The DHS Program User Forum
Discussions regarding The DHS Program data and results
Home » Topics » Fertility » Not matching with Table
Re: Not matching with Table [message #28268 is a reply to message #28208] Wed, 06 December 2023 16:56 Go to previous message
Janet-DHS is currently offline  Janet-DHS
Messages: 770
Registered: April 2022
Senior Member
Following is a response from DHS staff member, Tom Pullum:

Thanks for pointing this out. Yes, it is possible that there was inconsistent treatment of m15=98 ("Other"). I have cross-tabulated m15 with the various m65 variables, which give the reasons for not having a facility ("Institutional") birth. Here's an example (for bidx=1:

. tab m15 m65a,m

| reason didn't deliver
| at health facility:
| cost too much
place of delivery | no yes | Total
----------------------+----------------------+----------
respondent's home | 16,019 2,922 | 18,941
other home | 163 33 | 196
parents' home | 1,730 352 | 2,082
public: govt./munic. | 53,283 0 | 53,283
public: govt. dispens | 3,104 0 | 3,104
public: uhc/uhp/ufwc | 2,416 0 | 2,416
public: chc/rural hos | 41,151 0 | 41,151
public: phc/additiona | 12,621 0 | 12,621
public: sub-centre | 2,072 0 | 2,072
other public sector h | 305 0 | 305
private: hospital/mat | 38,480 0 | 38,480
other private sector | 1,189 0 | 1,189
ngo or trust hospital | 611 0 | 611
other | 372 20 | 392
----------------------+----------------------+----------
Total | 173,516 3,327 | 176,843


In this table, "Other" (m15=98) is classified with home births. You say that in table 8.14 it was classified with institutional births. If so, that would be an inconsistency.

I see an error in the coding of the m65 variables that could have led to this. For example, m65a takes the values 0 and 1 but is never "." for NA. All of the m65 variables should have been coded NA for non-institutional births, corresponding with a skip in the questionnaire. The questions about reasons for not delivering in a facility should only be asked for births that were not in a facility.

I think you have answered your own question. If table 8.14 were calculated correctly, it would not include births for which m15=98. If it does include the births with m15=98, then there is either an error or an inconsistency.
 
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Parity progression Ratio
Next Topic: DHSRates R Standard Errors
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sun Jul 14 07:10:02 Coordinated Universal Time 2024