DHS METHODOLOGICAL 

REPORTS 17

Contraceptive use and perinatal 

mortality in the DHS: An assessment 

of the quality and consistency 

of calendars and histories

SEPTEMBER 2015

This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by 

Sarah E.K. Bradley of ICF International, William Winfrey of Avenir Health, and Trevor N. Croft of ICF International.

DHS Methodological Reports No. 17 

Contraceptive Use and Perinatal Mortality in the DHS: 

An Assessment of the Quality and Consistency 

of Calendars and Histories

Sarah E.K. Bradley1,2

William Winfrey3

Trevor N. Croft2

ICF International 

Rockville, Maryland, USA 

September 2015 

1

 Department of Demography, University of California, Berkeley 

2

 ICF International 

3

 Avenir Health

Corresponding authors: Sarah E.K. Bradley, Sarah.Bradley@icfi.com, and William Winfrey, 

BWinfrey@AvenirHealth.org 
Acknowledgment: The authors acknowledge advice and comments from their colleagues in The DHS 

Program including Sunita Kishor, Fred Arnold, Tom Pullum, Sarah Staveteig, Kerry MacQuarrie and Jose 

Miguel Guzman. Justin Archer provided data processing, data analysis and organization of output for this 

report. The authors also thank Stan Becker for external review. 

Editor: Cynthia Green 

Document Production: Natalie La Roche 

This study was carried out with support provided by the United States Agency for International 

Development (USAID) through The DHS Program (#AIDOAA-C-13-00095). The views expressed are 

those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. 

The DHS Program assists countries worldwide in the collection and use of data to monitor and evaluate 

population, health, and nutrition programs. For additional information about The DHS Program contact: 

DHS Program, ICF International, 530 Gaither Road, Suite 500, Rockville, MD 20850, USA. Phone: +1 

301-407-6500; fax: +1 301-407-6501; email: reports@dhsprogram.com; Internet: www.dhsprogram.com. 

Recommended citation: 

Bradley, Sarah E.K., William Winfrey, and Trevor N. Croft. 2015. Contraceptive Use and Perinatal 

Mortality in the DHS: An Assessment of the Quality and Consistency of Calendars and Histories. DHS 

Methodological Reports No. 17. Rockville, Maryland, USA: ICF International. 
iii 

Contents 

Tables ......................................................................................................................................................... v 

Figures ....................................................................................................................................................... vii 

Preface ........................................................................................................................................................ ix 

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................ xi 

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... xiii 

Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 

Chapter 2: Assessing the Quality of Perinatal Mortality Data from Pregnancy and Birth Histories ............ 3 

2.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 3 

2.2 Definitions .......................................................................................................................... 4 

2.3 Survey Instruments ............................................................................................................. 5 

2.4 Presentation of Results ...................................................................................................... 11 

2.5 Country Cases ................................................................................................................... 16 

2.6 Summary Measures ........................................................................................................... 16 

2.7 Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 18 

Chapter 3: Assessing the Quality and Consistency of Contraceptive Use Data in DHS Calendars ........... 21 

3.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 21 

3.2 Data and Methods ............................................................................................................. 25 

3.3 Results ............................................................................................................................... 28 

3.4 Discussion and Recommendations ................................................................................... 68 

Chapter 4: Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 75 

References ................................................................................................................................................... 77 

Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 79 

v 

Tables 

Table 1. Perinatal mortality rates and early childhood mortality rates, various years, 

DHS and RHS Programs ......................................................................................................... 12 

Table 2. Summary of perinatal mortality rates collected with pregnancy histories versus 

birth histories ........................................................................................................................... 16 

Table 3. Numbers and percentages of surveys that meet or exceed cut-offs of 1.0 and 1.2 

for the ratio of SBR/ENMR, comparison of pregnancy history with birth history ................. 17 

Table 4. Summary of perinatal mortality rates collected with forward pregnancy histories, 

backward pregnancy histories and special questions .............................................................. 18 

Table 5. Numbers and percentages of surveys that meet or exceed cut-offs of 1.0 and 1.2 

for the ratio of SBR/ENMR, comparison of forward pregnancy histories, backward 

pregnancy histories and special questions ............................................................................... 18 

Table 6. Summary comparisons between calendar and previous survey by contraceptive method ...... 65 

Table 7. Summary comparisons between calendar and previous survey by region .............................. 66 

Table 8. Summary of comparisons between calendar and previous survey by survey 

characteristics .......................................................................................................................... 67 

Appendix Table 1. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Ethiopia 2000, 2005, 

and 2011 surveys ..................................................................................................... 79 

Appendix Table 2. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Kenya 1993, 1998, 2003, 

and 2008-09 surveys ............................................................................................... 79 

Appendix Table 3. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Lesotho 2004 and 

2009 surveys ........................................................................................................... 80 

Appendix Table 4. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Madagascar 2003-04 

and 2008-09 surveys ............................................................................................... 80 

Appendix Table 5. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Malawi 2000, 2004, 

and 2010 surveys ..................................................................................................... 80 

Appendix Table 6. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Namibia 2000, 2006-07, 

and 2013 surveys ..................................................................................................... 81 

Appendix Table 7. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Rwanda 2005, 2007-08, 

and 2010 surveys ..................................................................................................... 81 

Appendix Table 8. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Tanzania 1999, 2004-05, 

and 2010 surveys ..................................................................................................... 81 

Appendix Table 9. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Uganda 2000-01, 2006, 

and 2011 surveys ..................................................................................................... 82 

Appendix Table 10. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Zambia 2001-02, 2007, 

and 2013-14 surveys ............................................................................................... 82 

Appendix Table 11. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Zimbabwe 1988, 1994, 1999, 

2005-06, and 2010-11 surveys ................................................................................ 83 

Appendix Table 12. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Benin 2006 and 2011-12 

surveys .................................................................................................................... 84

Appendix Table 13. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Ghana 2003 and 

2008 surveys ........................................................................................................... 84 

Appendix Table 14. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Mali 2006 and 

2012-13 surveys ...................................................................................................... 84 
vi 

Appendix Table 15. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Nigeria 2003, 

2008, and 2013 surveys ........................................................................................... 85 

Appendix Table 16. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Niger 2006 and 

2012 surveys ........................................................................................................... 85 

Appendix Table 17. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Sierra Leone 2008 and 

2013 surveys ........................................................................................................... 85 

Appendix Table 18. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Senegal 2005, 2010-11, 

2012-13, and 2014 surveys ..................................................................................... 86 

Appendix Table 19. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Armenia 2000, 2005, and 

2010 surveys ........................................................................................................... 87 

Appendix Table 20. Comparison of calendar and current status data for currently married women 

for Egypt 1988, 1992, 1995, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2008, and 2014 surveys ............... 88 

Appendix Table 21. Comparison of calendar and current status data for ever-married women 

in Jordan 1997, 2002, 2007, 2009, and 2012 surveys ............................................. 90 

Appendix Table 22. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Kazakhstan 1995 and 1999 

surveys .................................................................................................................... 91

Appendix Table 23. Comparison of calendar and current status data for ever-married women in 

Morocco 1987 and 1992 surveys ............................................................................ 91 

Appendix Table 24. Comparison of calendar and current status data for currently married women for 

Turkey 1993, 1998, and 2003 surveys .................................................................... 91 

Appendix Table 25. Comparison of calendar and current status data for ever-married women 

in Bangladesh 1993-94, 1996-97, 1999-00, 2004, 2007, and 2011 surveys ........... 92 

Appendix Table 26. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Cambodia 2005 and 

2010 surveys ........................................................................................................... 93 

Appendix Table 27. Comparison of calendar and current status data for ever-married women 

in Indonesia 1987, 1991, 1994, 1997, 2002, 2007, and 2012 surveys .................... 94 

Appendix Table 28. Comparison of calendar and current status data for ever-married women 

in Nepal 2001, 2006 and 2011 surveys ................................................................... 95 

Appendix Table 29. Comparison of calendar and current status data for ever-married women 

in Pakistan 2006-07 and 2012-13 surveys .............................................................. 95 

Appendix Table 30. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Philippines 1993, 1998, 

and 2003 surveys ..................................................................................................... 95 

Appendix Table 31. Comparison of calendar and current status data for currently married women for 

Vietnam 1997 and 2002 surveys ............................................................................. 96 

Appendix Table 32. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Bolivia 1989, 1994, 

2003 and 2008 surveys ............................................................................................ 96 

Appendix Table 33. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Colombia 1986, 1990, 

1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010 surveys ....................................................................... 97 

Appendix Table 34. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Dominican Republic 1986, 

1991, 1996, 1999, and 2002 surveys ....................................................................... 98 

Appendix Table 35. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Guatemala 1995 and 

1998-99 surveys ...................................................................................................... 99 

Appendix Table 36. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Honduras 2005-06 and 

2011-12 surveys ...................................................................................................... 99 

Appendix Table 37. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Peru 1986, 1991-92, 

1996, 2000, 2004-06, 2007-08, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 surveys .................. 100 
vii 

Figures 

Figure 1. Representative birth history survey instrument: Bangladesh 2011 ........................................... 5 

Figure 2. Representative reproductive calendar, Bangladesh 2011 .......................................................... 6 

Figure 3. Representative instructions for entering pregnancies and births into reproductive calendar, 

Bangladesh 2011 ....................................................................................................................... 7 

Figure 4. Representative questions concerning terminations, Bangladesh 2011 ...................................... 8 

Figure 5. Representative pregnancy history, Nepal 2011 ....................................................................... 10 

Figure 6. Representative survey instrument where stillbirths are identified by respondent, 

Azerbaijan 2006 ...................................................................................................................... 11 

Figure 7. Calendar from DHS 7 core questionnaire ............................................................................... 23 

Figure 8. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Ethiopia ...................................... 28 

Figure 9. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Kenya.......................................... 29 

Figure 10. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Lesotho ....................................... 30 

Figure 11. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Madagascar ................................. 31 

Figure 12. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Malawi ........................................ 32 

Figure 13. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Namibia ...................................... 33 

Figure 14. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Rwanda ....................................... 34 

Figure 15. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Tanzania ..................................... 35 

Figure 16. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Uganda........................................ 36 

Figure 17. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Zambia ........................................ 37 

Figure 18. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Zimbabwe ................................... 38 

Figure 19. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Benin .......................................... 39 

Figure 20. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Ghana.......................................... 40 

Figure 21. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Mali ............................................ 41 

Figure 22. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Nigeria ........................................ 42 

Figure 23. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Niger ........................................... 43 

Figure 24. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Sierra Leone ............................... 44 

Figure 25. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Senegal ....................................... 45 

Figure 26. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Armenia ...................................... 46 

Figure 27. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among currently married women 15-43, Egypt .............. 47 

Figure 28. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among ever-married women 15-43, Jordan .................... 48 

Figure 29. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Kazakhstan ................................. 49 

Figure 30. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among ever-married women 15-43, Morocco ................ 50 

Figure 31. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among currently married women 15-43, Turkey ............ 51 

Figure 32. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among ever-married women 15-43, Bangladesh ............ 52 

Figure 33. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Cambodia .................................... 53 

Figure 34. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among ever-married women 15-43, Indonesia ............... 54 

Figure 35. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among ever-married women 15-43, Nepal ..................... 55 

Figure 36. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among ever-married women 15-43, Pakistan ................. 56 

Figure 37. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Philippines .................................. 57 

Figure 38. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among currently married women 15-43, Vietnam ......... 58 

Figure 39. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Bolivia ........................................ 59 

Figure 40. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Colombia .................................... 60 

 
viii 

Figure 41. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Dominican Republic ................... 61 

Figure 42. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Guatemala ................................... 62 

Figure 43. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Honduras .................................... 63 

Figure 44. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Peru ............................................. 64 

 
ix 

Preface 

The Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) Program is one of the principal sources of international data 

on fertility, family planning, maternal and child health, nutrition, mortality, environmental health, 

HIV/AIDS, malaria, and provision of health services. 

One of the objectives of The DHS Program is to continually assess and improve the methodology and 

procedures used to carry out national-level surveys as well as to offer additional tools for analysis. 

Improvements in methods used will enhance the accuracy and depth of information collected by The DHS 

Program and relied on by policymakers and program managers in low- and middle-income countries. 

While data quality is a main topic of the DHS Methodological Reports series, the reports also examine 

issues of sampling, questionnaire comparability, survey procedures, and methodological approaches. The 

topics explored in this series are selected by The DHS Program in consultation with the U.S. Agency for 

International Development. 

It is hoped that the DHS Methodological Reports will be useful to researchers, policymakers, and survey 

specialists, particularly those engaged in work in low- and middle-income countries, and will be used to 

enhance the quality and analysis of survey data. 

Sunita Kishor 

Director, The DHS Program

xi 

Abstract 

This study analyzes the quality of perinatal mortality and retrospective contraceptive prevalence rates 

calculated from various instruments used in the Demographic and Health Surveys. 

Perinatal mortality: In this report we compared methods for estimating perinatal mortality in The DHS 

Program. None of the methods appear to adequately capture perinatal mortality by the standard that we 

selected. However, we found that the pregnancy history and the birth history supplemented by special 

questions performed better than the birth history supplemented by the reproductive calendar. 

Contraceptive prevalence tabulated from the reproductive calendar: We assessed the consistency of 

contraceptive use reporting in the calendar by comparing retrospective contraceptive prevalence rates 

tabulated from the calendar with independently estimated current status contraceptive prevalence rates 

from a prior survey. We compared estimates from the two data sources for the same point in time among 

women in the same age groups. We found evidence of substantial underreporting of retrospective 

contraceptive use in the majority of calendars analyzed relative to current status estimates. 

Results suggest that both stillbirths and contraceptive use are underestimated in data collected using the 

reproductive calendar. We recommend experiments in future DHS surveys: random assignment of some 

households to receive a birth history plus calendar and others a pregnancy history, or a forward pregnancy 

history versus a backward pregnancy history to assess the impact on reporting of stillbirths; and 

experiments with shorter calendars and potentially alternative methods of electronic data collection to 

assess the impact of these changes on reporting of contraceptive use and discontinuation. 

xiii 

Executive Summary 

This report analyzes the quality of perinatal mortality calculated from various instruments used in the 

Demographic and Health Surveys and contraceptive prevalence rates calculated with the reproductive 

calendar. 

Perinatal Mortality

Perinatal mortality is calculated using the sum of stillbirths and early neonatal deaths. In the Demographic 

and Health Surveys there are three distinct mechanisms for gathering information necessary for this 

calculation: 1) a birth history supplemented by the reproductive calendar; 2) a pregnancy history; and 3) a 

birth history with specific questions concerning stillbirths. A secondary consideration is whether asking 

the interviewee about her pregnancy history starting from most recent pregnancy to first pregnancy 

(backward) or from first pregnancy to most recent pregnancy (forward) yields the best results. 

In the literature, it has been frequently noted that survey-based estimates of stillbirths are underestimates. 

A World Health Organization report states that the ratio of stillbirths to early neonatal deaths should be 

approximately 1.2. In this report we evaluate the estimation of perinatal mortality based on how close the 

ratio of stillbirths to early neonatal mortality approaches 1.2. 

In general, we find that none of the methods perform well by the standard that we selected. However, we 

find that the pregnancy history and the birth history supplemented by special questions perform better 

than the birth history supplemented by the reproductive calendar. One particularly compelling case is 

from Ghana where The DHS Program conducted two surveys in 2008. One survey used a birth history 

and the other a pregnancy history. The perinatal mortality rate calculated with the pregnancy history came 

much closer to the desired ratio of 1.2 for the stillbirth to early neonatal mortality ratio than the survey 

using birth history. In summary analysis tables, the average of the ratio for the various surveys conducted 

with a pregnancy history or a birth history supplemented by special questions was closer to the desired 

ratio of 1.2 than the average of surveys with only a birth history and a reproductive calendar. 

Unfortunately, the available surveys did not allow us to make solid conclusions regarding the quality of 

the forward-queried versus backward-queried pregnancy history. 

We recommend that controlled trials be conducted within a particular Demographic and Health Survey to 

confirm these findings and also to come to a firmer conclusion about the relative quality of the forwardlooking pregnancy history versus the backward-looking pregnancy history. 

Contraceptive Prevalence in the Reproductive Calendar 

The DHS calendar is a six-year month-by-month retrospective history of all reproductive events 

(pregnancies, live births, and terminations) and episodes of contraceptive use. We evaluated the 

consistency of reported levels of total contraceptive prevalence, as well as the prevalence of each 

contraceptive method, by comparing retrospective reports of contraceptive prevalence collected in the 

calendar with the independently estimated level of current contraceptive use reported in a prior survey in 

the same country. We compared estimates from the two data sources for the same point in time from 

women of the same ages. We used all available data, drawing comparisons between data sources across 

106 survey pairs from 67 countries. 

Using this method we found evidence of substantial underreporting of contraceptive use in the majority of 

calendars analyzed. Levels of total contraceptive use differ significantly between the calendar and current 
xiv 

use reports in 74 percent of survey pairs analyzed. The gap between CPR estimates was 4.1 percentage 

points on average across the 106 survey pairs analyzed, or 15 percent of the average current status CPR. 

Condom use was reported at significantly lower levels in the calendar than in the current use data for the 

same time point in more than half of surveys analyzed. The lactational amenorrhea method also appeared 

inconsistently reported. Traditional and short-term methods (periodic abstinence, withdrawal, pills, 

injectables) were reported at significantly different levels in the calendar than current use in 

approximately 40 percent of surveys analyzed. Reporting of long-term methods (IUD, sterilization, and 

implant) appeared far more consistent between the two data sources. 

