You are here

PMA2014/Kenya-R2 SOI


Summary of the sample design for PMA2014/Kenya-R2:

PMA2020 is designed to create sentinel sites for data collection both at the population level and among service delivery points (SDPs). Enumeration areas (EAs) selected in Round 1 are generally used for data collection in Rounds 2-4. Households within the EA are randomly sampled during each round, however the EA is consistent across rounds. The original Round 1 sample design summary is provided below.

PMA2020 uses a two-stage cluster design with residential area (urban and rural) and county as strata, sampling across nine counties in Kenya: Nairobi, Kilifi, Nandi, Nyamira, Kiambu, Bungoma, Siaya, Kericho and Kitui. The first stage of sampling was a selection of nine of Kenya’s 47 counties, using probability proportional to size procedures. Within the nine counties, clusters were selected proportional to the urban/rural distribution. The final sample was designed to generate estimates of all women modern contraceptive prevalence rate (mCPR) with less than 3% margin of error at both the national and urban/rural level.

The table below provides a summary of key family planning indicators at the national level and their breakdown by background characteristics. Disaggregation by administrative unit was done at the county level. To view the breakdown by background characteristics of the respondents, please click on the respective indicator link. Distribution of respondents by background characteristics is available here. Distribution of SDPs by background characteristics is available here.

Additional details on sample design, data collection and processing, response rates, and standard errors are available below the indicator tables.

PMA2020 Standard
Family Planning Indicators

Round 2
All Women Married Women
Contraceptive Use    
Contraceptive Prevalence Rate (CPR) 40.9 56.6
Modern Contraceptive Prevalence (mCPR) 40.3 55.6
Traditional Contraceptive Prevalence 0.7 1.0
Contraceptive Method Mix    
Contraceptive method mix (stacked bar charts for all/married women)    
Demand for Family Planning and Fertility Preferences:
Unmet need for family planning 16.6 21.3
Demand for family planning 57.5 77.9
Percent of all/married women with demand satisfied by modern contraception 69.9 71.3
Percent of recent births, by intention
Wanted then 57.3 60.3
Wanted later 29.4 27.9
Wanted no more 13.3 11.8
Access, Equity, Quality and Choice:
Percent of users who chose their current method by themselves or jointly with a partner/provider 97.4 97.7
Percent of users who paid for family planning services 51.4 51.0
Method Information Index    
Percent of current users who were informed about other methods 70.6 72.6
Percent of current users who were informed about side effects 61.4 62.8
Percent of current users who were told what to do if they experienced side effects 86.0 88.0
Percent of current users who would return and/or refer others to their provider 90.0 90.1
Percent of women receiving family planning information in the past 12 months 12.9 14.6
Service Environment:
Charging fees for family planning    
Contraceptive choice: Availability of at least 3 or at least 5 modern contraceptive methods    
Contraceptive choice: Availability of modern contraception, by method    
Contraceptive stock-outs, by method    
Number of new and continuing family planning visits, by method    

The PMA2014/Kenya-R2 Survey in Detail

Sample Design

Round 1 Sample Design

The PMA2020 survey collects data annually at the national (urban and rural) and regional levels to allow for the estimation of key indicators to monitor progress in family planning. The resident enumerator (RE) model enables replication of the surveys twice a year for the first two years, and annually each subsequent year, to track progress.

PMA2014/Kenya Round 1 used a multi-stage cluster design with urban/rural and county as strata. The first stage of sampling was at the county level using probability proportional to size procedures to select nine out of 47 counties: Nairobi, Kilifi, Nandi, Nyamira, Kiambu, Bungoma, Siaya, Kericho and Kitui. Within the nine selected counties, 120 enumeration areas (EAs) were selected proportional to size with urban/rural stratification. The sample was powered to generate national and urban/rural estimates of all woman mCPR with less than 3% margin of error.

In each selected EA, field supervisors randomly selected up to three private service delivery points (SDPs) to be interviewed by an RE using the SDP questionnaire. The field supervisors themselves administered the SDP questionnaires at an additional three public SDPs that serve each EA - the lowest, second-lowest and third-lowest level public health SDPs designated to serve each EA (a dispensary, a health center and a referral hospital), either at the sub-county or county level.

