SNAPSHOT OF INDICATORS
Summary of the sample design for PMA2016/Burkina Faso-R4:
PMA2020 uses a two-stage cluster design with residential area (urban and rural) as strata. The first stage of sampling was a selection of clusters within each sampling stratum using probability proportional to size procedures. The sample was designed to generate national estimates of all women modern contraceptive prevalence rate (mCPR) with a less than 3% margin of error and urban/rural estimates at less than 5% 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 urban/rural distinction was done when possible. 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 detail on sample design, data collection and processing, response rates, and standard errors are available below the indicator tables.
|All Women||Married Women|
|Contraceptive Prevalence Rate (CPR)||22.9||25.4|
|Modern Contraceptive Prevalence (mCPR)||21.9||24.5|
|Traditional Contraceptive Prevalence||0.9||0.9|
|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||24.4||28.8|
|Demand for family planning||47.3||54.3|
|Percent of all/married women with demand satisfied by modern contraception||46.3||45.2|
|Percent of recent births, by intention|
|Wanted no more||2.9||2.4|
|Access, Equity, Quality and Choice|
|Percent of users who chose their current method by themselves or jointly with a partner/provider||91.8||92.3|
|Percent of users who paid for family planning services||66.2||69.2|
|Method Information Index:|
|Percent of current users who were informed about other methods||62.6||65.2|
|Percent of current users who were informed about side effects||55.3||57.3|
|Percent of current users who were told what to do if they experienced side effects||90.2||91.1|
|Percent of current users who would return and/or refer others to their provider||82.2||84.0|
|Percent of women receiving family planning information in the past 12 months||19.6||22.7|
The PMA2016/Burkina Faso-R4 Survey in Detail
Round 1 Sample Design
Survey resources allowed targeting a sample size of 53 enumeration areas (EAs) and an anticipated sample size of 1,855 households. During Round 1, a total of 53 EAs were sampled throughout all regions in Burkina Faso, creating representative estimates at both the national and urban/rural level. The primary sampling units for the survey were the EAs, created during the 2006 Population and Housing Census. The EAs were selected systematically with probability proportional to size within urban/rural strata. Institut Supérieur des Sciences de la Population (ISSP) drew the sample and provided the selection probabilities with support from L'Institut national de la statistique et de la démographie (INSD).
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 4 Sample Update
Field supervisors randomly selected 35 households from the Round 3 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 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 three private SDPs are randomly selected in each round.
All PMA2020 questionnaires are administered using Open Data Kit (ODK) software and Android smartphones. Given that PMA2020 questionnaires are typically administered in local languages (French not included), supervisors and REs worked in small teams during training prior to data collection to determine standard translations orally in all local languages spoken by the REs. The interviews were conducted in the local language, or French in a few cases when the respondent was not comfortable with the local language, the RE did not speak the maternal language of the respondent, or the respondent was more comfortable in French . Female resident enumerators in each EA administered the household and female questionnaires in the selected households.
The household questionnaire gathers basic information about the household, such as ownership of durable goods, as well as characteristics of the dwelling unit, including wall, floor, and roof material, water sources and sanitation facilities. This information is used to construct a wealth quintile.
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 WASH facilities 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 collection water on women.
The SDP questionnaire is used to collect information about the provision and quality of reproductive health services and products, integration of health services, and water and sanitation within the SDP.
Training, Data Collection & Processing
As this was a refresher training for continuing staff, the training focused on a handful of newly added questions an annual questionnaire review process, as well as a new section developed in collaboration with FHI 360 exploring acceptability of new contraceptive devices among women of reproductive age in Burkina Faso. The training also focused on a review of the service delivery point (SDP) questionnaire and review of survey content and protocol.
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 French, but some small group sessions were conducted in all of the local languages spoken by the REs and their supervisors.
Data Collection & ProcessingData collection was conducted between November 2016 and January 2017. 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 ISSP in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso and the data manager at the Gates Institute at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, Maryland 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 software. Data analysis for the national dissemination of preliminary findings was conducted between February and June 2017. There was a small dissemination event with the Technical Working Group for Reproductive Health (GT/SR) for Round 4 results at ISSP in Ougadougou, Burkina Faso in early June 2017.
In the occupied households that provided an interview, a total of 3,352 eligible women aged 15 to 49 years were identified. Overall, 95.6% of the eligible women were available and consented to the interview. The female response rate was higher in the rural (97.3%) relative to the urban (93.8%) EAs. Only de facto females are included in the analyses; the final completed de facto female sample size was 3,203 (unweighted). The sample of service delivery points (SDPs) included 135 facility interviews, 131 of which were completed, for a response rate of 97.0%
|Household response rate* (%)||96.8||99.2||98.0|
|Interviews with women age 15-49|
|Number of eligible women**||1,663||1,689||3,352|
|Number of eligible women interviewed||1,560||1,643||3,203|
|Eligible women response rate† (%)||93.8||97.3||95.6|
**Eligible women response rates include only women identified in completed household interviews
†Eligible women response rate = eligible women interviewed/eligible women
Sample Error Estimates
|Variable||Value[R]||Standard Error||Confidence Interval|
|All women age 15-49|
|Currently using a modern method||0.219||0.012||0.194||0.244|
|Currently using a traditional method||0.010||0.002||0.005||0.014|
|Currently using any contraceptive method||0.228||0.013||0.203||0.254|
|Currently using injectables||0.070||0.007||0.056||0.083|
|Currently using male condoms||0.022||0.003||0.015||0.029|
|Currently using implants||0.100||0.008||0.083||0.116|
|Chose method by self or jointly in past 12 months||0.912||0.015||0.882||0.943|
|Paid fees for family planning services in past 12 months||0.637||0.027||0.584||0.691|
|Informed by provider about other methods||0.622||0.034||0.553||0.690|
|Informed by provider about side effects||0.551||0.033||0.485||0.617|
|Satisfied with provider: Would return and refer friend/relative to provider||0.820||0.030||0.761||0.879|
|Visited by health worker who talked about family planning in past 12 months||0.196||0.021||0.154||0.239|
|Married women age 15 to 49|
|Currently using a modern method||0.245||0.015||0.215||0.275|
|Currently using a traditional method||0.009||0.002||0.005||0.013|
|Currently using any contraceptive method||0.254||0.016||0.223||0.285|
|Currently using injectables||0.085||0.008||0.068||0.101|
|Currently using condoms||0.009||0.002||0.005||0.013|
|Currently using implants||0.118||0.010||0.098||0.139|
|Chose method by self or jointly in past 12 months||0.919||0.014||0.891||0.948|
|Paid fees for family planning services in past 12 months||0.671||0.027||0.617||0.724|
|Informed by provider about other methods||0.647||0.033||0.582||0.713|
|Informed by provider about side effects||0.571||0.035||0.500||0.641|
|Satisfied with provider: Would return and refer friend/relative to provider||0.837||0.028||0.781||0.893|
|Visited by health worker who talked about family planning in past 12 months||0.227||0.026||0.176||0.279|