There also appears to be regional variation in the consistency of contraceptive use reporting in the 

calendar. Results suggest that the calendar does not accurately capture contraceptive use in the vast 

majority of surveys in sub-Saharan Africa and South/Southeast Asia. By contrast, the calendar appears to 

capture contraceptive use with a reasonable degree of consistency in many surveys in the Latin American 

and Caribbean and North Africa/West Asia/Eastern Europe subregions. 

We note that some of the discrepancies between data sources are likely to be explained by the fact that 

women’s memories are fallible, especially when asked to recall the use of short-term episodes of 

contraceptive use that may have occurred up to six years prior to the interview. At the same time, we also 

note that evidence from some surveys shows that what appears to be consistent recall of contraceptive use 

throughout the calendar period is possible, at least in some settings. We suggest further investigation of 

the methods used to collect calendar data in surveys that demonstrated complete reporting of 

contraceptive use, to see if strategies used in these surveys could be applied more broadly. We also 

recommend experiments with shorter calendars and potentially alternative methods of collecting 

retrospective contraceptive use electronically in an effort to limit recall biases and improve the 

consistency of contraceptive use reporting in calendar data. 
1 

Chapter 1: Introduction 

In the following chapters of this report, we assess the quality and consistency of various portions of DHS 

data by comparing results calculated from the data to an externally calculated standard. In the perinatal 

mortality chapter (Chapter 2), we compare the ratio of stillbirth rates and early neonatal mortality rates 

calculated from 168 DHS and RHS datasets to an international standard that was derived from vital 

statistics and endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO 2006). In the contraceptive use chapter 

(Chapter 3), we compare retrospective contraceptive prevalence rates calculated from calendar data 

collected in more than 100 DHS surveys to externally calculated current use contraceptive prevalence 

rates from an earlier DHS survey for the same time period in the same country. In both chapters, we treat 

the external information—the metric of 1.2 for the ratio of stillbirth rates to early neonatal mortality rates 

and the contraceptive prevalence rates calculated from current use data—as the standard for each 

estimate, and we compare survey-specific results to those standards. 

In Chapter 2, we compare the ratios of the stillbirth rate and early neonatal mortality rate calculated using 

three different tools: 

1. A birth history plus the reproductive calendar, 

2. A birth history plus special questions about pregnancy terminations, used in Reproductive Health 

Surveys, or 

3. A pregnancy history, with variation in the ordering in which women were asked about their 

pregnancies (from first pregnancy to most recent or the reverse). 

We then attempt to assess which of these tools produce ratios of stillbirth rates and early neonatal 

mortality rates that are closest to the international standard. Because only one of the three tools listed 

above was used to collect perinatal mortality information in each survey, data collected using different 

tools are not directly compared, so we are somewhat limited in our ability to draw firm conclusions. The 

chapter concludes with recommendations that would allow for direct comparisons between data collection 

tools. 

In Chapter 3, we use data collected in the reproductive calendar to calculate contraceptive prevalence 

rates in each month covered by the multi-year retrospective histories. We also calculate the prevalence of 

use of each contraceptive method in each month covered by the calendar. We then compare these results, 

both graphically and statistically, to contraceptive prevalence rates estimated from current-use data in an 

earlier DHS survey that was conducted during the time period covered by the calendar. We compare these 

two data points for the same date, after limiting results to women of the same age (and marital status, in 

surveys that only interviewed ever-married women) in both data sources. We then summarize results by 

contraceptive method, geographic region, and survey characteristics. Based on these findings, we offer 

brief recommendations. 

Finally, Chapter 4 summarizes the results and recommendations from the perinatal mortality and 

contraceptive use analyses. 

3 

Chapter 2: Assessing the Quality of Perinatal Mortality Data from 

Pregnancy and Birth Histories 

Over the last 30 years the Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) program has used two different 

instruments to measure fertility—birth histories and pregnancy histories. The use of these instruments is 

mutually exclusive. A survey uses one or the other but never both. Questions within these instruments 

also query whether children, the result of live births, are still alive and if they died how old they were at 

death. In the case of pregnancy histories, the outcomes of pregnancies not ending in a live birth are 

recorded as miscarriages, induced abortions or stillbirths. Therefore with the pregnancy history alone, an 

analyst can calculate perinatal mortality (including stillbirths and early neonatal deaths). The birth history, 

if supplemented by additional questions or a reproductive calendar, can also be used to tabulate perinatal 

mortality. This chapter will make an assessment of whether the pregnancy history or the birth history 

supplemented by additional questions or the reproductive calendar does a better job of collecting data for 

a tabulation of perinatal mortality. 

2.1 Background 

The gold standard for evaluating different methods of survey data collection is to compare rates gathered 

from the survey with rates from vital registration or similar data. In this study we are unable to do this 

because we lack the relevant data. Espeut (2002) compared birth histories and childhood mortality as 

measured by pregnancy histories versus birth histories. Comparing events from the histories with events 

reported in a comprehensive Demographic Surveillance System (DSS),1

 she found that the pregnancy 

history did a better of job of placing the births and deaths in time relative to the birth history. Although 

the differences between the birth history and pregnancy history were statistically significant, they were 

not necessarily large in an absolute sense. On the other hand, in regression analysis she found that the 

odds of births being missed was higher in the birth histories than in the pregnancy history (2.0 odds ratio) 

and was much higher for children who died (odds ratio of 22.5). Since the birth history was not 

supplemented by information on pregnancies resulting in a non-live birth, she was not able to comment 

on whether the pregnancy history or the birth history did a better job of measuring perinatal mortality. 

In the last 15 years several teams have attempted global assessments of perinatal mortality rates or 

stillbirth rates. Each of these attempts to assess the global burden of perinatal mortality or stillbirths has 

pointed out the limitations of surveys such as the DHS for measuring perinatal mortality and in particular 

stillbirth rates (e.g., WHO 2006, Cousens et al. 2012, Stanton et al. 2006, and Lawn et al. 2010). 

The usual evidence supplied in documenting this limitation is that the ratio of stillbirth rates (SBR) to 

early neonatal mortality rates (ENMR) is low for almost all surveys in the DHS and Reproductive Health 

Surveys (RHS) series. The WHO report “Neonatal and Perinatal Mortality: Country, Regional and Global 

Estimates” (WHO 2006) presented the results of a historical review of SBR/ENMR ratios derived from 

vital registration systems in Chile, Denmark, Hong Kong, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Scotland, 

Singapore, Sweden and the United States. The ratios ranged from 0.7 to 1.9. Depending on the level of 

the early neonatal mortality rate, the mean was 1.3, 1.4, or 1.5 and the median ranged from 1.2 to 1.5. 

A challenge noted in the WHO report is the paucity of good stillbirth data based on vital registration or 

other solid sources. On the other hand, the report noted relatively solid data existed for early neonatal 

mortality. Based on the historical data described above they decided to use 1.2 as a multiplicative factor 

for translating early neonatal mortality rates into stillbirth rates. Other sources have cited this factor of 1.2 

 

1

 This study actually goes beyond the gold standard of comparing rates to actually ascertaining on a case by case 

basis if the events are accurately and completely reported in the survey. 
4 

as a good barometer for assessing quality of stillbirth data (e.g., Cousens et al. 2012, and Lawn et al. 

2010). 

Based on this general consensus on the ratio of SBR to ENMR as a barometer of quality, we made 

comparisons of this ratio across surveys. In general a survey with a higher value of SBR/ENMR will be 

judged as being closer to expectations. However, we also note that several surveys will be found to have 

very high ratios that may be outside of bounds in the other direction. 

A subsidiary question is the best way to administer the pregnancy history. Two basic choices exist: 1) 

querying women about pregnancies starting with the most recent pregnancy and moving to their first 

pregnancy (backward pregnancy history); or 2) querying women starting with their first pregnancy and 

moving to their most recent pregnancy (forward pregnancy history). Becker and Mahmoud (1984) in a 

small study found that the backward history had fewer missed events in a survey where women were 

administered a forward or backward survey pregnancy on a random basis. 

2.2 Definitions 

In this report we will follow the definition of perinatal mortality that the Demographic and Health Survey 

Program has adopted. This definition differs from definitions that others have used. In particular, the 

denominator used in this report is based on pregnancies rather than on live births, which are most 

frequently used for defining child mortality rates such as neonatal mortality rate, infant mortality rate and 

under-five mortality rate. Our justification for using the pregnancy-based definitions is pragmatic. 

Because this report is part of a Demographic and Health Survey Program report series, we wish to have 

our results consistent with those reported in the surveys’ final reports and the DHS STATcompiler. 

In any case, we do not believe that using live births or pregnancies as the denominator will influence our 

findings or recommendations. In general, using live births rather than pregnancies will cause an acrossthe-board small decrease in the rates. The rates would decrease a bit more in countries where the stillbirth 

rates are higher.2

 However, since the differences in rates we are looking for are relatively large and since 

we are not offering our results as reference for global, regional or country levels of perinatal mortality, 

this does not pose a problem. 

Stillbirth rate is the number of pregnancies that are terminated in the 7th, 8th, 9th or 10th month of 

pregnancy divided by the number of pregnancies that reach at least the 7th month.3

 In this report we use 

an exposure period covering 60 months preceding the survey unless otherwise indicated. 

Early neonatal mortality rate is the number of children born alive who die before the seventh day of 

his/her life divided by the number of pregnancies that reach at least the 7th month. Again we use an 

exposure period of 60 months preceding the survey unless otherwise indicated. 

Perinatal mortality rate is the sum of the stillbirth rate and the early neonatal mortality rate. 

 

2

 We report results differentially for countries with high and low early neonatal mortality, thus controlling somewhat 

for this. 

3

 Definitions of the time frame for perinatal mortality vary. Tanaka et al. (2011) cite sources stating 22 weeks or 28 

weeks. The DHS survey instruments do not allow such precision. Theoretically, seven months in the DHS 

reproductive calendar (described below) could correspond to anything from 22 weeks if the pregnancy began on the 

last day of the first month and ended in the first day of the seventh month to 30 weeks if the pregnancy began on the 

first day of the seventh month and ended on the last day of the seventh month. 
5 

Note that the denominator for these rates is pregnancies that reach at least seven months. Given that any 

termination that occurs at the seventh month or beyond is defined as a stillbirth, the denominator could be 

equivalently defined as stillbirths plus live births. 

2.3 Survey Instruments 

2.3.1 Birth history supplemented with a reproductive calendar 

With some variation, the birth history asks a woman to list all of the live births that she has ever had. For 

each of the births she is asked if the birth is multiple/single, the birthdate, sex, current age, name of child, 

whether the child is alive and if she/he died how old she/he was when she died. This information is 

recorded in tabular form. Figure 1 is a snapshot of the first two lines of the birth history from the 

Bangladesh 2011 DHS. 

Figure 1. Representative birth history survey instrument: Bangladesh 2011 

The reproductive calendar is a separate instrument that may include information including births, 

pregnancies, terminations, contraceptive use, reasons for discontinuation of contraceptive use, source of 

family planning method, marital status, etc. Here we will describe only the process used to record 

pregnancies, births and terminations. 

Births are live births. Terminations are pregnancies that do not end with a live birth. These may include 

induced abortions, miscarriages and stillbirths. Figure 2 is the reproductive calendar from the Bangladesh 

2011 DHS. The instructions given with reproductive calendar are cursory because detailed instructions 

are included elsewhere in the survey instrument. 
6 

Figure 2. Representative reproductive calendar, Bangladesh 2011 

After the interviewer completes the birth history, she marks B at appropriate points in the reproductive 

calendar. The interviewed woman is queried about the duration of each pregnancy for each of the births 

and P’s are entered as appropriate in the calendar. The final month of pregnancy is assumed to be the 

month marked as B in the calendar. Therefore calculation of the duration of a pregnancy would be the 

number of P’s plus one. 
7 

If a woman is currently pregnant she is queried about the duration of the pregnancy, and this is also 

entered into the reproductive calendar. Figure 3 is a screenshot from the Bangladesh 2011 DHS showing 

the instructions for both the entry of births and a current pregnancy. 

Figure 3. Representative instructions for entering pregnancies and births into reproductive calendar, 

Bangladesh 2011 

Next the interviewer asks a series of questions about pregnancies that did not end in a live birth. 

Eventually, the interviewer asks the woman if she has had a pregnancy that did not end with a live birth 

and that pregnancy ended after the first month that is included in the reproductive calendar. The 

interviewer will then sequentially query each pregnancy that fits this description. For each such 

pregnancy the interviewer will put a T in the calendar at the month where the pregnancy ended. The 

interviewer will then query the woman about the duration of the pregnancy. The interviewer writes in P’s 

in the appropriate number of months. As above, the month of the termination is assumed to be one of the 

months of the pregnancy. Figure 4 is a screenshot from the Bangladesh 2011 DHS showing the detailed 

instructions. 
8 

Figure 4. Representative questions concerning terminations, Bangladesh 20114

 

Family planning use is also entered into the calendar at a later point in the survey. (Family planning will 

be covered in the next chapter.) The implementation of the reproductive calendar has evolved over the 

last 25 years leading to greater standardization. The details of this evolution are beyond the scope of this 

report. 

In the case of the birth history with a reproductive calendar, the number of pregnancies that last at least 

seven months is tabulated based on the non-current pregnancies that begin less than 60 months before the 

survey date and last at least seven months (translating to at least 6 P’s in the calendar that are followed by 

a termination or a birth). The number of stillbirths is the number of pregnancies that begin less than 60 

months before the survey that end with a termination in the 7th month or later of the survey. The number 

of early neonatal deaths is calculated based on the number of births in which the child dies before the 

seventh day of his/her life and the pregnancy began less than 60 months before the beginning of the 

survey. 

 

4

 The Bangladesh survey instrument deviated slightly from others in that it refers to “menstrual regulation” in 

addition to stillbirths, miscarriages and abortions. 
9 

2.3.2 Pregnancy history 

In contrast to the birth history, the pregnancy history queries a woman about pregnancies and their result 

(rather than births). Details of the pregnancies are recorded in tabular format. First, the interviewer asks 

some questions to establish if the woman has ever been pregnant. If the interviewer establishes that the 

woman has ever been pregnant, the interviewer queries her about the pregnancies sequentially. Depending 

on the survey the interviewer may begin with the first pregnancy that the woman ever had or with the 

most recent pregnancy5

. Specific instructions on this matter are given. It is not the choice of the 

interviewer. With variation, the following is queried about each pregnancy: single/multiple pregnancy, 

how the pregnancy ended (live, not live), name, sex, birth month/day, currently alive or not, etc. If the 

child from a live birth has died, the age at death is queried. It may be recorded as days, months or years. If 

the pregnancy ended without a live birth, the woman is queried about when the pregnancy ended, the 

duration of the pregnancy and whether the end of the pregnancy was induced. Again there is variation in 

how the questions are posed. However, the basic structure is that the end of the pregnancy is noted as 

either as a live birth or not. For live births if the child died, an age at death is recorded. For pregnancies 

that do not end with a live birth, information necessary for establishing the duration of pregnancy is 

collected. Figure 5 shows screen shots from the Nepal 2011 DHS showing the relevant elements of the 

pregnancy history. In this example, the distinction between a stillbirth and a termination/miscarriage is 

made by the analyst based on the duration of the pregnancy. 

 

5

 Querying from first to last or last to first will be shown to have a potential influence on the results later in this 

paper. 
10 

Figure 5. Representative pregnancy history, Nepal 2011 
11 

In many of the survey instruments, especially those for the former Soviet Republics, stillbirths are 

identified by the woman being interviewed rather than being defined by the analysts. The interviewer asks 

the woman directly how the pregnancy ended and offers four choices. The snapshot below in Figure 6 

shows the relevant portion of the survey instrument from the Azerbaijan 2006 DHS. 

Figure 6. Representative survey instrument where stillbirths are identified by respondent, Azerbaijan 2006 

2.3.3 Birth history with special questions 

A third variation frequently implemented in the Reproductive Health Surveys in Latin America is a birth 

history supplemented by questions establishing the occurrence of pregnancies that did not end in live 

births. The birth history in these surveys is very close in nature to those in the DHS series. The questions 

in the survey specifically query the woman about whether she has ever had a stillborn child and when the 

pregnancy ended. There is no specific attempt to discern if the woman being interviewed understands the 

term “stillbirth” as international standards define it. 