Round 2 Sample Update

Data collection for Round 2 continued in the same 120 EAs selected in Round 1. Mapping and listing in PMA2020 is generally done on an annual basis (typically during the first and third rounds). As Round 2 occurred approximately six months after Round 1, the original listing frame was used for Round 2. Field supervisors randomly selected 42 households from the original household listing. A household roster was completed and all eligible women age 15-49 in selected households were approached and asked to provide informed consent (and assent if aged 15-17 years) to participate in the study.

The majority of SDPs are repeated in each round, forming a panel survey. If an EA had more than three private SDPs identified during the listing process, then a new sample of the private SDPs is selected during each round.


PMA2020 uses standardized questionnaires for households, individual females and service delivery points (SDPs) to gather data about households and individual females that are comparable across program countries and consistent with existing national surveys. Prior to launching the survey in each country, local experts review and modify these questionnaires to ensure all questions are appropriate to each setting.

Three questionnaires were used to collect data from the PMA2014/Kenya-R2 survey: the household questionnaire, the female questionnaire and the service delivery point (SDP) questionnaire. These questionnaires were based on model surveys designed by PMA2020 staff at the Bill & Melinda Gates Institute for Population and Reproductive Health in Baltimore and fieldwork materials of the 2008-09 Kenyan Demographic and Health Survey (KDHS). All PMA2020 questionnaires are administered using Open Data Kit software and Android smartphones. The PMA2014/Kenya-R2 questionnaires were in English and could be switched into Kiswahili on the phone. The questionnaires were translated using available translations from similar population surveys and experts in translation. Female resident enumerators in each enumeration area administered the household questionnaire and female questionnaire in selected households.

The household questionnaire gathers basic information about the household such as ownership of livestock and durable goods, as well as characteristics of the dwelling unit including wall, floor, and roof materials, water sources and sanitation facilities. The first section of the household questionnaire, the household roster, lists basic demographic information about all usual members of the household and visitors who stayed with the household the night before the interview. This roster is used to identify eligible respondents for the female questionnaire. In addition to the roster, the household questionnaire also gathers data that are used to measure key water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) indicators, including regular sources and uses of water, sanitation facilities used and prevalence of open defecation by household members.

The female questionnaire is used to collect information from all women age 15-49 who were listed on the household roster at selected households. The female questionnaire gathers specific information on education; fertility and fertility preferences; family planning access, choice and use; quality of family planning services; exposure to family planning messaging in the media; and the burden of collecting water on women.

The SDP questionnaire collected information about the provision and quality of reproductive health services and products, integration of health services, and water and sanitation within the health facility.

Training, Data Collection and Processing


The PMA2014/Kenya-R2 fieldwork training started with a three-day refresher training for all returning field staff, held from October 21-23, 2014 and led by PMA2020 staff from the Bill & Melinda Gates Institute for Population and Reproductive Health and staff from the International Centre for Reproductive Health Kenya (ICRH-K), PMA2020’s implementing partner. The training was held in Nairobi, Kenya. A total of 120 resident enumerators received training. All training participants were given instructions on survey changes to the tools since the previous round.

Throughout the training, resident enumerators (REs) and supervisors were evaluated based on their performance on phone-based assessments. The RE training was conducted primarily in English, whereas some small group review sessions were conducted in Kiswahili.

Supervisors received additional training prior to and after the RE training to further strengthen their supervision skills, including instruction on conducting re-interviews, carrying out random spot checks, and dealing with the local/community leaders and engaging the communities.

Data Collection and Processing

Data collection was conducted between November and December 2014. Unlike traditional paper-and-pencil surveys, PMA2020 uses Open Data Kit (ODK) Collect, an open-source software application, to collect data on mobile phones. All the questionnaires were programmed using this software and installed onto all project smartphones. The ODK questionnaire forms are programmed with automatic skip-patterns and built-in response constraints to reduce data entry errors.

