establishment, or sampling unit not identified on public use data files.
3. To hold in strictest confidence the identification of any establishment or individual that may be inadvertently revealed in any documents or discussion, or analysis. Such inadvertent identification revealed in her/his analysis will be immediately brought to the attention of the data depositor.
Citation requirements
Use of the dataset must be acknowledged using a citation which would include:
- the Identification of the Primary Investigator
- the title of the survey (including country, acronym and year of implementation)
- the survey reference number
- the source and date of download
World Bank. Burkina Faso - COVID-19 High Frequency Phone Survey of Households 2020. Dataset downloaded from http://www.microdata.worldbank.org/ on [date].
- the Identification of the Primary Investigator
- the title of the survey (including country, acronym and year of implementation)
- the survey reference number
- the source and date of download
World Bank. Burkina Faso - COVID-19 High Frequency Phone Survey of Households 2020. Dataset downloaded from http://www.microdata.worldbank.org/ on [date].
Disclaimer and copyrights
Disclaimer
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.
Metadata production
DDI Document ID
DDI_BFA_2020_HFPS_v09_M
Producers
| Name | Abbreviation | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|---|
| Development Economics Data Group | DECDG | The World Bank | Documentation of the DDI |
Date of Metadata Production
2021-05-05
DDI Document version
Version 09 (September 2021). This is an update to the Burkina Faso COVID-19 High Frequency Phone Survey documentation with round 11 data and documents.