2.4 Presentation of Results 

Table 1 presents perinatal mortality rates including stillbirth rates and early neonatal mortality rates for all 

Demographic and Health Surveys and Reproductive Health Surveys with data appropriate for calculating 

the rates. The table includes a few special surveys implemented by The DHS Program that used the 

pregnancy history as part of the survey instrument. To provide context, the early childhood mortality rates 

are also presented. Table 1 also includes information on the source of the data and the method by which 

the data were collected. 
12 

Table 1. Perinatal mortality rates and early childhood mortality rates, various years, DHS and RHS Programs 

Country Survey Method of data collection Source of data 

Perinatal mortality Early child mortality rates 

Stillbirths 

per 1000 

pregnancies of 

7+ months 

duration 

Early 

neonatal 

deaths per 

1000 pregnancies of 

7+ months 

duration 

Perinatal 

mortality 

rate 

Ratio of 

stillbirths 

to early 

neonatal 

deaths 

Neonatal 

mortality 

rate 

Infant 

mortality 

rate 

Under five 

mortality 

rate 

Sub-Saharan Africa 

 Benin 2011-12 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 6 18 24 0.3 23 42 70 

 Benin 2006 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 13 24 37 0.5 31 67 125

 Burkina Faso 2010 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 11 19 30 0.6 28 65 129 

 Burkina Faso 2003 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 15 20 35 0.8 31 81 184 

 Burundi 2010 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 20 22 41 0.9 31 59 96 

 Cape Verde 1998 RHS Pregnancy History Queried First to Most Recent STATcompiler 20 8 28 2.6 11 31 41

 Comoros 2012 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 4 20 23 0.2 24 36 50 

 Ethiopia 2011 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 17 29 46 0.6 37 59 88 

 Ethiopia 2005 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 10 27 37 0.4 39 77 123 

 Gambia 2013 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 11 19 30 0.6 22 34 54

 Ghana 2008 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 14 25 39 0.5 30 50 80 

 Ghana 2008 Ghana Maternal 

Health Survey 

Pregnancy History Queried First to Most Recent Final report 21 24 45 0.9 29 50 82 

 Ghana 2003 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 11 35 46 0.3 43 64 111 

 Ghana 1998 DHS Pregnancy History Queried First to Most Recent Final report* 22 24 46 0.9 30 57 108

 Guinea 2005 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 15 29 44 0.5 39 91 163 

 Kenya 2008-09 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 11 25 37 0.5 31 52 74 

 Kenya 2003 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 14 27 40 0.5 33 77 115 

 Kenya 1998 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar DHS special 

tabulation 

9 21 30 0.5 28 74 111 

 Lesotho 2009 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 17 37 54 0.4 47 91 117

 Liberia 2013 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 11 20 30 0.5 26 54 94 

 Madagascar 2008-09 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 14 19 32 0.7 24 48 72 

 Madagascar 2003-04 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 14 21 35 0.6 32 58 94 

 Malawi 2010 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 16 24 40 0.7 31 66 112

 Malawi 2004 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 15 19 34 0.8 27 76 133 

 Malawi 2000 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 13 28 41 0.5 42 104 189 

 Mali 2012-13 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 6 28 34 0.2 34 56 95 

 Mali 2006 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 13 34 47 0.4 46 96 191

 Mali 2001 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 12 38 50 0.3 57 113 229 

 Mozambique 2011 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 11 27 38 0.4 30 64 97 

 Mozambique 2003 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 19 23 43 0.8 37 101 152 

 Namibia 2013 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 8 16 24 0.5 20 39 54

 Namibia 2006-07 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 9 20 29 0.5 24 46 69 

 Niger 2012 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 17 17 33 1.0 24 51 127 

 Niger 2006 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 12 21 33 0.6 33 81 198 

 Nigeria 2013 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 12 29 41 0.4 37 69 128

 Nigeria 2008 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 8 31 39 0.3 40 75 157 

 Rwanda 2010 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 17 18 35 0.9 27 50 76 

 Rwanda 2005 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 18 26 44 0.7 37 86 152 

 Rwanda 2000 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 18 30 48 0.6 44 107 196

 Senegal 2010-11 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 16 21 38 0.8 29 47 72 

 Senegal 2005 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 20 25 45 0.8 35 61 121 

 Sierra Leone 2013 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 8 31 39 0.3 39 92 156 

 Sierra Leone 2008 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 8 25 33 0.3 36 89 140

 South Africa 1998 DHS Pregnancy History Queried First to Most Recent Author tabulation 25 12 38 2.1 20 45 59 

 Swaziland 2006-07 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 12 17 29 0.7 22 85 120 

 Tanzania 2010 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 17 19 36 0.9 26 51 81 

 Tanzania 2004-05 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 19 23 42 0.8 32 68 112

 Uganda 2011 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 20 20 40 1.0 27 54 90 

 Uganda 2006 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 17 20 36 0.8 27 71 128 

 Uganda 2000-01 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 16 23 39 0.7 33 88 151 

 Zambia 2013-14 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar Final report 13 18 31 0.7 24 45 75

 Zambia 2007 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 14 24 38 0.6 34 70 119 

 Zimbabwe 2010-11 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 15 24 39 0.6 31 57 84 

 Zimbabwe 2005-06 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 8 17 24 0.4 24 60 82 

 Zimbabwe 1999 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 15 21 35 0.7 29 65 102 

 Zimbabwe 1994 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar DHS special 

tabulation 

15 17 31 0.9 24 53 77 

(Continued...)
13 

Table 1. − Continued

Country Survey Method of data collection Source of data 

Perinatal mortality Early child mortality rates 

Stillbirths 

per 1000 

pregnancies of 

7+ months 

duration 

Early 

neonatal 

deaths per 

1000 pregnancies of 

7+ months 

duration 

Perinatal 

mortality 

rate 

Ratio of 

stillbirths 

to early 

neonatal 

deaths 

Neonatal 

mortality 

rate 

Infant 

mortality 

rate 

Under five 

mortality 

rate 

North Africa/West Asia/Europe 

 Albania 2002 RHS Pregnancy History Queried Most Recent to First STATcompiler 3 12 15 0.2 14 27 31

 Albania 2008-09 DHS Pregnancy History via Special Questions STATcompiler 4 8 11 0.5 11 18 22 

 Armenia 2010 DHS Pregnancy History Queried Most Recent to First STATcompiler 5 5 10 1.1 8 13 16 

 Armenia 2005 DHS Pregnancy History Queried Most Recent to First STATcompiler 8 10 18 0.8 17 26 30 

 Armenia 2000 DHS Pregnancy History Queried Most Recent to First STATcompiler 15 14 29 1.0 19 36 39

 Azerbaijan 2001 RHS Pregnancy History Queried Most Recent to First STATcompiler 22 22 44 1.0 38 81 92 

 Azerbaijan 2006 DHS Pregnancy History Queried Most Recent to First STATcompiler 16 23 39 0.7 28 43 50 

 Egypt 2008 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 8 11 19 0.7 16 25 28 

 Egypt 2005 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 9 14 23 0.7 20 33 41

 Egypt 2000 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 14 16 30 0.9 24 44 54 

 Egypt 1995 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar DHS special 

tabulation

15 19 33 0.8 30 63 81 

 Egypt 1992 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar DHS special 

tabulation

16 19 35 0.8 33 61 85 

 Georgia 1999-2000 RHS Pregnancy History Queried Most Recent to First STATcompiler 16 22 38 0.7 22 38 46

 Georgia 2005 RHS Pregnancy History Queried Most Recent to First STATcompiler 16 15 30 1.1 17 21 25 

 Jordan 2012 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 5 12 17 0.4 14 17 21 

 Jordan 2009 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 9 10 19 0.9 15 23 28 

 Jordan 2007 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 6 9 15 0.6 14 19 21

 Jordan 2002 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 10 12 22 0.8 16 22 27 

 Jordan 1997 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar DHS special 

tabulation

8 13 21 0.6 19 29 34 

 Jordan 1990 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar DHS special 

tabulation

12 15 27 0.8 21 34 39 

 Kazakhstan 1995 DHS Pregnancy History Queried Most Recent to First Author tabulation 14 6 21 2.3 20 40 45 

 Kazakhstan 1999 DHS Pregnancy History Queried Most Recent to First DHS special 

tabulation

15 26 40 0.6 34 62 71 

 Moldova 2005 DHS Pregnancy History Queried Most Recent to First STATcompiler 14 4 19 3.3 5 13 14 

 Morocco 2003-04 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 17 19 35 0.9 27 40 47 

 Morocco 1992 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar DHS special 

tabulation

21 18 39 1.1 31 57 76 

 Romania 1999 RHS Pregnancy History Queried Most Recent to First STATcompiler 12 20 32 0.6 20 30 32 

 Ukraine 1999 RHS Pregnancy History Queried Most Recent to First STATcompiler 9 13 22 0.7 12 14 14

 Ukraine 2007 DHS Pregnancy History Queried Most Recent to First STATcompiler 3 6 9 0.6 9 14 17 

 Kyrgyz Republic 2012 DHS Pregnancy History Queried First to Most Recent STATcompiler 4 14 18 0.3 20 27 31 

 Kyrgyz Republic 1997 DHS Pregnancy History Queried Most Recent to First Author tabulation 6 18 25 0.4 32 61 72 

 Tajikistan 2012 DHS Pregnancy History Queried First to Most Recent STATcompiler 9 15 24 0.6 19 34 43

 Turkey 2013 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar Final report 5 6 11 0.8 7 13 15 

 Turkey 2008 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar Final report 8 11 19 0.7 13 17 24 

 Turkey 2003 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar Final report 11 12 24 0.9 17 29 37 

 Turkey 1998 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar DHS special 

tabulation

16 22 37 0.7 26 43 52 

 Turkey 1993 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar DHS special 

tabulation

17 21 38 0.8 29 53 61 

 Turkmenistan 2000 DHS Pregnancy History Queried Most Recent to First STATcompiler 13 22 35 0.6 34 74 94 

 Uzbekistan 2002 Health Examination 

Survey 

Pregnancy History Queried Most Recent to First Author tabulation 7 14 21 0.5 34 28 73 

 Uzbekistan 1996 DHS Pregnancy History Queried Most Recent to First Author tabulation 5 17 22 0.3 23 49 59 

(Continued...)
14 

Table 1. − Continued

Country Survey Method of data collection Source of data 

Perinatal mortality Early child mortality rates 

Stillbirths 

per 1000 

pregnancies of 

7+ months 

duration 

Early 

neonatal 

deaths per 

1000 pregnancies of 

7+ months 

duration 

Perinatal 

mortality 

rate 

Ratio of 

stillbirths 

to early 

neonatal 

deaths 

Neonatal 

mortality 

rate 

Infant 

mortality 

rate 

Under five 

mortality 

rate 

South and Southeast Asia 

 Bangladesh 2011 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 26 24 50 1.1 32 43 53 

 Bangladesh 2007 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 28 27 55 1.0 37 52 65 

 Bangladesh 2004 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 37 28 65 1.3 41 65 88 

 Bangladesh 1999-00 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar DHS special 

tabulation 

28 28 56 1.0 42 66 94 

 Bangladesh 1996-97 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar DHS special 

tabulation 

32 27 58 1.2 48 82 116 

 Bangladesh 1993-94 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar DHS special 

tabulation 

28 32 60 0.9 52 88 134 

 Cambodia 2010 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 9 21 30 0.4 27 45 54 

 India 2005-06 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 19 29 49 0.7 39 57 74 

 Indonesia 2012 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 11 16 26 0.7 19 32 40 

 Indonesia 2007 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 10 14 25 0.7 19 34 44 

 Indonesia 2002-03 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 10 15 24 0.7 20 35 46 

 Indonesia 1997 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar DHS special 

tabulation 

10 15 25 0.6 22 46 58 

 Indonesia 1994 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar DHS special 

tabulation 

11 20 31 0.5 30 57 81 

 Indonesia 1991 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar DHS special 

tabulation 

8 18 27 0.5 32 68 97 

 Maldives 2009 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 9 9 18 1.0 10 14 17 

 Nepal 2011 DHS Pregnancy History Queried First to Most Recent STATcompiler 10 27 37 0.4 33 46 54 

 Nepal 2006 DHS Pregnancy History Queried First to Most Recent STATcompiler 22 23 45 1.0 33 48 61 

 Nepal 2001 DHS Pregnancy History Queried First to Most Recent Final report 22 26 47 0.9 39 64 91 

 Nepal 1996 DHS Pregnancy History Queried First to Most Recent Author tabulation 30 28 58 1.1 50 78 118 

 Pakistan 2012-13 DHS Pregnancy History Queried First to Most Recent STATcompiler 33 42 75 0.8 55 74 89 

 Pakistan 2006-07 DHS Pregnancy History via Special Questions Author tabulation 31 38 69 0.8 54 78 94 

 Philippines 2013 DHS Pregnancy History Queried Most Recent to First Final report 12 10 22 1.2 13 23 31 

 Philippines 2008 DHS Pregnancy History Queried Most Recent to First STATcompiler 14 13 28 1.1 16 25 34 

 Philippines 2003 DHS Pregnancy History Queried Most Recent to First STATcompiler 11 13 24 0.8 17 29 40 

 Philippines 1998 DHS Pregnancy History Queried Most Recent to First DHS special 

tabulation 

12 14 26 0.9 18 35 48 

 Philippines 1993 DHS Pregnancy History Queried Most Recent to First DHS special 

tabulation 

9 13 22 0.7 18 34 54 

 Philippines 1993 In-depth DHS Pregnancy History Queried Most Recent to First Author tabulation 11 13 24 0.8 

 Vietnam 2002 DHS Pregnancy History Queried Most Recent to First DHS special 

tabulation 

3 11 14 0.3 12 18 24 

 Vietnam 1997 DHS Pregnancy History Queried Most Recent to First DHS special 

tabulation 

9 14 22 0.6 18 29 37 

 Timor-Leste 2009-10 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 2 16 18 0.1 22 45 64 

(Continued...)
15 

Table 1. − Continued

Country Survey Method of data collection Source of data 

Perinatal mortality Early child mortality rates 

Stillbirths 

per 1000 

pregnancies of 

7+ months 

duration 

Early 

neonatal 

deaths per 

1000 pregnancies of 

7+ months 

duration 

Perinatal 

mortality 

rate 

Ratio of 

stillbirths 

to early 

neonatal 

deaths 

Neonatal 

mortality 

rate 

Infant 

mortality 

rate 

Under five 

mortality 

rate 

Latin America and Caribbean

 Bolivia 2008 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 11 18 29 0.6 27 50 63 

 Bolivia 2003 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 12 19 31 0.6 27 54 75 

 Bolivia 1994 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar DHS special 

tabulation 

12 22 34 0.5 36 75 116 

 Brazil 1996 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar DHS special 

tabulation 

9 14 23 0.7 19 39 49 

 Colombia 2010 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 5 8 14 0.7 11 16 19 

 Colombia 2005 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 7 10 17 0.7 12 19 22 

 Colombia 2000 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 11 11 23 1.0 15 21 25 

 Colombia 1995 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar DHS special 

tabulation 

9 15 24 0.6 19 28 36 

 Colombia 1990 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar DHS special 

tabulation 

13 8 22 1.6 10 16 23 

 Dominican Republic 2002 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 8 17 25 0.5 22 31 38 

 Dominican Republic 1999 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar DHS special 

tabulation 

10 12 23 0.9 14 22 30 

 Dominican Republic 1996 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar DHS special 

tabulation 

19 19 39 1.0 27 47 57 

 Dominican Republic 1991 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar DHS special 

tabulation 

16 17 34 0.9 24 43 59 

 Ecuador 1999 RHS Pregnancy History via Special Questions STATcompiler 9 15 24 0.6 19 30 38 

 Ecuador 2004 RHS Pregnancy History via Special Questions STATcompiler 15 13 28 1.1 17 30 35 

 El Salvador 1998 RHS Pregnancy History via Special Questions STATcompiler 12 13 25 0.9 17 35 43 

 El Salvador 2008 RHS Pregnancy History via Special Questions STATcompiler 12 7 19 1.8 9 16 19 

 El Salvador 2002-03 RHS Pregnancy History via Special Questions STATcompiler 13 11 24 1.2 13 25 31 

 Guatemala 2008-09 RHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 19 12 31 1.7 17 30 42 

 Guatemala 2002 RHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 18 17 35 1.0 22 39 53 

 Guatemala 1998-99 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar DHS special 

tabulation 

16 17 33 0.9 23 45 59 

 Guatemala 1995 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar DHS special 

tabulation 

11 20 31 0.6 26 51 68 

 Guyana 2009 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 15 20 35 0.7 25 38 40 

 Honduras 1996 RHS Pregnancy History via Special Questions STATcompiler 11 14 25 0.7 19 36 49 

 Honduras 2001 RHS Pregnancy History via Special Questions STATcompiler 16 14 29 1.2 19 34 45 

 Honduras 2011-12 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 10 12 22 0.8 18 24 29 

 Honduras 2005-06 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 12 10 23 1.1 14 23 30 

 Jamaica 2008-09 RHS Pregnancy History Queried Most Recent to First STATcompiler 12 11 23 1.1 13 17 18 

 Nicaragua 2006-07 RHS Pregnancy History via Special Questions STATcompiler 10 11 20 0.9 16 29 35 

 Nicaragua 2001 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 10 11 21 0.9 16 31 39 

 Nicaragua 1998 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar DHS special 

tabulation 

7 13 20 0.6 17 40 50 

 Paraguay 2008 RHS Pregnancy History via Special Questions STATcompiler 17 12 28 1.4 13 20 23 

 Paraguay 2004 RHS Pregnancy History via Special Questions STATcompiler 14 15 30 0.9 17 29 33 

 Paraguay 1990 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar DHS special 

tabulation 

17 14 31 1.2 19 34 43 

 Peru 2007-08 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 12 7 19 1.7 10 19 27 

 Peru 2012 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 8 9 17 0.9 10 17 21 

 Peru 2011 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 8 6 14 1.3 8 16 21 

 Peru 2010 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 6 7 13 0.8 9 17 23 

 Peru 2009 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 9 8 16 1.1 11 20 26 

 Peru 2004-06 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 8 10 18 0.8 13 22 30 

 Peru 2000 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar STATcompiler 9 13 22 0.7 18 33 47 

 Peru 1996 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar DHS special 

tabulation 

9 16 25 0.6 24 43 59 

 Peru 1991-92 DHS Birth History with reproductive calendar DHS special 

tabulation 

9 17 26 0.6 25 54 78 

 
16 

2.5 Country Cases 

In only a few cases did a country have one survey that used one method of data collection and then a 

subsequent survey with a different data collection method. These countries are Ghana, Nicaragua and 

Paraguay. 

Ghana is a particularly interesting case because in 2008 The DHS program implemented two surveys: a 

Demographic and Health Survey and a special Maternal Health Survey (MHS). The DHS used a birth 

history while the MHS used a pregnancy history. The two surveys found similar early neonatal mortality 

rates: 25 for the DHS and 24 for the MHS. On the other hand, the two surveys found quite different 

stillbirth rates: 14 for the DHS and 21 for the MHS. Earlier we stated that solid historical records suggest 

that the ratio of stillbirths to early neonatal deaths should be on the order of 1.2 when the early neonatal 

mortality rate exceeds 20. This ratio is 0.5 for the 2008 DHS and 0.9 for the 2008 MHS. The MHS is 

much closer to the standard. 

