| Nutritional status of children (Height-for-age) [message #13771] |
Wed, 20 December 2017 17:29  |
rhuang
Messages: 12
Registered: April 2017
|
Member |
|
|
Hello,
I am trying to re-create Table 11.1 (Page 149) in the Rwanda 2014-2015 DHS report. I am specifically looking at the height-for-age variable and I am trying to figure out which variable was used in the Rwanda 2014-2015 data set to obtain these results. I was using the variable hw5 (in the KR: Children's recode data file) which measures the height/age standard deviation (from the reference mean) but I noticed that when I did a quick tabulation of this variable that the total number of children was only 3,524 while in the report the total number of children is 3,813. I did recode the variables=9998 to missing so that these would be eliminated from my calculations. Where is this 3,813 number of children coming from? Or am I using the wrong variable?
I am trying to calculate the percentage of children stunted (<-2 s.d.) and severely stunted (<-3 s.d.) based on this data, which the report suggests is 37.9% of children and 13.5% of children respectively.
Thank you,
Rachel
|
|
|
|
| Re: Nutritional status of children (Height-for-age) [message #14665 is a reply to message #13771] |
Thu, 26 April 2018 12:49  |
Hope
Messages: 9
Registered: April 2018
|
Member |
|
|
Hello,
@Rachel, did you find the solution to the unmatching numbers? I am asking because I think I am in the same situation now. For you, I think you could have used the PR recode file instead of the KR file.
In my case, I would like to get the total percentage of stunted children as mentioned in the Rwanda DHS 2015.
I used the variable HC70 which is in the PR recode file (I read somewhere on the forum that DHS uses the household member recode file for calculation of child anthropometry).
The total number of children in the report is indeed 3813. But when I check the total number of children for the variable HC70 in the PR file, it is 3825.
Thus, the percentage I am getting for stunted children is 37.5% which is slightly different from the one reported of 37.9%. If I calculate stunting per the two categories, severely stunted and moderately stunted I get the same percentage (13.5%) for severely stunted as the one in the report. When I add up the % of severe (13.5%) and moderate stunting (24.1%) I obtained, I get a prevalence of 37.6%. So the mismatch (of around 0.3 to 0.4%) is coming from the calculation of moderately stunted children.
Please members clarify for me where I am getting it wrong.
Thanks,
Hope
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Nutritional status of children (Height-for-age) [message #15259 is a reply to message #14676] |
Wed, 20 June 2018 05:58 |
Hope
Messages: 9
Registered: April 2018
|
Member |
|
|
In case, someone else reads this thread, I am posting this message to correct a mistake above:
To estimate the number of stunted children correctly as in the DHS report,
1. You have to use the weight variable (HV005/1000000)
2. You have to select de facto children using HV103.
In the message above, I had obtained the same percentage of stunted children (37.9%) as in Table 11.1 of Rwanda DHS 2014-15, but the denominator I had was 3825 instead of 3813 (reported).
After taking into account de facto children, I came up with the same percentage and also the same denominator as in the DHS report.
Check Trevor response here for the exact code to use: https://userforum.dhsprogram.com/index.php?t=msg&th=7084 &#msg_15090
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Nutritional status of children (Height-for-age) [message #16950 is a reply to message #15259] |
Thu, 14 March 2019 09:43 |
Sasmita
Messages: 3
Registered: February 2019
Location: China
|
Member |
|
|
Dear Hope,
I am doing a trend analysis of Nepal DHS data on the nutrition status of under 5 years in different waves from 2001-2016. I merged PR and KR file as I am interested to see both children and maternal-related variables. I am using SPSS.
Problem 1
While working for the data analysis, I could replicate the exact figure from the report for stunting only for the year 2016 data. And could not find a similar figure as in report for other waves (2001, 2011, 2016) with similar consideration. for example, I get 2485 instead of 2475 in 2011 and 5258 instead of 5262 in 2006. I have tried many times and I am taking into consideration:-
a) sample weight variable (HV005/1000000)
b) selected de facto children using HV103
Syntax used : Stunting
recode hc70 (lo thru -201 = 1) (-200 thru 9990 = 0 ) (else=sysmis) into stunting.
variable labels stunting "Stunting".
value labels stunting 0 "Not stunted" 1 "Stunted".
formats stunting (f1.0).
compute wgt = hv005/1000000.
weight by wgt.
compute filter_$=(hc70 < 9990 & hv103=1).
variable labels filter_$ 'hc70 < 9990 & hv103=1 (FILTER)'.
value labels filter_$ 0 'Not Selected' 1 'Selected'.
formats filter_$ (f1.0).
filter by filter_$.
execute.
frequencies stunting.
Problem 2 :
a)Should I merge the HW file to PR or KR file? Or merge HW file with merged datasets of KR and PR file?
I would be grateful if you can share the ideas for solving these issues. I am struggling with this difference in figures.
Thank you.
[Updated on: Sat, 20 April 2019 00:58] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
The DHS Program User Forum
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
