SNAPSHOT OF INDICATORS
Summary of the sample design for PMA2016/Lagos (Nigeria)-R3:
Additional detail on sample design, data collection and processing, response rates, and standard errors are available below the indicator tables.
The PMA2016/Lagos-R3 Survey in Detail
Round 1 Sample Design
For the first round of data collection in the Lagos state (PMA2014/Lagos), the sample was designed to provide state-level estimates without urban-rural stratification, since the state is predominantly urban, using a two-stage cluster design. First, the primary sampling unit were selected systematically with probability proportional to size. The master frame of Enumeration Areas (EAs) was based on the 2006 Nigerian population census. Census enumeration areas in Nigeria are on average 47 households in size. In order to obtain an enumeration area of approximately 200 households, a cluster of EAs was constructed – hereinafter referred to as EA cluster. An index enumeration area, along with a list of contiguous EAs and associated sampling probabilities, were provided by the National Population Commission (NPopC). Enumeration areas were combined into EA clusters - primary sampling units in Nigeria - and sampling probabilities were adjusted. A 39 EA clusters were selected in Lagos.
In each selected EA cluster, all households, health SDPs, and key landmarks in the EA cluster were listed and mapped by trained REs to create a sampling frame for the second stage of the sampling process. Once listed, field supervisors systematically selected 35 households using a random number-generating mobile-phone application. All eligible women in selected households were approached and asked to provide informed consent to participate in the survey.
For the SDP survey, up to three private SDPs, including pharmacies, within each sampled EA cluster boundary were randomly selected from the listing. In addition, three public health SDPs—a health post, a health center, and a district hospital designated to serve the enumeration area population—were selected.
Round 3 Sample Design
Data collection for Round 3 continued in the same set of 52 EAs selected in Round 2. Mapping and listing in PMA2020 is generally done on an annual basis (typically during the first and third rounds), but due to delays in fieldwork, Round 2 occurred approximately one year after Round 1 and thus, listing of households was redone in Round 2. Round 3, conducted six months later, used the Round 2 listing. Field supervisors randomly selected 40 households from the updated 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 a new sample of the private SDPs is selected during each round.
Training, Data Collection and Processing
Throughout the training, resident enumerators (REs) and supervisors were evaluated based on their performance on phone-based assessments. The RE training was conducted primarily in Yoruba and English, whereas some small group review sessions were conducted in other 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
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 CRERD in Nigeria, 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 June.
Once all data were on the server, data analysts cleaned and de-identified the data, applied survey weights, and prepared the final dataset for analysis using Stata. The findings were shared with government and community stakeholders at a dissemination event on October 25, 2016.
|Household response rate* (%)||91.3||--||91.3|
|Interviews with women age 15-49|
|Number of eligible women**||1,512||--||1,512|
|Number of eligible women interviewed||1,432||--||1,432|
|Eligible women response rate† (%)||94.7||--||94.7|
Sample Error Estimates
|Variable||Value[R]||Standard Error||Confidence Interval|
|All women age 15-49|
|Currently using a modern method||0.197||0.012||0.173||0.221|
|Currently using a traditional method||0.068||0.010||0.047||0.088|
|Currently using any contraceptive method||0.265||0.019||0.227||0.302|
|Currently using injectables||0.030||0.005||0.021||0.039|
|Currently using male condoms||0.088||0.011||0.067||0.109|
|Currently using implants||0.009||0.002||0.005||0.014|
|Chose method by self or jointly in past 12 months||0.869||0.024||0.821||0.916|
|Paid fees for family planning services in past 12 months||0.370||0.035||0.299||0.441|
|Informed by provider about other methods||0.422||0.034||0.354||0.490|
|Informed by provider about side effects||0.335||0.044||0.246||0.424|
|Satisfied with provider: Would return and refer friend/relative to provider||0.702||0.037||0.627||0.777|
|Visited by health worker who talked about family planning in past 12 months||0.111||0.025||0.061||0.160|
|Women in union age 15-49|
|Currently using a modern method||0.231||0.017||0.196||0.265|
|Currently using a traditional method||0.096||0.017||0.063||0.130|
|Currently using any contraceptive modern method||0.327||0.024||0.279||0.375|
|Currently using injectables||0.047||0.008||0.032||0.062|
|Currently using male condoms||0.081||0.004||0.007||0.022|
|Currently using implants||0.015||0.004||0.007||0.022|
|Chose method by self or jointly in past 12 months||0.894||0.025||0.843||0.945|
|Paid fees for family planning services in past 12 months||0.380||0.036||0.308||0.453|
|Informed by provider about other methods||0.502||0.044||0.413||0.591|
|Informed by provider about side effects||0.387||0.046||0.294||0.480|
|Satisfied with provider: Would return and refer friend/relative to provider||0.740||0.044||0.652||0.827|
|Visited by health worker who talked about family planning in past 12 months||0.136||0.030||0.076||0.196|