The 1998 Ghana DHS used a pregnancy history where the ratio of stillbirths to early neonatal deaths was 

0.9. The later 2003 Ghana DHS used the birth history where the ratio was 0.3. Again the survey with the 

pregnancy history was closer to the historically expected ratio of 1.2. 

Nicaragua provides a contrasting example to Ghana. The 2006-2007 RHS used a survey instrument that 

asked women specific questions about whether or not they had one or more stillbirths in the last five 

years. The 2001 DHS implemented the birth history. The results were almost identical. 

Finally, Paraguay had two RHS’s in 2004 and 2008 that used the same instrument as the Nicaragua 2006-

2007 RHS. The 1990 DHS in Paraguay included a birth history and reproductive calendar. Comparing the 

results of the 1990 and 2008 surveys in Paraguay, there was a modest decline in the perinatal mortality 

rate that tracked the reduction in the neonatal mortality rate. On the other hand, there was not a clear trend 

in the stillbirth rate or the early neonatal mortality rate. In contrast to the results found for Ghana, the 

birth history in conjunction with the 1990 DHS, using the reproductive calendar, produced a stillbirth rate 

as high or higher than the rate based on the specific questions regarding stillbirths (i.e., 17 for the 1990 

DHS versus 14 for the 2004 RHS and 17 for the 2008 RHS). In all three cases, the ratios of stillbirths to 

early neonatal deaths were in the neighborhood of the standard of 1.2 (i.e., 1.2 for the 1990 DHS, 0.9 for 

the 2004 RHS and 1.4 for the 2008 RHS). 

2.6 Summary Measures 

2.6.1 Comparison of surveys with a pregnancy history versus those with only a birth history 

Another way to address the question is by looking at summary measures of stillbirth rates, early neonatal 

mortality rates and their ratio disaggregated by levels of early childhood mortality and the method used to 

collect the data. Table 2 presents averages of the stillbirth rate, early neonatal mortality rate and perinatal 

mortality rate as well as the average of the ratios of stillbirths to early neonatal deaths. These rates are 

presented for various disaggregations of countries based on their early neonatal mortality rate and whether 

they implemented a birth history or a pregnancy history. 

Table 2. Summary of perinatal mortality rates collected with pregnancy histories versus birth histories

Number 

of surveys 

Average stillbirth 

rate 

Average early 

neonatal mortality 

rate 

Perinatal mortality 

rate 

Average ratio of 

stillbirths to early 

neonatal mortality 

Early neonatal mortality rate 

greater than or equal to 20 

Pregnancy History 15 26 26 52 0.9 

Birth History with reproductive calendar 45 16 26 42 0.6 

Early neonatal mortality rate less 

than 20 

Pregnancy History 35 11 12 23 1.0 

Birth History with reproductive calendar 73 11 15 26 0.8 
17 

Unfortunately, relatively few of the surveys for countries with high early neonatal mortality rates (greater 

than 20) implemented a pregnancy history. However, among the surveys in which a pregnancy history 

was implemented the stillbirth rate is on average about 50 percent higher (26 versus 16) than those using a 

birth history, while the early neonatal mortality ratio is exactly the same at 26. The ratio of stillbirths to 

early neonatal deaths is closer to the standard of 1.2 for surveys where the pregnancy history was 

implemented (0.9 average for the surveys with pregnancy histories versus 0.6 for the surveys with birth 

histories). 

For the surveys in countries where the early neonatal mortality rate was less than 20, the picture is less 

clear but still consistent with the pattern for the countries with a neonatal mortality rate exceeding 20. The 

average of the stillbirth rates is 11 in both the surveys using the pregnancy histories and those using the 

birth histories. On the other hand, the early neonatal mortality rate is 12 in the surveys using the 

pregnancy history versus 15 in the surveys implementing the birth histories. The ratio of stillbirths to 

early neonatal deaths is 1.0 for the surveys with pregnancy histories versus 0.8 for the surveys 

implemented with birth histories. 

Table 3 presents the numbers of surveys that meet or exceed the rule of thumb offered by the WHO in its 

2006 report (WHO, 2006). Of the 168 surveys analyzed here, only 12 had a ratio of stillbirths to early 

neonatal deaths that met the 1.2 standard. On a percentage basis the surveys using pregnancy histories did 

marginally better than those using birth histories but were still quite low. In the right two columns we 

relaxed the standard to be only 1.0 still there were very few surveys among the high mortality countries 

that met even this relaxed standard. 

Table 3. Numbers and percentages of surveys that meet or exceed cut-offs of 1.0 and 1.2 for the ratio of 

SBR/ENMR, comparison of pregnancy history with birth history 

Surveys where the ratio of 

stillbirths to early neonatal 

mortality exceeds 1.2 

Surveys where the ratio of 

stillbirths to early neonatal 

mortality exceeds 1.0 

Number of surveys Number Percent of total Number Percent of total 

Early neonatal mortality rate greater than or 

equal to 20 

Pregnancy History 15 1 7 2 13 

Birth History with reproductive calendar 45 1 2 4 9 

Early neonatal mortality rate less than 20 Pregnancy History 35 5 14 14 40 

Birth History with reproductive calendar 73 5 7 11 15 

2.6.2 Comparison of reproductive history techniques 

As described above, the reproductive history can be collected by either compiling a table similar to the 

birth history or adding special questions addressing specific non-live birth events that may follow from a 

pregnancy (i.e., abortions, miscarriages and stillbirths). Also, the tabular pregnancy history can be 

collected in two ways: 1) pregnancies queried from first pregnancy to most recent (Forward); or 2) 

pregnancies queried from most recent to first (Backward). Tables 4 and 5 present the same information as 

Tables 2 and 3 except that they are limited to surveys in which a pregnancy history was implemented and 

is disaggregated by the type of pregnancy history that was implemented. 
18 

Table 4. Summary of perinatal mortality rates collected with forward pregnancy histories, backward pregnancy 

histories and special questions

Number 

of surveys 

Average stillbirth 

rate 

Average early 

neonatal 

mortality rate 

Perinatal 

mortality rate 

Average ratio of 

stillbirths to early 

neonatal mortality 

Early neonatal mortality rate 

greater than or equal to 20 

Pregnancy History First to Most Recent (Forward) 7 23 28 50 0.8 

Pregnancy History Most Recent to First 

(Backward) 

7 15 24 39 0.7 

Early neonatal mortality rate 

less than 20 

Pregnancy History First to Most Recent (Forward) 4 15 12 27 1.4 

Pregnancy History Most Recent to First 

(Backward) 

20 9 12 21 0.8 

Pregnancy History via special questions 11 12 12 15 1.0 

Table 5. Numbers and percentages of surveys that meet or exceed cut-offs of 1.0 and 1.2 for the ratio of 

SBR/ENMR, comparison of forward pregnancy histories, backward pregnancy histories and special questions 

Number of surveys 

Surveys where the ratio of stillbirths 

to early neonatal mortality 

exceeds 1.2 

Surveys where the ratio of stillbirths 

to early neonatal mortality 

exceeds 1.0 

Number Percent of total Number Percent of total 

Early neonatal mortality rate 

greater than or equal to 20 

Pregnancy History First to Most Recent (Forward) 7 0 0 1 14 

Pregnancy History Most Recent to First 

(Backward) 

7 0 0 0 0 

Early neonatal mortality rate 

less than 20 

Pregnancy History First to Most Recent (Forward) 4 2 50 2 50 

Pregnancy History Most Recent to First 

(Backward) 

20 1 5 7 35 

Pregnancy History via special questions 11 2 18 5 45 

Note that the number of surveys in each line of the tables is relatively small. For surveys in countries 

where the early neonatal mortality rate exceeds 20, the average stillbirth rate is considerably higher in 

those surveys in which the pregnancies were queried from first to most recent than when queried from 

most recent to first. The average of the ratio of stillbirths to early neonatal deaths is also higher, but the 

difference is not as stark. The countries whose surveys go from most recent pregnancy to first pregnancy 

are mostly Eastern European or Central Asian whereas the countries whose pregnancy histories go from 

first pregnancy to most recent pregnancy are almost all in Africa or South Asia. Therefore, we resist 

drawing any conclusions. 

For the surveys in which the early neonatal mortality rate is less than 20, the pregnancy history using the 

special questions seems to do a better job than the pregnancy history done from most recent pregnancy to 

first. The average stillbirth rate is higher and the average early neonatal mortality rate is lower, leading to 

a ratio of stillbirths to early neonatal mortality rate that is on average higher for the surveys in which the 

special questions were asked. Interpreting these findings might be difficult as most of the surveys with 

special questions are in Latin America whereas the 20 surveys with the pregnancy history from most 

recent to first are a mix of countries in Central Asia, Europe and South and Southeast Asia. Only four 

surveys conducted the pregnancy history from first to most recent. The average stillbirth rate and the ratio 

of stillbirths to early neonatal deaths is relatively high for these surveys. 

2.7 Discussion 

This chapter has a relatively simple goal: to assess which type of survey instrument is best for collecting 

information related to pregnancy outcomes. We looked at the following cases: 

1. Pregnancy History 

a. Pregnancy history queried from first pregnancy to most recent pregnancy 

b. Pregnancy history queried from most recent pregnancy to first pregnancy 

c. Pregnancy outcomes (other than live birth) queried using special questions 

2. Birth History supplemented with a reproductive calendar 
19 

From the literature we accepted the finding that for countries with early neonatal mortality rates that 

exceed 20 should have a ratio of stillbirths to early neonatal deaths that is near to 1.2 (WHO, 2006).6

 Our 

analysis has therefore focused on evaluating how close a survey comes to finding such a ratio. In general, 

we believe that the diversions from this ratio would be caused by an underreporting of stillbirths, since 

both pregnancy histories and birth histories use roughly the same technique for querying early neonatal 

deaths (i.e., identification of live births and then establishing the number of days that a child lived before 

dying). 

A standard for comparisons would be a survey using several different techniques applied to randomly 

assigned women. To our knowledge, such a survey focused on perinatal mortality has never been done.7

Some insights are available from two surveys implemented by The DHS Program in Ghana in 2008: a 

Maternal Health Survey with a pregnancy history and a Demographic and Health Survey with a birth 

history supplemented by a reproductive calendar. The two surveys produced very similar estimates of 

early neonatal mortality rates. However, the Maternal Health Survey with the pregnancy history produced 

an estimate of stillbirths that was about 50 percent higher than the DHS using the birth history 

supplemented by the reproductive calendar. This is strong but isolated evidence that the pregnancy history 

produces better results for estimating numbers of pregnancies that do not result in live births. 

Two other countries—Nicaragua and Paraguay—have implemented surveys using different types of 

instruments (albeit at different points in time). Unfortunately, these surveys did not deliver any clear 

actionable message, since they did not show any discernible pattern across the two types of survey 

instruments. 

Next we presented summary cross-country averages on stillbirths, early neonatal mortality and the ratio of 

stillbirths to early neonatal mortality for the different types of survey instruments. The literature suggests 

that differences in the stillbirth to early neonatal mortality ratio may be different at different levels of 

early neonatal mortality. Therefore we differentiated surveys for countries that are above or below 20 

early neonatal deaths per 1,000 live births. In surveys with both high and low mortality, we found that the 

surveys with pregnancy histories identified a higher ratio of stillbirths to early neonatal deaths. For 

countries with high early neonatal mortality, the difference was quite large. 

Overall on balance, we find that the pregnancy history finds more stillbirths than the birth history 

supplemented by the reproductive calendar finds. However, this finding should be viewed in light of the 

overall underestimation by both methods. In surveys where the early neonatal mortality rate was greater 

than 20 only one survey out 15 surveys with a pregnancy history found a ratio of stillbirths to early 

neonatal mortality equal to or greater than 1.2. Among the 45 surveys with a birth history, only one 

survey found a ratio equal to or greater than 1.2. The results were somewhat better for the surveys in 

countries with neonatal mortality less than 20 (5 surveys out of 35 with ratios equal to or greater than 1.2 

for pregnancy histories and 5 out of 73 for birth histories). 

We also compared different approaches to gathering a pregnancy history. Unfortunately, we could not 

make useful comparisons because these different approaches were implemented along strong regional 

patterns. The pregnancy histories that went from most recent birth to first birth (“backward pregnancy 

history”) were mostly implemented in Central Asian and Eastern European countries. The pregnancy 

histories that were inferred from special questions were mostly conducted in Latin America. 

 

6

 It might be argued that the DHS is in fact correct and the 1.2 standard incorrect. However, we believe that the ratio 

based on results from vital registration is more likely to be correct. 

7

 Espeut (2002) did the random assignment but focused on events other than perinatal mortality. 
20 

Among surveys in countries where the early neonatal mortality exceeded 20, we found higher reporting of 

stillbirths relative to early neonatal deaths in surveys using the pregnancy history that queried women 

from first to most recent pregnancy (“forward pregnancy history”) compared with surveys that queried 

women from most recent to first pregnancy (“backward pregnancy history”). However, very few surveys 

in this category used a pregnancy history. 

In countries where the early neonatal mortality rate was less than 20, we found that surveys in which 

pregnancies were queried from first to most recent pregnancy (“forward pregnancy history”) had the 

highest stillbirth to early neonatal mortality ratio, based on a very small number of surveys. Surveys with 

pregnancy histories queried from most recent to first (“backward pregnancy history”) identified fewer 

stillbirths than surveys that either queried pregnancies from first to most recent pregnancy or surveys with 

special questions. However, we emphasize that there was a strong regional pattern to the surveys’ 

implementation that may actually be the cause of the difference observed. 

In summary, we offer the following overall findings for the set of surveys analyzed here: 

• Both the pregnancy history and the birth history underestimate stillbirths. 

• On average, surveys that used a pregnancy history or included special questions to identify 

pregnancies with non-live births do a better job of identifying stillbirths. 

• In our collection of surveys, those with special questions or pregnancy histories queried from first 

to most recent captured more stillbirths than the surveys that queried from most recent to first 

pregnancy. However, the number of surveys for comparison is very small. Also, competing 

hypotheses such as regional differences in rates of reporting seem equally plausible as 

explanations. 

This report offers evidence concerning whether a pregnancy history or a birth history supplemented with 

additional information does a better job of reporting perinatal mortality. Some readers may see this 

evidence as sufficient to move toward systematic implementation of the pregnancy calendar given 

previous studies that have shown better reporting of other pregnancy events. Other readers may want to 

see more evidence before making a decision or asserting an opinion. Firmer research might include trials 

where women are randomly assigned to one of the following types of survey methods: 

• Birth history only (with reproductive calendar identifying pregnancies not ending with live 

births); 

• Birth history with supplemental questions to identify pregnancies not ending with live births; and 

• Pregnancy history. 

The randomized experiments might go one step further and compare the results of a pregnancy history 

done from most recent pregnancy to first pregnancy versus a history that goes from first pregnancy to 

most recent pregnancy. 

However, we emphasize that none of the three mechanisms above consistently yield results that are 

comparable to the expectations generated by perinatal mortality rates calculated from vital registration. 

Any decision made to change the survey instrument would be just making the estimations better, not 

necessarily good for the purpose of estimating perinatal mortality. To achieve results comparable to those 

calculated from vital registration may require a change in paradigm about the types of survey methods 

that are needed for estimating perinatal mortality. 
21 

Chapter 3: Assessing the Quality and Consistency of Contraceptive 

Use Data in DHS Calendars 

Information collected in DHS calendars form the primary data source for the study of contraceptive use 

dynamics, particularly rates of contraceptive discontinuation, failure, and switching, in low- and middleincome countries (Ali, Cleland, and Shah 2012). As described in Chapter 2, calendar data are 

retrospective month-by-month histories of women’s reproductive events (births, pregnancies, and 

terminations) and episodes of contraceptive use that occurred in the six years prior to interview. The 

process of filling in the contraceptive calendar (described in detail below) asks women to recall episodes 

of contraceptive use that may have occurred up to six years in the past. Women using long-term methods 

such as sterilization, IUD, or implants may be able to accurately recall the start and, if applicable, end 

dates of use. It is unclear, however, whether retrospective recall of short-term episodes of use, particularly 

for methods that are coitus dependent (condom, diaphragm, spermicides, withdrawal, periodic abstinence, 

and other traditional methods) are reliable. This chapter assesses the quality and consistency of episodes 

of contraceptive use collected in the calendar (hereafter referred to as the “contraceptive calendar”). 

3.1 Background 

An ideal way to assess the reliability of retrospectively collected data would be to interview the same 

women multiple times. At the first point of data collection, interviewers would ask women what, if any, 

contraceptive method they are currently using. Several—perhaps five—years later, the same women 

would be re-interviewed and asked to retrospectively recall their contraceptive use histories using the 

calendar survey instrument for the past five or more years, including the time point in which they were 

first interviewed. The two sources of information—current and retrospective for the same time point—

could then be compared to see if women accurately recalled the method they were using when the current 

status data were collected. If retrospective recall is accurate, the two data sources (the calendar and the 

current status data) would match. If they did not match, we could assess the degree to which the reports 

are different and assess whether there appears to be under- or over-reporting of contraceptive use in the 

calendar, assuming the current status data were accurately recorded. 

DHS surveys do not interview the same women over time (with the exception of the Morocco Panel 

survey in 1995), but the surveys do interview nationally representative samples of reproductive-aged 

women. In many countries, DHS surveys are conducted approximately every five years, providing 

repeated nationally representative cross-sections drawn from the same population of women. Because the 

samples are all nationally representative, the women who were ages 15-44 in one survey should be 

representative of women ages 20-49 in the next survey. After ensuring that data are limited to the same 

age groups in both data sources, the current status contraceptive use reported by women in one survey can 

therefore be compared to contraceptive use reported in the calendar in a later survey, tracked back in time 

to the date of the prior survey. In this chapter, we use this approach of comparing repeated DHS surveys 

in the same country to assess the reliability of contraceptive use as reported in the calendar compared with 

current status data from an earlier survey. 

