An evaluation of truncated birth histories for the rapid measurement of fertility and child survival.
Child mortality estimation
Demographic and Health Surveys
Fertility estimation
Recall errors
Truncated birth histories
Journal
Population health metrics
ISSN: 1478-7954
Titre abrégé: Popul Health Metr
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101178411
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 07 2023
18 07 2023
Historique:
received:
06
01
2023
accepted:
09
07
2023
medline:
21
7
2023
pubmed:
19
7
2023
entrez:
18
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Full birth histories (FBHs) are a key tool for estimating fertility and child mortality in low- and middle-income countries, but they are lengthy to collect. This is not desirable, especially for rapid turnaround surveys that ought to be short (e.g., mobile phone surveys). To reduce the length of the interview, some surveys resort to truncated birth histories (TBHs), where questions are asked only on recent births. We used 32 Malaria Indicator Surveys that included TBHs from 18 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Each set of TBHs was paired and compared to an overlapping set of FBHs (typically from a standard Demographic and Health Survey). We conducted a variety of data checks, including a comparison of the proportion of children reported in the reference period and a comparison of the fertility and mortality estimates. Fertility and mortality estimates from TBHs are lower than those based on FBHs. These differences are driven by the omission of events and the displacement of births backward and out of the reference period. TBHs are prone to misreporting errors that will bias both fertility and mortality estimates. While we find a few significant associations between outcomes measured and interviewer's characteristics, data quality markers correlate more consistently with respondent attributes, suggesting that truncation creates confusion among mothers being interviewed. Rigorous data quality checks should be put in place when collecting data through this instrument in future surveys.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Full birth histories (FBHs) are a key tool for estimating fertility and child mortality in low- and middle-income countries, but they are lengthy to collect. This is not desirable, especially for rapid turnaround surveys that ought to be short (e.g., mobile phone surveys). To reduce the length of the interview, some surveys resort to truncated birth histories (TBHs), where questions are asked only on recent births.
METHODS
We used 32 Malaria Indicator Surveys that included TBHs from 18 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Each set of TBHs was paired and compared to an overlapping set of FBHs (typically from a standard Demographic and Health Survey). We conducted a variety of data checks, including a comparison of the proportion of children reported in the reference period and a comparison of the fertility and mortality estimates.
RESULTS
Fertility and mortality estimates from TBHs are lower than those based on FBHs. These differences are driven by the omission of events and the displacement of births backward and out of the reference period.
CONCLUSIONS
TBHs are prone to misreporting errors that will bias both fertility and mortality estimates. While we find a few significant associations between outcomes measured and interviewer's characteristics, data quality markers correlate more consistently with respondent attributes, suggesting that truncation creates confusion among mothers being interviewed. Rigorous data quality checks should be put in place when collecting data through this instrument in future surveys.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37464429
doi: 10.1186/s12963-023-00307-9
pii: 10.1186/s12963-023-00307-9
pmc: PMC10354946
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
8Subventions
Organisme : Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
ID : INV-023211
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Popul Health Metr. 2021 Feb 8;19(Suppl 1):8
pubmed: 33557845
Lancet Glob Health. 2022 Feb;10(2):e195-e206
pubmed: 35063111
PLoS Med. 2012;9(8):e1001299
pubmed: 22952438
Int J Epidemiol. 1993;22 Suppl 1:S42-9
pubmed: 8307674
PLoS Med. 2012;9(8):e1001289
pubmed: 22952435
Popul Stud (Camb). 1977 Jul;31(2):335-64
pubmed: 22077842
Bull World Health Organ. 2010 Oct 1;88(10):761-8
pubmed: 20931061
Stud Fam Plann. 2017 Sep;48(3):293-303
pubmed: 28885679
Popul Stud (Camb). 2016 Nov;70(3):345-358
pubmed: 27710211
J Health Popul Nutr. 2015 Aug 28;33:17
pubmed: 26825676
PLoS One. 2015 Nov 25;10(11):e0137713
pubmed: 26605920
PLoS Med. 2016 Jan 25;13(1):e1001912
pubmed: 26808398
PLoS Med. 2014 May 27;11(5):e1001652
pubmed: 24866715
Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Oct;6(10):e1087-e1099
pubmed: 30223984
PLoS Med. 2012;9(8):e1001298
pubmed: 22952437
PLoS Med. 2012;9(8):e1001296
pubmed: 22952436
Lancet Glob Health. 2020 Apr;8(4):e555-e566
pubmed: 32199123
Lancet. 2015 Oct 3;386(10001):1395-1406
pubmed: 25971218
Demogr Res. 2012 Apr 25;26(15):
pubmed: 24273449