Forum: India
|
Topic: Men's BMI eligibility in NFHS5 PR File
|
Men's BMI eligibility in NFHS5 PR File [message #29127] |
Fri, 26 April 2024 10:24 |
mks9812
Messages: 8 Registered: June 2023
|
Member |
|
|
Hello,
I have a question regarding the variable hv118 "member eligible for men's interview" regarding BMI data in the PR file.
Here is the STATA code I used to get the below table
gen age_inc_m=1 if inrange(hb1,20,54)
gen bmi_inc_m=1 if inrange(hb40,1200,6000)
gen inc=1 if bmi_inc_m==1&age_inc_m==1
tab hv118 inc
| member eligible for
| men's interview
inc | not eligi eligible | Total
-----------+----------------------+----------
1 | 1,765 57,170 | 58,935
-----------+----------------------+----------
Total | 1,765 57,170 | 58,935
What is the 1,765 people who were "not eligible" but have their height, weight, and BMI data?
Is it safe to include these people for BMI data analysis?
Thank you for your help.
Best,
|
|
|
Topic: BMI in PR vs IR File
|
BMI in PR vs IR File [message #29126] |
Fri, 26 April 2024 09:34 |
AkhilK28
Messages: 11 Registered: February 2022
|
Member |
|
|
Hello!
When calculating BMI in the PR vs. IR file for NFHS-5, the PR file has more observations for women aged 15-49 years old.
In the PR file, I am using ha variables to correspond to the biomarker questionnaire -- see the code below:
keep if inrange(ha1,15,49)
keep if inrange(ha40,1200,6000)
Observations with valid BMI Values for 15-49 year old women in PR file: 709,252
In IR file, I am using v445:
keep if inrange(v445,1200,6000)
Observations with valid BMI Values for 15-49 year old women in IR file: 699,362
Can someone at DHS let me know why this difference exists?
What is official guidance? Stay to biomarker in PR? But why a difference of ~10,000?
[Updated on: Fri, 26 April 2024 09:35] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Forum: IPUMS Demographic and Health Surveys (IPUMS-DHS)
|
Topic: Haz for adult men (hwmhtasdrm)
|
Haz for adult men (hwmhtasdrm) [message #29101] |
Tue, 23 April 2024 23:40 |
archanapkar
Messages: 4 Registered: April 2024
|
Member |
|
|
I am looking at the hwmhtasdrm IPUMS variable for adult men from the household recode for India for NFHS 3 and 4 and the corresponding DHS variable HB5 for NFHS 5. The means for this variable acorss the three rounds look very different and although for IPUMS the instruction is to divide the raw variable by 100, but even so they differ by an order of magnitude. Please explain how to use this variable.
The corresponding variables for women looks fine (hwfhtasdrm and ha5) and if we divide it by 100, we would get plausible values.
. tabstat hwmhtasdrm if hwmhtasdrm<600,by(year)
tabstat hwmhtasdrm if hwmhtasdrm<600,by(year)
Summary for variables: hwmhtasdrm
by categories of: year (Year of sample)
year | mean
-------+----------
2005 | -182.7139
2015 | -1.86
2020 | -14.82283
-------+----------
Total | -52.37074
------------------
. tabstat hwfhtasdrm if hwfhtasdrm<600,by(year)
tabstat hwfhtasdrm if hwfhtasdrm<600,by(year)
Summary for variables: hwfhtasdrm
by categories of: year (Year of sample)
year | mean
-------+----------
2005 | -190.0461
2015 | -192.1819
2020 | -191.351
-------+----------
Total | -191.6272
------------------
|
|
|
Forum: Other countries
|
Topic: Senegal DHS Surveys IR Files - Insurance Coverage Variables
|
Senegal DHS Surveys IR Files - Insurance Coverage Variables [message #29083] |
Mon, 22 April 2024 11:28 |
ibrahimadieye
Messages: 1 Registered: April 2024
|
Member |
|
|
In the Senegal IR datasets, I have noticed that variables capturing insurance coverage (v481, v481a, etc.) are unpopulated for several years (e.g., 2013-2015, 2017-2019). However, they are referenced in official DHS reports for these years and are populated in the datasets for other years (e.g., 2010/2011, 2016). This discrepancy suggests a potential issue with the dataset generation, unless if I'm missing something. I have checked the other files (BR, HR, etc.), and this information is also not included there. Could someone help?
Thank you in advance!
|
|
|