Few studies to date have examined the quality of the contraceptive information collected in DHS 

calendars. Most of the existing studies focus on the first few calendars collected: the 1986 Peru and 

Dominican Republic DHS and the 1995 DHS Panel survey in Morocco (Goldman, Moreno, and Westoff 

1989a and 1989b; Westoff, Goldman, and Moreno 1990; Moreno, Goldman and Babakol 1991; Strickler 

et al. 1997). At present, the majority of DHS surveys are now conducted in sub-Saharan Africa and 

include the contraceptive calendar. We are aware of only two prior studies that assessed the quality of 

calendar data in any sub-Saharan African countries: Curtis and Blanc 1997 and Bradley, Schwandt, and 
22 

Khan 2009.8 In this chapter, we aim to broaden the understanding of the quality and consistency of DHS 

calendar data on contraceptive use by analyzing data from 106 pairs of DHS surveys conducted in 37 

countries, including 18 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. 

In this chapter, we first review the history of the calendar in DHS surveys and summarize how 

contraceptive use is recorded in the calendar. Next, we examine consistency of contraceptive use 

reporting in each calendar. Finally, we assess patterns in contraceptive reporting across contraceptive 

methods, geographic regions, and survey characteristics. 

3.1.1 A brief history of the calendar in DHS 

The calendar was first developed for DHS in the experimental surveys conducted in Peru and Dominican 

Republic in 1986. These surveys examined “the potential of a six-year calendar for the collection of 

monthly data on contraceptive practice, breastfeeding, amenorrhea, postpartum abstinence and exposure 

to risk; the comparative merits of a calendar approach vs. the standard format of collecting such 

information within each birth interval for estimates of fecundability, natural fertility, and contraceptive 

efficacy” (Goldman, Moreno, and Westoff 1989b, p.1). 

Analysis of the data collected in the Peru survey showed improved information from the calendar format 

questionnaire in the experimental questionnaire compared with the previously used tabular format. 

Goldman, Moreno and Westoff (1989b) noted that “several different comparisons indicate that reporting 

of information on contraceptive histories in the experimental questionnaire is superior to that in the 

standard one.” Moreno and colleagues found other major advantages to using the calendar: “it obtains 

more complete reports of use for periods prior to the survey; it allows for a detailed study of contraceptive 

use patterns; and it obtains information which is more internally consistent with other types of 

information,” (Moreno, Goldman, and Babakol 1991, p. 13) 

On the basis of these experimental surveys and the analyses that followed, the use of the calendar became 

a standard part of the DHS Model A questionnaire for use in high contraceptive prevalence countries in 

the second phase of DHS (DHS II), starting in 1990. DHS phase I corresponded to approximately 1984-

1989; phase II, 1989-93; phase III, 1993-97; phase IV, 1997-2003; phase V, 2003-08; and phase VI, 

2008-13. The DHS Program is currently in the seventh phase of data collection. 

Implementation of the DHS calendar has varied over survey phases. In phases II-IV, the calendar was 

included only in high contraceptive prevalence countries, which used the Model A questionnaire. In these 

phases, the calendar included columns that collected reasons for discontinuation (shown in Figure 7), as 

well as a column tracking women’s marital/in-union status in each month of the calendar. Some calendars 

also included columns to capture additional information such as the source of contraception. Low 

contraceptive prevalence countries used the Model B questionnaire during phases II-IV, which did not 

include the calendar. 

In DHS phase V starting around 2003, the use of separate questionnaires for high- and low-contraceptive 

prevalence countries was discontinued, and all countries used the same core questionnaire that included a 

calendar collecting births, pregnancies, terminations, and episodes of contraceptive use. Note that not all 

countries included the calendar in their questionnaires immediately. In some countries the calendar was 

not included until later phases of DHS, based on the data needs and interests of the country, sometimes 

 

8

 The 1997 study included Zimbabwe data, and the 2009 study included data from Kenya and Zimbabwe. As 

explained below, calendars were only included in high contraceptive prevalence countries in early rounds of the 

DHS; most sub-Saharan African surveys were not considered high contraceptive prevalence and so calendar data 

were not collected. 
23 

preferring to maintain comparability with approaches used in prior surveys. Additionally, some countries 

adapted the calendar to collect only births, pregnancies, and terminations, excluding episodes of 

contraceptive use.9

 The current DHS-7 core questionnaire uses a two-column calendar collecting monthby-month information on births, pregnancies and contraceptive use in column 1 and the reason for 

discontinuation in column 2, as pictured in Figure 7. The calendar collects a complete history of women’s 

reproduction and contraceptive use for five to seven years prior to the survey. The exact length of the 

period covered by the contraceptive calendar varies depending on the duration of data collection and the 

month in which the respondent was interviewed. 

Figure 7. Calendar from DHS-7 core questionnaire 

 

9

 Calendars that did not collect contraceptive use data are not analyzed in this chapter. 
24 

3.1.2 Collecting contraceptive information in the calendar 

From the top of the page to the bottom, the calendar typically includes 72 boxes (each box representing 

one month of time) divided into six sections (each representing one year or 12 months of time) in which 

to record information about the woman’s experiences with childbearing and contraceptive use. In the 

current standard DHS-7 questionnaire the calendar consists of two columns: 

1. Births, pregnancies, terminations and contraceptive use 

2. Reasons for discontinuation of contraceptive use 

For each month in the calendar a single letter or digit code is filled in from the list shown in Figure 7. As 

described in Chapter 1, for each birth that the respondent had during the period of the calendar, a letter B 

(Birth) is recorded in the month of birth. For each preceding month of pregnancy a letter P (Pregnancy) is 

recorded in the corresponding months in the calendar. If the respondent had a miscarriage, abortion, or 

stillbirth in the period covered by the calendar, a letter T (Termination) is recorded in the month the 

pregnancy ended, and a letter P (Pregnancy) is recorded for each preceding month of pregnancy. 

After recording all births and other pregnancies in the corresponding boxes in the calendar, the 

interviewer asks about contraception. If the respondent is currently using a contraceptive method, the 

interviewer asks for the month and year the respondent started using the method – that is the start of 

continuous use of the method, not the first time she used the method. The interviewer fills in the code for 

the contraceptive method currently used in column 1 in the row corresponding to the month of interview 

and in the month started using the method using the codes shown to the left of the calendar. If the 

respondent started using the method prior to the start of the calendar, the interviewer records the code in 

the first (bottom) row of the calendar. The interviewer then connects the first and last month of 

contraceptive use with a line showing continuous use of the method between these two dates. Using the 

calendar shown in Figure 7, if a woman who was interviewed in June 2015 reported current pill use and 

said she started using that episode of use in January 2015, the interviewer would record a “1” in the 

seventh row of the calendar form marked 2015 June,10 a “1” in the 12th row of the calendar form marked 

2015 January, and a line connecting the two indicating continuous use. 

The interviewer then asks the respondent about other episodes of contraceptive use that may have 

occurred in any remaining open periods in the calendar (open periods refer to months in which no code 

has yet been filled in, i.e., the period between a birth and the beginning of contraceptive use, or between 

one birth and the following pregnancy). For each open period, the interviewer asks a series of questions to 

ascertain the date and duration of use of contraception, if any, during that period using questions such as: 

• When was the last time you used a method? Which method was that? 

• Between the (EVENT1) in (MONTH AND YEAR) and the (EVENT2) in (MONTH AND YEAR) did 

you use a method of contraception? Note that EVENT1 may be the birth of a child, the 

termination of a pregnancy, the end of a prior episode of contraceptive use, and EVENT2 may be 

the start of a pregnancy or the beginning of a later episode of contraceptive use. 

• When did you start using that method? 

• How long after (EVENT1) did you start using that method? 

• How long did you use the method then? 

 

10 Note the label for June 2015 of “06 JUN 07”. The first number, 06, corresponds to the numeric month of June. 

The second number, 07, corresponds to the number of months since December 2015, working backwards in time. 
25 

• What happened when you stopped using that method: did you not use any method, did you start 

using a different method, or did you become pregnant? 

For each episode of contraceptive use recorded in column 1 of the calendar, the interviewer asks 

additional questions to ascertain the reason for discontinuing use of the contraceptive method and records 

the code for the reason for discontinuation in column 2 of the calendar in the row corresponding to the 

month of ending use of the contraceptive method. At the end of each episode of contraceptive use the 

respondent is asked: 

• Why did you stop using the (METHOD)? 

Followed by probing questions, including: 

• IF A PREGNANCY FOLLOWED: Did you become pregnant while using (METHOD), did you 

stop to get pregnant, or did you stop for some other reason?

Only the main reason for discontinuation is recorded. 

While filling in the episodes of contraceptive use in between each birth or pregnancy, any periods in 

which the respondent was neither pregnant nor using a contraceptive method are filled with code ‘0’ 

meaning that no method was used in that month. 

After completing the data collection for the calendar, column 1 of the calendar will have a single code 

recorded in every row, except for those rows after the month of interview. Column 2 will have a single 

code in the same month as the month of discontinuation of each episode of contraceptive use. Other 

months in column 2 are left blank. 

For many respondents completing the calendar is quite straightforward. For example, a woman who has 

never been sexually active, a woman who used no contraception and had no pregnancies in the last five 

years, or a woman who used the same contraceptive method throughout the calendar period (e.g. 

sterilization or IUD) would have the same code in all months of column 1 and no codes in column 2 of 

the calendar. 

For women with more complex reproductive histories, particularly women who experienced multiple 

episodes of contraceptive use and discontinuations during the calendar period, filling in the calendar is 

more complicated. Filling in multiple episodes of use in the calendar requires excellent recall on the part 

of the respondent, who may need to give dates for the beginning and end of episodes of contraceptive use 

that occurred up to six years prior to interview,11 as well as the reason for each discontinuation. Filling in 

a complex history in the calendar also requires skill and patience on the part of the interviewer, to help the 

respondent recall dates and reasons for discontinuation, and record this information accurately on the 

questionnaire. Previous panel studies have found that more complex reproductive histories are associated 

with poorer reliability of contraceptive reporting in calendars (Callahan and Becker 2012). 

3.2 Data and Methods 

We analyze all DHS surveys that collected a contraceptive calendar (hereafter referred to as a calendar 

survey) that overlaps in time with a previous DHS in that country. Because the calendar collects 

approximately six years of data, this roughly means that we analyze all pairs of surveys in which a 

calendar survey was preceded by a DHS conducted up to six years prior. We allow for a gap of up to one 

year between the first month covered by the calendar and the median date of interview in the prior survey. 

 

11 All calendars collect up at least five full years of information for all women interviewed, described in detail 

below. In most surveys, at least six years of information is collected, and in some cases the calendar covers seven 

years. 
26 

This selection gives us a sample of 37 countries, many of which have multiple DHS surveys with multiple 

calendars. 

To compare retrospective results from one survey to current status results from another, we restrict the 

age groups to be comparable. Women who were ages 15-49 in 2011 would have been between ages 8-43 

in January 2005, depending on exactly when their birthday falls in relation to the date of interview. We 

therefore exclude months before women’s 15th birthdays and after the end of their 43rd year (i.e., from 

their 44th birthday on) from the calendar data, and exclude data from women over ages 43 from the 

current status data.12 In surveys that only interviewed ever-married women, there is an additional 

complication: women who were married at the time of interview may not have been married for the entire 

period covered by the calendar. To be able to compare calendar data to current-status estimates in which 

all women had been married, we restrict the calendar data to months that fall after the woman was first 

married. In Egypt, Turkey, and Vietnam, we have information from an additional column in all of the 

calendar surveys analyzed that tracks whether or not the woman was married in each month of the 

calendar. In these three countries, we restrict the estimates in each month of the calendar, and in the 

current-status data, to women who were currently married at that time.13 For comparability, if any 

analyzed survey in a country interviewed only ever-married women in a country, we limit all analyses to 

ever-married women in that country even if more recent surveys included never-married women. 

Because reporting about something a person is currently doing (i.e., current contraceptive use) is not 

subject to recall biases or other problems associated with reporting of events that occurred in the past, we 

generally assume that reports of current contraceptive use are more likely to be accurate than 

retrospective reports in the calendar. We therefore consider the current use estimates to be the best 

estimate of contraceptive prevalence at that time, and consider the calendar data to not accurately capture 

contraceptive use if estimates of the CPR from the calendar are statistically significant from those from 

current use estimates for the same date. 

The graphs below plot the total CPR for women ages 15-43 years old, or the percentage of women using 

any form of contraception, reported in each month from the calendar and in the median month of 

interview from current status data. In each graph, the calendar data are represented as a line over time, 

with a shaded region representing 95% confidence intervals. Current status data are presented as circles, 

also with 95% confidence intervals. The black line in each graph connects the current status CPR 

estimates using linear interpolation, and the dashed lines connect the ends of the 95% confidence intervals 

for the current status CPR estimates. Note that although the scales are constant within each graph, 

different scales are used across graphs according to the level of the CPR in each country. 

 

12 Depending on exactly when women’s birthdays fall in relation to the month in which they were interviewed, 

women who were turning 50 in 2011 could have been 43 or 44 in a specific month of 2005, and women who were 

15 at the date of interview in 2011 could have been 8 or 9 in January 2005. To ensure that age groups are completely 

comparable, we restrict all estimates to women ages 15-43. In surveys that interviewed women under age 15, all data 

are restricted to women ages 15 and older. Note that the age restrictions mean that slightly different groups of 

women are included in each month of the restricted calendar data. The graphs of calendar data therefore do not 

follow precisely the same cohort of women over time; they instead represent repeated monthly cross-sections of all 

women ages 15-43 in each month depicted in the calendar. 13 Note that in some early ever-married surveys, only currently married women were asked if they were using 

contraception and formerly married women were assumed not to be using contraception. We follow this assumption 

in analyses when necessary, but limit analyses to currently married women whenever possible. In countries with at 

least one ever-married survey, but in which the marriage column in the calendar is not available for all surveys, 

limiting analyses to ever-married rather than currently married women may lead to some unavoidable discrepancies 

in comparability between surveys. We have run calculations for surveys with the marriage column both ways, 

limiting to ever-married versus currently married women, wherever possible, and found no notable differences, 

except in Vietnam where the calendar data matched far better with the current status data when both data sources 

were limited to currently married women. 
27 

The point estimates for current status data are plotted in the median month of interview for that survey. 

For example, Figure 8 plots the CPR from the 2011 and 2005 surveys in Ethiopia, along with current 

status CPRs from the 2011, 2005, and 2000 surveys, the earliest of which did not collect calendar data. 

The green and blue lines represent data from the 2005 and 2011 calendars, respectively. The red circle is 

the CPR from the 2000 data. This is the percentage of all women 15-43 years old who said they were 

currently using contraception at the time of interview. The women were all interviewed between February 

and May 2000, with a median date of interview of April 2000.14 The red circle is therefore plotted at April 

2000 on the horizontal axis. The current status estimates for the 2005 and 2011 surveys are plotted at their 

median dates of interview: June 2005 and February 2011, respectively. There is a gap of a few months 

between the most recent time point in each calendar and the current status estimate. This is because we 

have only estimated the CPR in months when data are available for all women. For example, the Ethiopia 

2005 data were collected between April and August 2005. Beginning in May, there are no data for women 

who were interviewed in April, so we no longer have calendar data for all women in the sample. We 

therefore do not present data from the calendar for months in which we do not have information for all 

women, which leaves a gap between the end of the calendar data and the current status point estimate at 

the median date of interview. 

Appendix tables that accompany each graph compare the reported method mix from the current status 

data with calendar data collected in the corresponding month. In Appendix Table 1, the first column 

shows the contraceptive methods reported by women interviewed in Ethiopia in 2000 (median date of 

interview April 2000), followed by the 95% confidence intervals for these percentages. The next column 

shows the distribution of methods that women interviewed in 2005 reported they were using in April 

2000. Because the surveys are representative of all women in Ethiopia, the reports should be the same if 

the calendar perfectly records women’s retrospective contraceptive use (no recall error on the part of the 

woman interviewed and no interviewer errors recording the information). We also compare the method 

mix from current-status data in 2005 (median date of interview June 2005) to calendar data from January 

2006, which was the first month in which calendar data were collected in the 2011 survey. Although these 

data are not from exactly the same time point, we believe they are close enough to warrant comparison. 

In comparing the CPR and method mix from current-status and calendar data, we test whether differences 

in reporting are statistically significant. The null hypothesis for each test is that the level of contraceptive 

use, whether comparing the total CPR or the prevalence of specific methods, is the same in the calendar 

and the current status data. If the reported levels of use are not statistically significantly different, we 

judge that the calendar matches the reporting of current contraceptive use in the previous survey with a 

reasonable degree of accuracy. In the results section below, we only discuss discrepancies between 

current status and calendar data that are statistically significant.15 

All analyses in this chapter were conducted and graphs created in Stata 13. All estimates are weighted 

using sampling weights, and the sampling errors and confidence intervals were estimated accounting for 

the clustered, two-stage stratified sample designs of each DHS survey. 

 

14 The Ethiopia calendar data were collected using the Ethiopian calendar, which was converted to the Gregorian 

calendar. All dates in this paper refer to the Gregorian calendar. 

