You are here

PMA2015/Uganda-R2 SOI

SNAPSHOT OF INDICATORS

Summary of the sample design for PMA2015/Uganda-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. For clarity, the original Round 1 sample design summary is provided below.

PMA2020 uses a two-­stage cluster design with residential area (urban vs. rural) and sub-regions as strata. The first stage of sampling was selection of clusters within each sampling stratum using probability proportional to size procedures. Within the 10 sub-regions, clusters were selected proportional to the urban/rural distribution. The sample was designed to generate national estimates of all women modern contraceptive prevalence rate (mCPR) with less than 2% margin of error and urban/rural estimates at less than 3% margin of error.

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 region level (Central, Western, Eastern, and Northern) due to small sample sizes when disaggregated by sub-region.

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.

Download the full SOI tables >>

PMA2020 Standard
Family Planning Indicators

Round 2
All Women Married Women
Utilization:
Contraceptive Use    
Contraceptive Prevalence Rate (CPR) 28.6 34.9
Modern Contraceptive Prevalence (mCPR) 26.2 31.9
Traditional Contraceptive Prevalence 2.4 3.1
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 21.1 29.9
Demand for family planning 49.7 64.8
Percent of all/married women with demand satisfied by modern contraception 52.6 49.1
Percent of recent births, by intention
Wanted then 57.5 59.5
Wanted later 27.6 27.3
Wanted no more 15.0 13.2
Access, Equity, Quality and Choice:
Percent of users who chose their current method by themselves or jointly with a partner/provider 92.3 92.5
Percent of users who paid for family planning services 43.8 44.5
Method Information Index    
Percent of current users who were informed about other methods 61.9 64.0
Percent of current users who were informed about side effects 59.4 61.2
Percent of current users who were told what to do if they experienced side effects 88.7 89.5
Percent of current users who would return and/or refer others to their provider 84.7 84.4
Percent of women receiving family planning information in the past 12 months 17.0 19.6
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 PMA2015/Uganda-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 year after that, to track progress.

Survey resources allowed targeting a sample size of 110 enumeration areas (EAs) and a final sample size of 4,840 households. A total of 110 EAs were sampled throughout all 10 sub-regions in Uganda selected by the Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) master sampling frame, which was representative at the national and sub-regional levels for both urban and rural areas. The primary sampling units for the survey were the EAs, created during the 2002 National Population and Housing Census. The EAs were selected systematically with probability proportional to size with urban/rural stratification in the 10 sub-regions. The rationale was for PMA2020 estimates to be comparable to the most recent national survey estimates. UBOS provided the selection probabilities for the PMA2020 sampled clusters for constructing weights.

In each selected EA, field supervisors randomly selected up to three private service delivery points (SDPs) to be interviewed by a resident enumerator 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.

Round 2 Sample Update

Data collection for Round 2 continued in the original 110 EAs. As Round 2 was approximately six months after the original mapping and listing activity, mapping and listing was not repeated in Round 2. Rather, the Round 1 household list was used for selection into the sample.

Field supervisors randomly selected 44 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.

Questionnaires

PMA2020 uses standardized questionnaires to gather data about households, individual females and health service delivery points 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. All female questionnaires were translated into the seven local languages based on the Uganda Bureau of Statistics sub-regions, and translations were reviewed for appropriateness.

The household, the female and the service delivery point (SDP) questionnaires were based on model surveys designed by PMA2020 staff at the Bill & Melinda Gates Institute for Population and Reproductive Health of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health the Makerere University School of Public Health, and fieldwork materials of the Uganda Demographic and Health Survey (DHS).

All PMA2020 questionnaires are administered using Open Data Kit (ODK) software and Android smartphones. The PMA2015/Uganda-R2 questionnaires were in English and could be switched into seven local languages (Luganda, Luo, Ngakarimojong, Runyankole, Lugbara, Ateso, and Lusoga) on the phone. The questionnaires were translated using available translations from similar population surveys and experts in translation. The interviews were conducted in the local language, or English in a few cases when the respondent was not comfortable with the local language. Female resident enumerators in each enumeration area (EA) administered the household and female questionnaires in the 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. This information is used to construct a wealth quintile index.

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 to 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 WASH within the SDP.

Training, Data Collection and Processing

Training

The PMA2015/Uganda-R2 fieldwork training started on January 14, 2015 with a four-day refresher training of all the continuing staff on the project – 15 field supervisors, three central staff and 110 resident enumerators (REs). PMA2020 staff from the Bill & Melinda Gates Institute for Population and Reproductive Health of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health led the training, with support from the Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) and Makerere University School of Public Health (MakSPH) project staff. The training was held in Kampala City, at the Global Grand Hotel on the outskirts of Makerere University.

