Khayelitsha Integrated Family Survey 2002-2005
South Africa, 2002 - 2005
Get Microdata
Reference ID
ZAF_2002-2005_KIFS_v01_M
Producer(s)
Professor Anne Case
Collection(s)
Metadata
Created on
Jan 27, 2012
Last modified
May 01, 2014
Page views
86386
Downloads
1402
- Data files
- khay02030405_hh_p_pinc_spl_200906
- khay05_ad_spl_200906
- khay02030405_ad_200906
- khay02030405_ch_200906
- khay02030405_ch_spl_200906
- khay02030405_hh_comrd_200906
- khay02030405_hh_died_200906
- khay02030405_hh_h_200906
- khay02030405_hh_h_spl_200906
- khay02030405_hh_moved_200906
- khay02030405_hh_moved_spl_200906
- khay02030405_hh_mrd_200906
- khay02030405_hh_p_pinc_200906
comment5: Comments: Part 5 (comment5)
Data file: khay02030405_ch_200906
Overview
Valid:
39
Type:
Discrete
Start:
1391
End:
1634
Width:
244
Range:
-
Format:
character
Questions and instructions
Categories
| Value | Category | Cases | |
|---|---|---|---|
| , labeling them as such. She lists that yet another dose was given on 15/04/02 but fails to identify what vaccine it is. It looks like all of these boosters listed under other are just repetitions of all the ones originally listed in the im | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| . | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| 02/01 (DD/MM/YY); 3 doses of DTP on 19/03/01; and one dose of HepB on 17/04/01. (Note that the first date listed under polio is actually 19/02/03, but we think there is a typo here and that the year is actually 2001, making it compatible with o | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| 1 | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| 36 months were of exclusively breastfeeding (with no food or drink supplements). Since this is impossible, data on overall breastfeeding was left untouched, though exclusive breastfeeding was coded as . | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| ; that three doses of the DTP vaccine were given on 29/05/00; and that three doses of HepB were given on 26/06/00. It looks like there is a mistake here. The only sense that we can make of these data is that on 26/04/00 the first dose of the | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| CARD is assigned a value of 1 to capture this. | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| HepB vaccine. Interviewer indicates that this dose was given on 09/11/01. It looks like the date should actually be 29/11/01, which also makes it compatible with the date a dose of the polio vaccine was given. This change is reflected here. | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| Since for another interview conducted with | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| been administered on 30/07/01. This is impossible. It looks like one dose of polio, one dose of DTP and one dose of HepB were administered concurrently on each of these three separate dates: 31/05/01, 26/08/01 and 30/07/01. Note that the da | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| cine was given to the child are not listed chronologically in the immunization chart. I have left the data here untouched. 5.Interviewer also notes than an other vaccine was given to the child on 14/06/02, but what type of vaccine it is i | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| column of the immunicat | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| d 13/06/02, and three doses of HepB were given on 23/01/01, 22/02/01, and 20/03/01(DD/MM/YY). We have, however, left original data contained in the survey instrument untouched. | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| e record, interviewer noted in the survey instrument that the child was administered the following vaccines: polio on 14/03/01, 05/05/01, 05/05/01,and again 05/05/01; 3 doses of DTP on 19/07/01; and 2 doses of HepB on 05/06/01 (DD/MM/YY). The | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| er vaccines. 3.Note that for the first dose of both the polio and BCG vaccines were given on 03/95, but interviewer does not specify the day in which they were given. This is reflected here. | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| he 18-month dose of the polio vaccine and was just recorded in the wrong box. Here we indicate that child was given BCG at birth and that this second, 18-month dose listed under BCG, is actually a last dose of polio. | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| he chart. We record this vaccine under polio. | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| he polio vaccine, and this is recorded as such here. | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| hese vaccines is not listed in chronological order and this is reflected here. | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| his second dose is listed in the booster column and looks more like the 18-month booster for the polio vaccine, which was just misplaced in the immunization chart. While the dose at birth is recorded under BCG, we record the 18-month vaccine | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| hree doses of DTP were administered on 11/06/02; and three doses of HepB were administered on 22/07/02. This leads us to believe that on 7/05/02, the first dose of polio, HepB and DTP were administered concurrently; the second dose for all of | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| immuni | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| in which they appear in the immunization chart. 3.Interviewer indicates that child was given an other vaccine on 17/05/99, at about 18 months, though what vaccine this is isn't specified. (It is possible that this vaccine actually correspon | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| indicate that this dose was indeed given. Needless to say, the entire immunization schedule for this case ID looks very odd. | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| iven simltaneously on 19/06/01. ***IT SEEMS LIKE THERE ARE TWINS IN THIS FAMILY (see 0263-05-01)**. | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| mpare the layout of the immunization chart included in the South African Road to Health Card to the one provided in our interview guide.) | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| ning a value of 1 to var polio2given. 5.Interviewer also records that two doses of the measles vaccine were administered concurrently (29/06/95), one of which the interviewer registers under measles and the other which he/she registers un | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| not specify what vaccine it is. | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| nths. 4.In the immunization chart, interviewer indicates that child was given two other vaccines. Though the dates are specified, what type of vaccines they were isn't. Note that these are not listed in chronological order and this is refl | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| polio on 02/06/00, on 06/07/00, on 06/07/00, and on 03/08/00; DTP on 27/12/01 and again on 27/12/01; and HepB on 03/05/00, on 03/08/00 and again on 03/08/00 (DD/MM/YY). We think there is a typo on the date of the first measles vaccine (since i | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| r this child. Analysts are encouraged to take a second look at these data. 3.The immunization dates under the measles vaccine also look very strange. Not only are they not listed chronologically, but interviewer indicates that 4 doses were g | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| ril95, before the child was even born. By inverting MM and DD (and making it 04July95), the date for this dose is now consistent with the date a dose of BCG was also administered, after the child's birth date. Also note-- the dates provided f | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| stand that a dose of each of these vaccines (polio, DTP and HepB) were administered concurrently on three separate instances: on 14/02/00 (at about 6 weeks), on 20/03/00 (at about 10 weeks) and on 17/04/00 (at about 14 weeks). This is reflected | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| sts might want to compare both immunization charts: the one in the child's actual health card and the one we used in our survey instrument. | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| to all these vaccines, including polio. Note that it would be unusual for a child to receive this booster for HepB and HIB2 (Influenza). | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| to the child at birth. This is impossible. It is highly likely that while a dose of BCG was given to the child at birth, that the second date listed actually refers to the Polio0 vaccine. We list it here as such. 6.Note that the last dose | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| to the one provided in our interview guide.) 5.Interviewer had originally recorded child's height as being 105.05cm. It is highly unlikely that this degree of accuracy was used when measuring children in their homes. Height was slightly e | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| vaccine given to the child on 11/05/95, but failed to specify what vaccine it was. This is reflected here. | 1 |
2.6%
|
|
| vaccine instead and do not identify what vaccine this is. Analysts can make a decision on how they would like to interpret this. 4. It is worth highlighting that this vaccine schedule, in general, is ve | 1 |
2.6%
|
Warning: these figures indicate the number of cases found in the data file. They cannot be interpreted as summary statistics of the population of interest.