15 Note that even though confidence intervals for two estimates may overlap in graphs, the estimates may still be 

statistically significantly different. 
28 

3.3 Results 

3.3.1 East and Southern Africa 

Figure 8. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Ethiopia 

Contraceptive prevalence among women ages 15-43 in the Ethiopia 2000 survey was reported at 6.2 

percent, 95% CI 5.6-6.8 (Appendix Table 1). For the same time point from Ethiopia’s 2005 calendar data 

the CPR is reported to be 2 percentage points lower, at 4.2 percent (CI 3.7-4.8) than 2000. This difference 

was found to be statistically significant and can also be clearly seen in the non-overlapping confidence 

intervals between the 2000 current status and 2005 calendar data in Figure 8. Although the gap between 

estimates is only two percentage points, this represents two-thirds of the current status CPR in Ethiopia at 

the time. Condoms and periodic abstinence appear particularly underreported in the 2005 calendar. 

The total CPR in the 2011 calendar data is consistent with the 2005 current status estimate, with CPRs of 

11.2 (CI 9.9-12.6) and 10.6 (CI 9.7-11.7) respectively, and also follows the current status CPR trend line 

precisely. Use of the pill and the lactational amenorrhea method (LAM) are both underreported in the 

2011 calendar compared with current status data, but overall the 2011 calendar in Ethiopia appears to 

capture contraceptive use more accurately than the 2005 calendar. 
29 

Figure 9. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Kenya 

Although the confidence intervals from the 1993 current status data (in red) overlap the calendar estimate 

of CPR from the subsequent calendar (in purple), as do the confidence intervals for the 2003 current 

status (blue) and 2008-09 calendar (green) estimates, further statistical testing shows that none of the 

calendars from Kenya appear to accurately capture contraceptive use as reported in current status data. 

The calendar from 1998 produces a slightly higher CPR than the current status data: 28.2, percent (CI 

26.7-29.8) in the calendar vs. 25.7 percent (CI 24.2-27.3) from the 1993 survey (Appendix Table 2). The 

vast majority of this difference is due to higher reporting of periodic abstinence in the calendar than in the 

1993 survey. 

The CPR in 1998 estimated from Kenya’s 2003 calendar is 6 percentage points lower than the current 

status estimate for the same time point, with a CPR of 23.8 percent (CI 22.2-25.5) in the calendar versus 

29.8 (CI 28.4-31.3) in the current status data. Sterilization, injections, condoms, and periodic abstinence 

all appear underreported in the 2003 calendar. 

Kenya’s current CPR was estimated to be 29.1 percent among women 15-43 in 2003 (CI 27.7-30.5), and 

25.9 percent from the 2008-09 calendar (CI 23.8-28.2), which is statistically significantly lower. Much of 

this difference is due to reporting of periodic abstinence, at 4.6 percent in the current status data and 2.9 

percent in the calendar. Surprisingly, given that we generally expect better reporting of long-term 

methods, both IUD and implant use appear underreported in the 2008-09 calendar, assuming the levels of 

use in the 2003 current status data are accurate. 
30 

Figure 10. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Lesotho 

The 2009 Lesotho calendar data CPR for November 2004 is 5.7 percentage points lower than the CPR 

estimated from 2004 current status data: 23.9 percent in the calendar (CI 22.4-25.4) and 29.6 percent in 

current status data (CI 28.2-31.1) (Appendix Table 3). The majority of the difference is due to 

underreporting of injectable use: 11.3 percent in current status data (CI 10.3-12.3) versus 7.8 percent from 

the 2009 calendar data (CI 6.9-8.7). Pill use and use of “other traditional methods” (other than withdrawal 

and periodic abstinence) also appear underreported in the calendar compared with the current status data. 
31 

Figure 11. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Madagascar 

The Madagascar 2008-09 calendar data appear to underestimate contraceptive prevalence in 2004. 

Twenty-one percent of women ages 15-43 reported current use of contraception in the 2003-04 survey (CI 

19.8-24.6), compared with 18.6 percent from the calendar for the same time point (CI 17.4-19.7) 

(Appendix Table 4). LAM use appears to be underreported, at 1.3 percent in current status data and 0.3 

percent in the calendar, as does condom use at 1.2 percent in current status data, and 0.6 percent in 

calendar data. Neither LAM nor condoms are commonly used in Madagascar. 
32 

Figure 12. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Malawi 

Both the 2010 and 2004 calendars in Malawi appear to underestimate contraceptive use. The gap between 

current status and calendar data is particularly large in the 2004 calendar: the current-status CPR in 2000 

is 25.1 percent (CI 23.9-26.3), while data from the 2004 calendar show only 14.3 percent of women using 

contraception at that time (CI 13.4-15.4), underestimating the CPR by almost 11 percentage points 

(Appendix Table 5). This gap indicates that less than 60 percent of contraceptive use in 2000 was 

captured by the 2004 calendar. The gap between current-status and calendar data is 6.1 percentage points 

comparing the 2004 and 2010 data, at 25.3 percent (CI 24.2-26.5) and 19.2 percent (CI 18.4-20.0) 

respectively. In both comparisons, the majority of the gap is due to lower reporting of injectable use in the 

calendar: 13.5 percent in 2000 current status data versus 7.8 percent in the 2004 calendar, and 14.6 

percent in the 2004 current status data versus 11.0 percent in the 2010 calendar. Condom use also appears 

underreported in both calendars, and pill and periodic abstinence use are also underreported in the 2004 

calendar compared with the 2000 current status data. 
33 

Figure 13. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Namibia 

Neither of the calendars in Namibia cover precisely the same time period as the prior survey, leaving two 

months between the median date of the 2000 survey and the beginning of the 2006-07 calendar, and 11 

months between the 2006-07 survey and the start of the 2013 calendar. Even so, contraceptive prevalence 

recorded in the calendar is so far below the current status trend line that it seems clear that the calendar 

data in Namibia underestimate contraceptive use. The 2000 current status data found a CPR of 38.2 

percent (CI 35.8-40.7); the calendar data from the 2006-07 data estimate a CPR 14 percentage points 

lower at 23.9 percent (CI 22.4-25.5) only two months later (Appendix Table 6), which is clearly 

implausible. The difference between CPR estimates from the 2006-07 current status data and the 2013 

calendar estimate for January 2008 is 14.1 percentage points: 46.9 percent from current status data (CI 

45.4-48.3) and 32.8 percent from the calendar (CI 31.6-34.1). In both comparisons, injectables, condoms, 

and pills appear underreported in the calendar. The two calendars in Namibia capture only 63 to 70 

percent of the contraceptive use reported in current status data at nearby time points. 
34 

Figure 14. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Rwanda 

Assuming the 2005 and 2007-08 surveys accurately capture current-status contraceptive use, the 2010 

calendar underestimates the CPR by 4 percentage points in 2005 and almost 10 percentage points in 2008, 

underestimating the current status CPR by 44 and 35 percent, respectively16 (Appendix Table 7). In both 

comparisons, the majority of the difference is due to underreporting of periodic abstinence in the 

calendar. Periodic abstinence was reported to be the current method used by 2.3 percent of women in the 

2005 survey (CI 2.0-2.6) and 6.0 percent of women in the 2007-08 survey (CI 4.8-7.4). Data from the 

2010 calendar show less than 1 percent of women using this method throughout the calendar: 0.6 percent 

of women using periodic abstinence in May 2005 (CI 0.5-0.8) and 0.9 percent in February 2008 (CI 0.7-

1.1). Given that only 2 percent of women reported periodic abstinence as their current method in 2005 

and fewer than 1 percent reported using it in the 2010 current status data, it is possible that the method 

may have been overreported in the 2007-08 survey. If that is the case, the gap between the 2007-08 

current status and corresponding calendar data would be lessened, but calendar data also appear to 

underestimate pill, condom, and withdrawal use compared with current status data from both the 2005 

and 2007-08 surveys. 

 

16 Calculated as the relative difference between current use and calendar estimates of the CPR. For example, the 

estimated CPR in 2008 was 22.4 percent in current use data and 14.6 percent in the 2010 calendar (see Appendix 

Table 7). (22.4 – 14.6) / 22.4 = 34.8 percent, indicating that the calendar-based data underestimate contraceptive use 

by approximately 35 percent relative to the current use estimate. 
35 

Figure 15. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Tanzania 

The calendars in the 2004-05 and 2010 Tanzania surveys do not appear to accurately capture women’s 

contraceptive use as reported in current status data. The 1999 survey found a CPR of 23.0 percent (CI 

20.5-25.7) (Appendix Table 8). The 2004-05 calendar estimates the CPR in 1999 to be 6 percentage 

points lower, at 14.6 percent (CI 13.4-15.8). The 2010 calendar comes closer to accurately capturing the 

CPR in 2005: the current status data show a CPR of 22.7 percent (CI 21.5-23.9), while the calendar 

estimate is 19.2 percent (17.9-20.6). 

Condom use appears to be substantially underreported in both calendars: the 1999 estimates were 3.8 

percent in current status data and 0.8 percent in the calendar, while the 2005 estimates were 3.3 percent 

current status data and 1.8 percent in the calendar. Pill use also appears underreported in both calendars, 

although differences are smaller. 
36 

Figure 16. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Uganda 

Both the 2006 and 2011 calendars appear to substantially underestimate contraceptive use in Uganda. The 

2006 calendar data show a CPR in 2001 that is 9.5 percentage points lower than the 2001 current status 

data: the reported CPR is 11.1 percent in the calendar (CI 10.0-12.2) and 20.6 percent from current status 

data (CI 18.9-22.4) (Appendix Table 9). One-third of this gap is due to very different levels of reported 

LAM use: 3.2 percent in the 2001 current status data (CI 2.6-4.0) and less than 0.1 percent in the calendar 

(CI 0.0-0.2). Condom and periodic abstinence also appear underreported in the calendar. 

The CPR in 2006 was estimated to be 19.6 percent from current status data (CI 18.4-20.9) and only 13.0 

percent from the 2011 calendar data, a difference of 6.6 percentage points. Unlike the 2001 survey, fewer 

than 0.01 percent of women reported LAM as their current method in 2006. Use of condoms, periodic 

abstinence, and injectables all appear underreported in the 2011 calendar compared with the 2006 current 

status data. 
37 

Figure 17. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Zambia 

Zambia’s calendars from the 2007 and 2013-14 surveys appear to underestimate contraceptive prevalence 

by 8 and 13 percentage points, respectively (Appendix Table 10). The estimated CPR in 2002 was 25.4 

percent (CI 24.1-26.7) from current status data and 17.7 percent (CI 16.3-19.1) from the 2007 calendar. 

The CPR was estimated to be 30.3 percent (28.9-31.8) in 2007 from current status data; the calendar data 

show a CPR of 17.8 percent (CI 16.7-18.9) in January 2008. A large part of the discrepancy between the 

calendar and current status data in both cases is underreporting of condom use in the calendar: the 2002 

condom use estimate was 4.3 percent in current status data but 1.8 percent in the calendar, and the 2007 

estimate was 5.3 percent in current status data while the calendar estimate was 1.5 percent for the 

corresponding time point. Withdrawal and injectable use also appear underreported in both calendars, and 

periodic abstinence and LAM additionally appear to be underreported in the 2013-14 calendar. 
38 

Figure 18. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Zimbabwe 

Zimbabwe’s calendar data from the 1994 survey matches up remarkably well with the 1988 current status 

data: the total CPR is 33 percent in both estimates (Appendix Table 11). The method mix recorded in the 

calendar and current status data are also very similar. The 1999 and 2005-06 calendars also match up 

reasonably well with current status data from the prior surveys, although not as precisely as the 1994 

survey. Condom and withdrawal use appear underreported in both calendars, although neither method is 

widely used enough to substantially affect the total CPR. Zimbabwe’s history of what appears to be quite 

accurate calendar data makes the results from the 2010-11 calendar all the more surprising. The 2010-11 

calendar data produce an estimate of 32.4 percent for the CPR in October 2005 (CI 31.2-33.7) – an 8.5 

percentage point drop from the 2005-06 current status estimate of 40.9 percent (CI 39.5-42.4), or a onethird decrease. The majority of the difference is in reported pill use, although injectable use also appears 

to be underreported in the 2010-11 calendar. 

The striking difference between the first three calendars and the fourth prompted us to search for 

differences between the surveys. The 1988, 1994, 1999, and 2005-06 DHS surveys were all conducted 

using paper questionnaires. The 2010-11 survey was implemented using Computer Assisted Personal 

Interviews (CAPI), in which PDAs or tablet computers are used to display questions to the interviewer 

and record responses. The DHS Survey Organization Manual notes that CAPI has advantages and 

disadvantages compared with paper questionnaires (ICF international 2012). With CAPI, interviewers do 

not have a visual depiction of the calendar shown in Figure 18. It seems possible that interviewers found 

the calendar more difficult to complete without this visual aid and may not have followed the instructions 

to prompt women to recall all of their contraceptive use episodes throughout the calendar period. It is also 

possible that field staff were less comfortable with the computer technology than they had been with 

paper surveys. 
39 

3.3.2 West and Central Africa 

Figure 19. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Benin 

The 2011-12 calendar data clearly appear to underestimate contraceptive use in Benin. The total CPR is 

difficult to compute for the calendar data because there were episodes in the calendar recorded as 

“unknown if using.” We calculated a “high” and “low” estimate of the total CPR: excluding the 

“unknown” episodes gives a CPR of 4.6 (CI 4.1-5.2); counting them all as contraceptive use gives a CPR 

of 6.9 (CI: 6.2-7.7) (Appendix Table 12). Even this “high” estimate is less than half the reported CPR 

from current-status data in 2006: 17.7 percent (CI: 16.8-18.6). 

Figure 19 also displays heaping of reporting at the start of each year, most noticeable in the bumps 

corresponding to the starts of 2009, 2010, and 2011. This relates to heaping of the reported dates when the 

woman began using her most current method. In examining the underlying data, we found that 25 percent 

of episodes of current use were reported to have begun in the month of January. If, as seems reasonable, 

the start dates of women’s contraceptive use were evenly distributed across the year, we would only 

expect 1/12, or 8.3 percent of episodes to have begun in any particular month. This finding very likely 

indicates heaping of reported start dates on the month of January. 
40 

Figure 20. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Ghana 

The estimated CPR from Ghana’s 2008 calendar for 2003 is 11.7 percent (CI 10.5-13.0), while the 2003 

current status data estimate is 9.4 percentage points higher at 21.1 (CI 19.6-22.7), suggesting that the 

2008 calendar captured only about 55 percent of women’s contraceptive use in 2003 (Appendix Table 

13). The calendar does not appear to accurately capture women’s contraceptive use, especially farther 

back in time. Condom, pill, injectable, periodic abstinence, and LAM use all appear to be substantially 

underreported in the calendar. 
41 

Figure 21. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Mali 

Mali’s 2012-13 calendar begins in January 2007, four months after the median date of the 2006 survey, so 

the surveys do not precisely overlap. Given that the two current status survey points show the CPR 

increasing over time, however, it is highly unlikely that the CPR dropped from 7.8 percent in August 

2006 (CI 6.9-8.8) to 1.5 percent (CI 1.2-1.8) four months later (Appendix Table 14). The 2012-13 

calendar data appear to underestimate women’s contraceptive use in 2007 by approximately 81 percent. 
42 

Figure 22. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Nigeria 

Both the 2008 and 2013 Nigeria calendars appear to substantially underestimate contraceptive use. The 

current status CPR in 2003 is estimated at 13.7 percent (CI 12.4-15.3) (Appendix Table 15). The calendar 

data for the same point shows the CPR to be only 8.0 percent (CI 7.4-8.7), 42 percent lower than the 

current status estimate. The 2013 calendar appears to underestimate contraceptive use to a higher degree 

than the 2008 calendar: the current status CPR for 2008 is 15.9 percent (CI 15.1-16.8), while the calendar 

estimate is almost 8 percentage points lower, at 8.1 percent (CI 7.4-8.7), or about half of the current status 

estimate. Condoms, pills, injectables, periodic abstinence, and LAM appear underreported in both 

calendars, and withdrawal appears underreported in the 2013 calendar compared with the 2008 current 

status data. 
43 

Figure 23. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Niger 

The Niger 2012 calendar does not cover the year 2006, so we cannot precisely compare the calendar and 

current status data from the same date. Even so, the calendar appears to show substantial underreporting 

of contraceptive use compared with the linear interpolation between the two current status estimates 

shown by the current status CPR trend line. Ten percent of women 15-43 in the 2006 survey reported they 

were using contraception (CI 8.9-11.4), while the calendar from the 2012 survey produces a CPR of 4.5 

percent (CI 3.9-5.2) for January 2007, less than half of the 2006 current status CPR (Appendix Table 16). 

The prevalence of each method is lower in the calendar than the current status data for 2006, but the 

difference is particularly pronounced for LAM. LAM prevalence was reported to be 4.2 percent in 2006 

and only 1.1 percent in January 2007 in the calendar. 
44 

Figure 24. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Sierra Leone 

Sierra Leone’s CPR was estimated to be 10.5 percent at the time of the 2008 survey (CI 9.4-11.7) 

(Appendix Table 17). This is 5 percentage points higher than the 2008 CPR estimated from the 2013 

calendar, at 5.4 percent (CI 4.3-6.8), representing just over half of the current status CPR. All methods 

other than withdrawal, which is reported at less than 0.3 percent prevalence in both the calendar and 

current status data, appear to be underreported in Sierra Leone’s 2013 calendar. 
45 

Figure 25. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Senegal 

Senegal is the second country to implement a continuous DHS, in which data are collected in consecutive 

rounds every year. The continuous survey began in Senegal in 2010 after having been first implemented 

in Peru in 2004. 

The calendar data from the Senegal continuous survey appear to estimate contraceptive use reasonably 

well in recent years, but all three rounds of the continuous survey seem to underestimate contraceptive 

use further back in time. The 2005 Senegal DHS found a CPR of 8.4 percent (CI 7.7-9.2 percent) 

compared with the 2010-11 calendar estimate of 3.8 percent (CI 3.3-4.3) in 2005, which is less than half 

of the current status estimate (Appendix Table 18). Pills, injectables, condoms, periodic abstinence, and 

sterilization all appear to be underreported in the 2010-11 calendar compared with the 2005 current status 

reports. 