As this was a refresher training for continuing staff the training focused on a handful of newly added questions to the household questionnaire and review of the service delivery point (SDP) questionnaire and review of survey content and protocol. The PMA2020/Uganda project was unable to carry out the facility-based survey (SDP) during the first round of data collection and therefore the team spent a considerable amount of time during the Round 2 refresher training going over the SDP questionnaire.

Throughout the training, REs and supervisors were evaluated based on their performance on phone-based assessments, practical field exercises for the SDP survey and class participation. The training included a half-day of practical exercises, during which participants entered a practice enumeration area (EA) to conduct SDP interviews. The training was conducted primarily in English, but some small group review sessions were conducted in all of the seven local languages.

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 January and February 2015. 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 also allowed for concurrent data processing and course corrections while PMA2020 was still active in the field. Throughout data collection, central staff at MakSPH in Kampala and the data manager 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 February.

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 12 software. Data analysis for the national dissemination of preliminary findings was conducted between February and July 2015. The national dissemination workshop of preliminary results was held on July 22, 2015 at Serena Hotel, Kampala, Uganda.

Response Rates

The table below shows response rates for household and female respondents by residence (rural/urban) for PMA2015/Uganda Round 2. A total of 4,840 households were selected for the PMA2015 survey; 4,429 households were found to be occupied at the time of the fieldwork. Of the occupied households 4,143 (93.5%) consented to a household-level interview. The response rate for the household level was higher in the rural (95.9%) relative to the urban (87.4%) enumeration areas (EAs).

In the occupied households that provided an interview, a total of 3,811 eligible women age 15 to 49 years were identified. Overall, 95.3% of the eligible women were available and consented to the interview. The female response rate was higher in the rural (96.5%) relative to the urban (92.1%) EAs. Only de facto females are included in the PMA analyses; the final completed de facto female sample size was 3,631 (unweighted).

The final service delivery point (SDP) sample included 369 facility interviews, of which 360 were completed, for a response rate of 97.6%.

Weights were adjusted for non-response at the household and individual levels and applied to all household and individual estimates in this report. SDP estimates are not weighted.

  PMA2015/Uganda-R2
Result Urban Rural Total
Household interviews      
Households selected 1,364 3,476 4,840
Households occupied 1,250 3,179 4,429
Households interviewed 1,093 3,050 4,143
Household response rate* (%) 87.4 95.9 93.5
       
Interviews with women age 15-49
Number of eligible women** 1,054 2,757 3,811
Number of eligible women interviewed 971 2,660 3,631
Eligible women response rate (%) 92.1 96.5 95.3
*Household response rate = households completed/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. More information about PMA2020 indicators, including estimate type and base population, can be viewed here.

   
Variable Value[R] Standard Error Confidence Interval
R-2SE R+2SE
All women age 15 to 49
Currently using a modern method 0.262 0.015 0.232 0.292
Currently using a traditional method 0.024 0.004 0.016 0.033
Currently using any contraceptive method 0.286 0.016 0.254 0.317
Currently using injectables 0.128 0.012 0.103 0.153
Currently using condoms 0.052 0.007 0.038 0.066
Currently using implants 0.036 0.004 0.027 0.044
Chose method by self or jointly in past 12 months 0.899 0.016 0.868 0.931
Paid fees for family planning services in past 12 months 0.438 0.032 0.375 0.500
Informed by provider about other methods 0.619 0.028 0.565 0.674
Informed by provider about side effects 0.594 0.028 0.539 0.650
Satisfied with provider: Would return and refer friend/relative to provider 0.847 0.022 0.802 0.892
Visited by health worker who talked about family planning in past 12 months 0.170 0.017 0.137 0.203
Married women age 15 to 49
Currently using a modern method 0.319 0.020 0.279 0.359
Currently using a traditional method 0.031 0.006 0.018 0.043
Currently using any contraceptive method 0.349 0.021 0.308 0.390
Currently using injectables 0.164 0.017 0.130 0.197
Currently using condoms 0.046 0.010 0.027 0.065
Currently using implants 0.049 0.006 0.037 0.061
Chose method by self or jointly in past 12 months 0.905 0.017 0.871 0.940
Paid fees for family planning services in past 12 months 0.445 0.035 0.376 0.514
Informed by provider about other methods 0.640 0.027 0.587 0.693
Informed by provider about side effects 0.612 0.028 0.557 0.667
Satisfied with provider: Would return and refer friend/relative to provider 0.844 0.024 0.797 0.891
Visited by health worker who talked about family planning in past 12 months 0.196 0.019 0.157 0.234