The ODK application enabled REs and supervisors to collect and transfer survey data to a central ODK Aggregate cloud server. This instantaneous aggregation of data allowed for concurrent data processing and course corrections while PMA2020 was still active in the field. Throughout data collection, central staff at ICRH-K in Kenya and the data manager at the Gates Institute in Baltimore routinely monitored the incoming data and notified field staff of any potential errors, missing data or problems found with form submissions on the central server. The use of mobile phones combined data collection and data entry into one step; therefore, data entry was completed when the last interview form was uploaded at the end of data collection in December.

Once all data were on the server, data analysts cleaned and de-identified the data, applied survey weights, and prepared the final data set for analysis using Stata® version 14 software. The national dissemination workshop of preliminary results was held on July 15 at the Sarova, Panafric Hotel in Nairobi, Kenya.

Response Rates

The table below shows response rates for household and female respondents by residence (rural/urban) for PMA2014/Kenya-R2. A total of 5,038 households were selected for the PMA2014 survey; 4,803 households were found to be occupied at the time of the fieldwork. Ninety-six percent (4,604) of the occupied households consented to a household-level interview. The response rate at the household level was higher in rural (98.2%) than in urban (92.6%) area.

In the occupied households that provided an interview, a total of 4,403 eligible women aged 15 to 49 years were identified. Overall, 98.3% of the eligible women were available and consented to the interview. The female response rate was slightly higher in the rural (98.6%) relative to the urban (97.9%) EAs. Only de facto females are included in the PMA analyses; the final completed de facto female sample size was 4,329.

The final SDP sample include 354 facility interviews, of which 324 were completed for a response rate of 91.5%

Result   Urban Rural Total
Household interviews              
Households selected   2,097 2,941 5,038
Households occupied   1,982 2,821 4,803
Households interviewed   1,835 2,769 4,604
Household response rate* (%)   92.6 98.2 95.9
Interviews with women age 15-49
Number of eligible women**   1,681 2,722 4,403
Number of eligible women interviewed   1,646 2,683 4,329
Eligible women response rate (%)   97.9 98.6 98.3
*Household response rate=number of household interviews/households occupied

**Eligible women response rates include only women identified in completed household interviews

Eligible women response rate = eligible women interviewed/eligible women

Sample Error Estimates

The following table shows sample errors for the PMA2020 indicators described above. For more information about PMA2020 indicators, including estimate type and base population, click here.

Variable Value[R] Standard Error Confidence Interval
All women age 15-49
Currently using a modern method 0.403 0.012 0.378 0.427
Currently using a traditional method 0.007 0.002 0.004 0.010
Currently using any contraceptive method 0.409 0.012 0.385 0.434
Currently using injectables 0.216 0.011 0.195 0.237
Currently using male condoms 0.034 0.006 0.023 0.045
Currently using implants 0.074 0.007 0.960 0.989
Chose method by self or jointly in past 12 months 0.974 0.007 0.960 0.989
Paid fees for family planning services in past 12 months 0.506 0.029 0.449 0.564
Informed by provider about other methods 0.702 0.020 0.662 0.742
Informed by provider about side effects 0.613 0.023 0.567 0.658
Satisfied with provider: Would return and refer friend/relative to provider 0.900 0.015 0.870 0.930
Visited by health worker who talked about family planning in past 12 months 0.129 0.014 0.102 0.156
Women in union age 15-49
Currently using a modern method 0.556 0.016 0.523 0.589
Currently using a traditional method 0.010 0.016 0.523 0.589
Currently using any contraceptive modern method 0.566 0.017 0.533 0.599
Currently using injectables 0.295 0.016 0.263 0.327
Currently using male condoms 0.037 0.009 0.020 0.055
Currently using implants 0.106 0.011 0.084 0.128
Chose method by self or jointly in past 12 months 0.977 0.007 0.963 0.991
Paid fees for family planning services in past 12 months 0.502 0.031 0.441 0.563
Informed by provider about other methods 0.722 0.031 0.441 0.563
Informed by provider about side effects 0.722 0.020 0.682 0.761
Satisfied with provider: Would return and refer friend/relative to provider 0.901 0.016 0.868 0.933
Visited by health worker who talked about family planning in past 12 months 0.146 0.016 0.114 0.178