The current status CPR trend line shown in black simply connects the current status point estimates and is 

not based on any additional data, so we cannot say with confidence that contraceptive use in the period 

2006-2010 is underestimated by the 2010, 2012-13, and 2014 Senegal calendars. It seems unlikely, 

however, that contraceptive use in Senegal was 8.4 percent in 2005 and increased to 9.5 percent in 2011, 

but dropped to less than 6 percent between those two points. We therefore find it unlikely that the Senegal 

calendars adequately captured contraceptive use during this period. 
46 

3.3.3 North Africa/West Asia/Europe 

Figure 26. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Armenia 

The Armenia 2010 survey seems to capture most, if not all, contraceptive use in the calendar period. The 

2005 CPR was estimated at 34.1 percent in the 2005 survey (CI 32.4-35.9) and 32.3 percent (CI 30.4-

34.3) in the calendar data (Appendix Table 19). Most of the difference is explained by lower reporting of 

LAM, withdrawal, and “other traditional methods” in the 2010 calendar compared with the 2005 current 

status data, although condom use also appears to be underreported. 

The Armenia 2005 calendar appears to underestimate contraceptive use more substantially compared with 

the earlier survey. The 2000 CPR was estimated at 40.1 percent in the 2000 survey (CI 38.6-41.6) and 

34.1 percent (CI 32.1-36.2) in the calendar data. Reporting of withdrawal and LAM use are lower in the 

calendar data than the current status data. Surprisingly, IUD and sterilization use also appear 

underreported in the 2000 calendar compared with the current status data: 6.3 percent of women reported 

IUD use in current status compared with 5.0 percent in the calendar; 1.4 percent reported sterilization in 

the current status data compared with 0.4 percent in the calendar. This is surprising, as we expect 

reporting to be more consistent for long-term and permanent methods than short-term ones, and is unlike 

the results for most other countries. 
47 

Figure 27. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among currently married women 15-43, Egypt 

Contraceptive use as reported in the eight Egypt surveys presented here, seven of which contain calendar 

data, is remarkably consistent. Covering the time period from 1987 to 2014, the multiple calendars track 

contraceptive prevalence almost perfectly over time, with the vast majority of the calendar data points 

falling within the confidence intervals around the current status data points. The calendar in the 2003 

survey appears to slightly overestimate contraceptive prevalence: the 2000 CPR from current status was 

reported to be 58.1 percent (CI 56.9-59.4), while the CPR from the 2003 calendar is two percentage 

points higher, at 60.1 percent (CI 58.7-61.6) (Appendix Table 20). We compared the current status 

estimates to each calendar that contained the same time point, so the 2000 current status estimate shown 

in Figure 27 was compared with the 2003 (dark blue) and 2005(green) calendars. In these comparisons, 

there were several statistically significant differences between the current status and calendar CPRs, but 

because Egypt’s CPR is so high each difference represented only a 3-5 percent difference in the overall 

CPR. 

Condom use appears underreported in almost every calendar in Egypt. Comparisons of the calendar data 

for January 2009 from the 2014 calendar (shown in black) and the current status data from 2008 (shown 

in purple) suggest additional underreporting of IUD use and overreporting of pill and injectable use in the 

2014 calendar, although it could be possible that use patterns changed in Egypt between 2008 and 2009. 

Aside from the exceptions noted above, all other contraceptive methods appear to be consistently reported 

in the Egypt calendars. The overall consistency of calendar in Egypt is impressive. 
48 

Figure 28. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among ever-married women 15-43, Jordan 

Jordan’s 2002 calendar, shown in blue in Figure 28, appears to accurately capture contraceptive use in 

1997, as compared with current status data. The 1997 (red) calendar also appears to fit with the trend 

suggested by the 1990 (orange) data, although the 1997 calendar did not collect data as far back as 1990. 

In contrast to the earlier calendars, Jordan’s 2007, 2009, and 2012 calendars all show evidence of 

underreporting, especially in the early years of each calendar. For example, the 2002 current status CPR 

estimate is 54.6 percent (CI 52.8-56.3), while the estimate from the 2007 calendar (green) is 47.3 (45.4-

49.1) (Appendix Table 21). IUD, condom, periodic abstinence, and LAM use all appear underreported in 

the 2007 calendar compared with the 2002 current status data. The 2009 calendar (purple) aligns closely 

with the 2007 data with a total CPR of 53.3 in the calendar and 55.4 in the 2007 current use data, but the 

reported prevalence in the 2009 calendar decreases going further back in time, falling below 50 percent in 

2004, which is unlikely to be accurate. The 2012 calendar data (black) follow a similar path back in time, 

aligning well with the 2009 current status data, falling slightly below the 2007 current status data, and 

dropping to 50 percent by January 2007. 
49 

Figure 29. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Kazakhstan 

Kazakhstan’s 1999 calendar seems, surprisingly, to overestimate the CPR compared with the 1995 

survey. The 1995 current status CPR is 44.5 (CI 42.2-46.8), while the 1999 calendar estimate is 48.1 (CI 

46.0-50.3) for the same time point (Appendix Table 22). The difference is primarily due to what seems to 

be overreporting of IUD and sterilization use in the calendar versus the current status data. IUD use was 

reported at 29.1 percent in the 1995 current status data versus 33.6 percent in the calendar, and 

sterilization was reported at 0.5 percent current status versus 1.5 percent in the calendar. 

A possible explanation for this surprising discrepancy is that our assumption that the populations of 

women interviewed in the 1995 and 1999 surveys were the same was violated. The Kazakhstan 1999 

DHS final report notes that 472,273 people were recorded as having migrated out of the country in 1998, 

which represents almost one-third of the country’s estimated population of 14.9 million (Academy of 

Preventive Medicine [Kazakhstan] and Macro International Inc. 2000, p. 1). Such large and rapid changes 

in the country’s population make it likely that the populations interviewed in 1995 and 1999 were, in fact, 

different. This is a likely explanation for the seeming discrepancies in the calendar and current-status 

data. 
50 

Figure 30. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among ever-married women 15-43, Morocco 

The 2003-04 Morocco survey was implemented more than 11 years after the 1992 survey was conducted. 

We cannot therefore compare the 2003-04 calendar data to the earlier surveys and have included the later 

survey in Figure 30 only to give a sense of the general trend in the CPR. The 1992 survey appears to 

underestimate the 1989 CPR: the 1989 current status CPR estimate is 33.4 percent (CI 31.0-35.9) and the 

calendar estimate is 29.7 percent (CI 27.3-32.1) (Appendix Table 23). The only methods that are reported 

at significantly different levels are withdrawal, reported at 2.9 percent in the current status data and 1.8 

percent in the calendar, and “other traditional methods,” reported at 1.2 percent in the current status data 

and 0.4 percent in the calendar. All other contraceptive methods appear to be adequately captured in the 

calendar. 
51 

Figure 31. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among currently married women 15-43, Turkey 

The CPRs estimated from Turkey’s 1998 survey are lower than those recorded in the 1993 current status 

data and the 2003 calendar. The magnitude of the differences, although statistically significant, is small in 

both absolute and relative terms. The 1993 survey current-status CPR estimate is 65.1 (CI 63.2-67.0), and 

the estimate for the same time point from the 1998 calendar is 62.0 (CI 60.0-63.8)—a difference of 3.2 

percentage points representing 4.8 percent of the total CPR (Appendix Table 24). Reporting of 

withdrawal and condom use are both lower in the 1998 calendar than in the 1993 current status data for 

the same time point. The CPR estimates for 1998 are 66.7 percent in the current status data (CI 65.1-68.3) 

and 69.2 in the 2003 calendar (CI 67.6-70.7), a difference of 2.4 percentage points or 3.6 percent of the 

total CPR. The only contraceptive method reported at statistically significant levels between the two data 

sources is LAM, which was not captured at all in the 1998 survey. 
52 

3.3.4 South and Southeast Asia 

Figure 32. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among ever-married women 15-43, Bangladesh 

The calendar data from the six Bangladesh DHSs pictured here show a relatively consistent pattern of 

increasing contraceptive use according to the current status points (with 2011 the only exception, 

discussed below), but the calendar data seem to underestimate contraceptive use slightly in all time points 

with a consistent slope. The largest difference is seen comparing the 2004 current status and 2007 

calendar data: the current CPR was estimated at 56.0 percent (CI 54.6-57.4) in 2004, but only 48.3 

percent (CI 46.8-49.8) by the 2007 calendar, a 7.7 percentage point decrease (Appendix Table 25). The 

2011 survey is the only calendar in which the current use CPR from the prior survey (2007 current use 

CPR of 54.2 percent, CI 52.6-55.7) matches the CPR captured by the calendar (53.3 percent, CI 52.2-

54.5). It is possible, however, that this is a coincidence: the slope of the 2011 calendar is similar to all the 

other surveys, but the prior current status point is lower. If the 2007 current status estimate had been 

higher (shifting the purple data points higher), the 2011 survey would not overlap the 2009 current status 

estimate, and the pattern would be consistent with all the other Bangladesh calendars. 

The decrease in CPR between 2004 and 2007 appears to be explained by a shortage of injectable supplies 

that affected both non-governmental and public sector family planning clinics in 2006-07, according to 

the 2007 Bangladesh DHS final report (NIPORT et al. 2009, p. 60). As the 2011 calendar appears to 

accurately capture this decrease between 2006 and 2007, followed by consistently increasing use, it is 

possible that the 2011 calendar accurately captures trends in women’s contraceptive use. None of the 

other calendars in Bangladesh, however, appear to capture retrospective contraceptive use as accurately. 
53 

Figure 33. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Cambodia 

The calendar in Cambodia’s 2010 DHS does not appear to accurately capture contraceptive use in 2006. 

The 2006 survey estimate of current CPR was 24.8 (CI 23.9-25.7), while the calendar estimate of the 

2006 CPR was more than six percentage points lower, at 18.5 (CI 17.6-19.4) (Appendix Table 26). IUDs, 

injectables, condoms, periodic abstinence, and LAM all appear to be underreported in the calendar. 
54 

Figure 34. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among ever-married women 15-43, Indonesia 

The six calendars from Indonesia analyzed here all seem to underestimate contraceptive use as compared 

with current status data. The level of underestimation ranges from 8.3 percentage points in 1987, when 

the CPR was estimated to be 47.5 (CI 45.3-49.7) in current status data and 39.3 percent (CI 37.8-40.7) in 

the overlapping 1991 calendar, to 4.2 percentage points in 1991, when the current estimate of CPR was 

49.3 percent (CI 47.8-50.8) in current status data and 44.9 percent (43.5-46.4) in the overlapping 1994 

calendar (Appendix Table 27). The 2002-03, 2007, and 2012 calendars appear to have underestimated the 

current-status CPR in the prior survey by 7.2, 7.7, and 6.4 percentage points, respectively. Pill and 

condom use appear underreported in most of Indonesia’s calendars, and injectables, which are the 

dominant method in Indonesia in recent time points, appears underreported in the three most recent 

calendars relative to the current status estimates. 
55 

Figure 35. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among ever-married women 15-43, Nepal 

The calendars in the 2006 and 2011 Nepal DHSs appear to capture total contraceptive use accurately, but 

the method mixes differ between sources. The current CPR was estimated to be 37.9 percent (CI 35.5-

40.3) in 2001, which matches almost perfectly with the calendar estimate of 37.7 percent (CI 34.7-40.9) 

(Appendix Table 28). Interestingly, this correspondence is not due to matching reports of each method, 

but apparent overreporting of pill use in the calendar compared with the current status data, which is 

balanced by apparent underreporting of condom, periodic abstinence, and withdrawal use. 

The 2011 calendar estimate of contraceptive use is not statistically significantly lower than 2006 current 

status estimate, at 46.7 percent (CI 42.8-50.7) and 42.5 percent (40.0-45.0) respectively, but again the 

method mixes differ. As in the 2006 calendar, condom use appears underestimated in the 2011 calendar at 

5.1 percent in current status data but 2.7 percent in the calendar. By contrast, withdrawal appears 

overreported in the 2011 calendar, which balances out the apparent underreporting of condom use to 

make the difference between the total CPRs non-significant. 
56 

Figure 36. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among ever-married women 15-43, Pakistan 

The Pakistan 20006-07 DHS was implemented between September 2006 and March 2006, with a median 

date of November 2006. The calendar from the 2012-13 DHS begins two months later, in January 2007. 

The current use CPR from the 2006-07 survey was reported to be 27.9 percent (CI 26.5-29.3), while the 

CPR estimated from the January 2007 calendar data is 6.6 percentage points lower, at 21.3 percent (CI 

19.7-23.1), underestimating the current status CPR by about one quarter (Appendix Table 29). Periodic 

abstinence in particular appears substantially underreported, with 3.3 percent reported current use in 

2006-07 compared with 0.2 percent in the calendar in January 2007. Withdrawal use matches in the 

calendar and current status data, but all other short-term methods do not appear to be accurately captured 

in at least the earliest portion of Pakistan’s 2012-13 calendar. 
57 

Figure 37. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Philippines 

The 1998 and 2003 calendars from the Philippines DHSs both appear to underestimate contraceptive use, 

with more underestimation evident in the more recent survey. The 1998 current status CPR was estimated 

to be 28.8 percent (CI 27.7-29.9) compared with 22.8 percent (CI 21.9-23.7) from the 2003 calendar, a 

gap of 6 percentage points or 21 percent of the current status CPR (Appendix Table 30). Withdrawal and 

periodic abstinence, which are fairly widely used in the Philippines, are both underreported in the 2003 

calendar, and withdrawal is underreported in the 1998 calendar. 
58 

Figure 38. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among currently married women 15-43, Vietnam 

Current status data from Vietnam’s 1997 DHS produce a CPR of 76.5 (CI 74.5-78.5), while calendar data 

for the same time point from the 2002 DHS show a CPR 4.4 percentage points lower, at 72.1 (70.2-73.9) 

(Appendix Table 31). The difference is primarily due to apparent underreporting of condom use, at 6.3 

percent current status data and 4.5 percent from the calendar data. 
59 

3.3.5 Latin America and the Caribbean 

Figure 39. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Bolivia 

Although the five Bolivia surveys pictured here cover the time span between 1989 and 2008, we can only 

draw comparisons between the calendar and a prior survey at two points in time: 1989 and 2003. The 

1994 calendar data appear to overestimate the CPR in 1989 compared with current status data, which is 

contrary to the normal pattern. The 1998 current status CPR was estimated at 20.6 percent (CI 19.3-22.0), 

while the calendar estimate is 4.4 percentage points higher, at 25.0 percent (CI 23.7-26.4) (Appendix 

Table 32). The difference is predominantly due to higher reporting of periodic abstinence in the calendar, 

at 13.5 percent, compared with 11.1 percent in current status data. 

The 2008 Bolivia DHS calendar appears to accurately capture total contraceptive use as recorded in the 

2003 DHS. The 2003 current status CPR was recorded as 39.7 percent (CI 38.6-40.8) and the calendar 

estimate was 38.8 (CI 37.6-39.9). Interestingly, periodic abstinence again appears slightly overreported in 

the calendar: prevalence is reported as 14.5 percent in the calendar (CI 13.7-15.4) versus 12.9 percent in 

the 2003 current status data (CI 12.0-13.9). This apparent overreporting is balanced by apparent 

underreporting of condom, LAM, and sterilization use. 
60 

Figure 40. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Colombia 

Two of the surveys collected in Colombia, the 1990 and 2010 DHSs, appear to accurately capture 

women’s contraceptive use, as compared with the current status surveys. The other three surveys appear 

to overestimate contraceptive use in the calendar. The largest gap in reporting is between the 1990 current 

status data and the reporting from the 1995 calendar. The 1990 current status CPR was estimated at 39.5 

(CI 38.1-41.0), and the 1990 estimate from the 1995 calendar was 6.2 percentage points higher, at 45.7 

(CI 44.5-46.9) (Appendix Table 33). The difference between the 1995 current status and 2000 calendar 

estimates of the 1995 CPR was only 3 percentage points, and the gap between the 2000 current status and 

2005 calendar estimates was small, at 1.8 percentage points. The two most recent surveys in Colombia, 

the 2005 and 2010 DHSs, were implemented using Computer Assisted Personal Interviews or CAPI 

(mentioned earlier in this text discussing underreporting in the Zimbabwe associated with moving from 

paper questionnaires to CAPI). It is unclear whether the use of CAPI may be associated with what we 

assume to be more accurate reporting of contraceptive use in the two most recent Colombia surveys (2005 

and 2010), compared with the two prior surveys (1995 and 2000). 
61 

Figure 41. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Dominican Republic 

The quality of the calendar data collected in the four Dominican Republic surveys pictured here appears 

to be excellent. The 1999 Dominican Republic DHS was an experimental survey with a small sample size 

of 1,286 women, which is about one-twentieth the size of the 2002 Dominican Republic DHS sample. 

Even in the small 1999 sample, the estimated CPR matches up perfectly with current status and calendar 

data from 1996, as well as with calendar data from 2002. There is some apparent overreporting of 

sterilization in the 2002 calendar compared with the 1996 current status data: 27.9 percent in the calendar 

and 25.9 percent in the current status data (Appendix Table 34). Differences in sterilization reporting are 

not statistically significant, however, when comparing surveys closer in time: the 2002 calendar and 1999 

current status data capture very similar levels of sterilization, as do the 1999 calendar and 1994 current 

status data. The overall level of precision and consistency in the Dominican Republic’s calendars is quite 

impressive. 
62 

Figure 42. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Guatemala 

The calendars collected in Guatemala’s 1995 and 1998-99 surveys appear to match up well, and the 

current status CPR estimated from the 1995 survey is very close to the estimate from the 1998-99 

calendar: 20.9 percent (CI 19.1-22.8) in current status data and 22.5 percent (CI 19.1-26.4) from the 

calendar (Appendix Table 35). There appears to be some overreporting of periodic abstinence in the 

1998-99 calendar, but the method is not commonly used enough for the difference to substantially affect 

the total CPR. All other contraceptive methods appear to be consistently reported. 
63 

Figure 43. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Honduras 

The calendar data from Honduras’s 2011-12 survey appear to very slightly overestimate total 

contraceptive use as reported in the 2005-06 survey. The CPR in 2006 was recorded as 42.3 percent from 

the current status data (CI 41.4-43.3)—1.4 percentage points lower than the calendar estimate of 43.7 

percent (CI 42.7-44.6) (Appendix Table 36). IUD use appears overrreported in the calendar (5.3 percent 

in the calendar versus 4.5 percent current use) and LAM appears underreported (0.009 percent in the 

calendar versus 0.1 percent current use). Although these differences are statistically significant, the 

magnitude of the differences is very small. All other contraceptive methods appear to be accurately 

reported in the calendar as compared with the current status data. 
64 

Figure 44. Total contraceptive prevalence rate among women 15-43, Peru 

The calendars from Peru’s 1996 and 2000 calendars match the overlapping current status CPRs almost 

perfectly, although there are odd patterns in showing higher levels of contraceptive use in the first few 

months of each calendar. Calendars in the other seven Peru surveys appear to consistently overestimate 

contraceptive prevalence relative to the current status data. The amount of apparent overestimation in 

these more recent surveys ranges from 2.0 to 7.4 percentage points, and the overestimation is consistent in 

all of Peru surveys collected since 2004 (Appendix Table 37). Notably, the 2004-06 survey was the same 

survey in which Peru discontinued use of paper questionnaires and became the first DHS to implement 

surveys on computers, the aforementioned CAPI. All of the Peru surveys beginning in 2004-06 were 

conducted on PDAs rather than on paper. It is interesting to note that CAPI use seems to be associated 

with overreporting of contraceptive use in Peru and Colombia and with underreporting of contraceptive 

use in Zimbabwe. This issue warrants further investigation. 

3.3.6 Reporting of contraceptive use by method 

Recall of contraceptive use is anticipated to vary by contraceptive method. Table 2.1 summarizes the 

degree to which the survey pairs match or do not match up by contraceptive method type (all methods 

combined, modern, or traditional methods) and specific contraceptive method. Our basic metric for 

matching is whether or not there is a statistically significant difference between the retrospectively 

recalled contraceptive use (using the calendar) and the current use in the preceding survey. We are also 

interested in whether or not the estimates of contraceptive use tabulated with the calendar are overestimates or under-estimates relative to the current use in the previous survey. Table 2.1 presents the 

number and percentage of survey pairs in which the use of a (particular) method is significantly different 

between the results generated from the calendar and current use at the time of the previous survey. For 

survey pairs in which estimates of use are statistically significantly different, Table 2.1 presents the 

magnitude of the difference, both as the percentage point difference between the two estimates and the 

percent of method use this represents, compared with the current status estimate. 
65 

Table 6. Summary comparisons between calendar and previous survey by contraceptive method 

Total comparisons with statistically 

significant differences Calendar significantly over estimates FP use 

Calendar significantly under estimates 

FP use Number of 

survey 

 pairs 

Number of 

comparisons 

Percent of 

comparisons 

Percentage point 

difference 

% difference 

Number of 

comparisons 

Percent of 

comparisons 

Percentage point 

difference

% difference 

Number of 

comparisons 

Percent of 

comparisons 

Percentage point 

difference 

% difference 

All methods 78 73.6 5.2 19.1 26 24.5 3.4 8.0 52 49.1 6.2 24.6 106 

Modern methods 66 62.3 4.4 20.6 20 18.9 2.8 8.6 46 43.4 5.1 25.9 106 

Traditional methods 63 59.4 2.0 34.5 18 17.0 1.7 22.1 45 42.5 2.1 39.4 106 

LAM 45 66.2 0.7 - 9 13.2 0.6 36 52.9 0.7 68 

Male Condom 59 55.7 1.3 47.1 3 2.8 1.3 70.6 56 52.8 1.3 45.9 106 

Injectable 45 42.9 2.0 36.5 16 15.2 1.6 46.5 29 27.6 2.2 31.0 105 

Periodic abstinence 43 40.6 1.4 46.0 15 14.2 1.5 30.5 28 26.4 1.4 54.3 106 

Pills 41 38.7 1.6 31.0 12 11.3 1.2 23.8 29 27.4 1.7 34.0 106 

Withdrawal 41 38.7 1.1 42.2 9 8.5 0.9 34.0 32 30.2 1.1 44.5 106 

Sterlization 21 19.8 0.7 69.7 7 6.6 1.1 127.7 14 13.2 0.6 40.7 106 

IUD 17 16.0 1.4 28.0 4 3.8 2.1 14.3 13 12.3 1.2 32.2 106 

Implants 12 13.3 0.4 - 7 7.8 0.1 - 5 5.6 0.8 - 90 

LAM: Lactational Amenorrhea Method 

In the top line of Table 6, we see that in 74 percent (78 out of 106) of the survey pairs the measures of 

total contraceptive use are statistically different. We also see that an under-estimation of contraceptive use 

in the calendar is twice as frequent as an over-estimation (49 percent versus 25 percent). The magnitude 

of the difference varies by whether the total CPR is under- or over-estimated by the calendar compared 

with current use estimates. In comparisons in which the calendar appears to underestimate contraceptive 

use, the average CPR is 6.2 percentage points lower, underestimating the current use CPR by 25 percent. 

In comparisons in which the calendar appears to overestimate contraceptive use, the average difference is 

much smaller, at 3.4 percentage points, overestimating the current use CPR by 8 percent. The next rows 

of the table present disaggregates of the same measures by contraceptive method type and specific 

method. 

Estimates of the percentage of women using modern methods of contraception were significantly 

different in 62 percent of comparisons, and estimates of traditional method use were significantly 

different in 59 percent of comparisons.17 Modern methods do not appear to be reported any more or less 

accurately in the calendar than traditional methods, on average. Again, the magnitude of the differences is 

larger in surveys in which the calendar underestimates contraceptive use than surveys in which the 

calendar gives an overestimate. 

In the second part of Table 6, contraceptive methods are ordered from the method most frequently 

differently reported in the calendar versus current use to the method most consistently reported. LAM18

and male condoms are reported at significantly different levels in the calendar and current status data in 

well over half of survey pairs. The preponderance of these discordances are due to an overestimate of the 

prevalence by the calendar. These methods are fraught with difficulty for measurement. LAM is 

notoriously difficult to measure (Fabic and Choi 2013) and is frequently confused with simple 

breastfeeding. Condom use is coitus-dependent and may frequently be transitory. Continuous use of these 

methods at any point in the past may be misremembered or not remembered at all. The other coitusdependent methods, periodic abstinence and withdrawal, are also frequently problematic: about 41 

 

17 Please note that in some survey pairs, neither the modern CPR nor traditional CPR difference was statistically 

significant, but when all methods were combined, the total CPRs were statistically significantly different in the 

calendar versus current status data. The same is also true for specific methods. It may be the case that in one pair of 

surveys, none of the method-specific levels of use are statistically different, but when combined together the total 

all-method CPR estimates are significantly different. 

18 Comparisons of LAM use are limited to survey pairs in which LAM use was reported in both data sources. 

Because some surveys did not capture any LAM use in either the calendar or current use data, LAM can only be 

compared in 68 survey pairs. For the same reason, implant use can only be compared in 89 survey pairs. 
66 

percent of the survey pairs show a significant difference between the prevalence of periodic abstinence 

calculated with the calendar and current use reported in the preceding survey, and 39 percent show a 

difference for withdrawal. Similar levels of problematic reporting are true for the resupply methods pills 

and injectables, at 39 and 43 percent respectively. Similar to LAM and condom, use of these methods can 

be temporary and their use may be subject to misremembering or forgetting intervals of use. Finally, the 

long-acting and permanent methods have the lowest incidence of discordance between the estimate made 

using the calendar and current use in the earlier survey. For all methods except implants, underestimation 

in the calendar is much more likely than overestimation. (Implant use appears to be overreported slightly 

more often than it is underreported in 8 and 6 percent of surveys respectively, but the numbers are quite 

small.) 

3.3.7 Reporting of contraceptive use by region and survey characteristics 

Table 7 presents the same analysis of survey pairs as Table 6, summarized by geographic region. The subSaharan African and South/Southeast Asian regions show worse performance on the matching CPR 

metric than Latin America and the Caribbean and North Africa/West Asia/Europe, with more than 80 

percent of survey comparisons in the sub-Saharan African and Asian regions showing statistically 

significant differences. The higher level of disagreement between CPR estimates in the sub-Saharan 

Africa and East/Southeast Asia sub-regions is almost exclusively due to a lower estimate of family 

planning use by the calendar. In Latin America and the Caribbean, calendars that produced estimates that 

were statistically significantly different from the current status data consistently overestimated the CPR, 

and in North Africa/West Asia/Europe the cases of significant disagreement were distributed across both 

overestimation and underestimation by the calendar relative to the corresponding current status data. The 

magnitude of the differences in reporting is particularly large in the sub-Saharan African region. In survey 

comparisons in which the calendar significantly underestimated contraceptive use as compared with 

current status data, the surveys in East and Southern Africa underestimated contraceptive use by an 

average of 29 percent in the calendar, and the surveys in West and Central Africa underestimated 

contraceptive use on average by 51 percent. Please note that broad conclusions are not possible since the 

number of survey pairs is relatively small and the Latin America and Caribbean region is dominated by 

surveys conducted in Peru. However, the high levels of apparent underestimation and the magnitude of 

the differences between the calendar and current use estimates of the CPR in sub-Saharan Africa and 

East/Southeast Asia suggest that the great majority of calendars from these regions are likely to be 

unreliable. 

Table 7. Summary comparisons between calendar and previous survey by region

Total comparisons with statistically 

significant differences 

Calendar significantly over estimates 

FP use 

Calendar significantly under estimates 

FP use 

Number 

of 

survey 

 pairs 

Number 

of 

comparisons 

Percent of 

comparisons 

Percentage point 

difference 

% difference 

Number 

of 

comparisons 

Percent of 

comparisons 

Percentage point 

difference

% difference 

Number of 

comparisons 

Percent of 

comparisons 

Percentage point 

difference 

% difference 

All 78 73.6 5.2 19.1 26 24.5 3.4 8.0 52 49.1 6.2 24.6 106 

Latin America and the Caribbean 21 65.6 3.6 8.5 21 65.6 3.6 8.5 0 0.0 NA NA 32 

Asia 17 85.0 5.5 12.7 0 0.0 NA NA 17 85.0 5.5 12.7 20 

North Africa/West Asia/Europe 11 55.0 3.6 7.2 4 20.0 2.6 4.7 7 35.0 4.2 8.6 20 

East and Southern Africa 20 87.0 7.1 27.9 1 4.3 2.5 9.7 19 82.6 7.3 28.9 23 

West and Central Africa 9 81.8 6.3 50.5 0 0.0 NA NA 9 81.8 6.3 50.5 11 

NA: Not applicable 

Table 8 summarizes the comparison of survey pairs by average level of contraceptive use, education 

level, and survey length. Education is measured by the percent of survey respondents who have ever 

attended school. If the percent of women in a survey who have at least some education exceeds the 

median level for all surveys, that survey is counted as having a relatively high level of education. 

Similarly, for the length of the survey, if the number of questions in the survey in which we use the 
67 

calendar exceeds the median number of questions across the collection of surveys, the survey is counted 

as having a relatively long survey. We also disaggregated surveys by whether the country’s contraceptive 

use at the time of the calendar survey was higher or lower than the median level of use across all surveys 

analyzed. 

A potential hypothesis concerning the calendar is that reporting of contraceptive use is more reliable in 

countries with higher levels of family planning use. We do find that the frequency of significant 

differences between the CPR in the calendar versus current use is somewhat improved for the countries 

with relatively high family planning use at the time of survey compared with low family planning use, but 

the difference is small (72 versus 75 percent). Perhaps mimicking the regional patterns in Table 7, there 

were large differences in the underestimation versus the overestimation. Notably, among countries with 

lower levels of family planning use, the calendar underestimated the current status CPR in 72 percent of 

survey pairs analyzed. 

Another potential hypothesis concerning the apparent poor recall of contraceptive use in the calendar is 

that the surveys are long and the interviewers and/or interviewees are fatigued by the length of the survey. 

If this is the case, interviewers may not ask sufficient probing questions to accurately capture 

contraceptive use, and we should see poorer performance of the calendar at replicating the current use 

CPR in longer surveys than in shorter surveys. The survey pairs in which there was a relatively long 

survey instrument for the calendar implementation were more likely to overestimate the family planning 

use relative to the survey pairs in which the survey instrument was shorter (more than double, 34 percent 

versus 15 percent). This may be related again to regional variation, particularly the relatively lengthy Peru 

surveys. There was not a large difference in terms of underestimation (47 percent versus 51 percent). 

Table 8. Summary of comparisons between calendar and previous survey by survey characteristics

Total comparisons with statistically 

significant differences 

Calendar significantly over estimates 

FP use 

Calendar significantly under estimates 

FP use 

Number of 

 survey pairs 

Number of 

comparisons 

Percent of 

comparisons 

Number of 

comparisons 

Percent of 

comparisons 

Number of 

comparisons 

Percent of 

comparisons 

All 78 73.6 26 24.5 52 49.1 106 

High family planning use 38 71.7 24 45.3 14 26.4 53 

Low family planning use 40 75.5 2 3.8 38 71.7 53 

Long survey 43 81.1 18 34.0 25 47.2 53 

Short survey 35 66.0 8 15.1 27 50.9 53 

High education 37 69.8 21 39.6 16 30.2 53 

Low education 41 77.4 5 9.4 36 67.9 53 

High Education (LAC/MENA) 24 63.2 21 55.3 3 7.9 38 

High Education (Africa/Asia) 13 86.7 0 0.0 13 86.7 15 

Low Education (LAC/MENA) 8 57.1 4 28.6 4 28.6 14 

Low Education (Africa/Asia) 33 84.6 1 2.6 32 82.1 39 

LAC: Latin America and the Caribbean 

MENA: North Africa/West Asia/Europe 

An additional potential hypothesis is that in surveys conducted in areas of low literacy or low education, 

women would have poorer recall of dates related to prior family planning use. In Table 8 there are two 

groups of output related to education that show the numbers and percentages of surveys in which the 

current use and calendar estimates are significantly different. In the first group we look at the survey pairs 

in which the country has a relatively high level of education versus those with a relatively low level of 

education. There is not a great difference between the two for the overall level of disagreement between 

contraceptive use estimates from the calendar versus current status data. There are large differences in the 

degrees of overestimation and underestimation of the CPR by the calendar. However, we recall the 

underestimation phenomenon is largely restricted to the LAC survey pairs. The second group of rows 

relating to education disaggregates the high and low levels of education by regional groups. The North 

Africa/West Asia/Europe and LAC regions had lower levels of disagreement, while the sub-Saharan 

Africa and Asia regions had higher levels of disagreement between CPR estimates. Therefore, we cut the 

educational categories by these broad regional groups to help control potential regional bias. This 
68 

disaggregation shows the counterintuitive result that the survey pairs for countries with relatively low 

education have less incidence of disagreement between estimates of contraceptive use than the survey 

pairs for countries with relatively high education, although differences are not large. 

3.4 Discussion and Recommendations 

3.4.1 Discussion 

One key issue to keep in mind when interpreting the results of this analysis is that the calendar was not 

necessarily intended to provide estimates of the CPR that would perfectly match prior estimates of 

contraceptive use, and calendar data are not used for reports of contraceptive prevalence in DHS final 

reports. The calendar, as first implemented in the experimental 1986 Dominican Republic and Peru 

surveys, was to provide “monthly data on contraceptive practice, amenorrhea, postpartum abstinence and 

exposure to risk... for estimates of fecundability, natural fertility, and contraceptive efficacy,” (Goldman, 

Moreno, and Westoff 1989b, p.1) and not necessarily to estimate contraceptive prevalence for a specific 

month in time. In this report we compare women’s reports of the method they are “currently” using to 

avoid pregnancy to reports from other women of the method they were using at a specific point in time. 

Because the wording of the question is different, and because the recall of episodes of contraceptive use 

that occurred many years ago could be expected to be imperfect, it is not clear that we should expect a 

perfect match between levels of use reported retrospectively in the calendar with reported levels of 

current use. 

There has been, however, a decades-long history within the DHS of evaluating the quality of calendar 

data by comparing estimates of contraceptive use in a specific month from the calendar with prior 

estimates of current use from an earlier survey. The first evaluation of the experimental calendar data 

from Peru compared estimates of contraceptive use in 1981 collected from the 1986 experimental 

calendar to current use estimates collected in the 1981 Contraceptive Prevalence Survey (CPS), and 

judged the accuracy of the 1986 calendar by how well the total and method-specific CPRs from the then 

experimental calendar matched current use estimates for the same time point collected in the 1981 CPS 

(Goldman, Moreno, and Westoff 1989b). The calendar was judged to show “complete reporting of the 

most effective methods (pill and IUD) for a date more than five years prior to the survey,” (Goldman, 

Moreno, and Westoff 1989b, p.43) because the estimated use of these methods matched almost perfectly 

between the DHS calendar and the CPS estimate for the same date (differences were 0.1 percentage point 

for both pill and IUD). Reports of use of injectables, condoms, diaphragm,19 periodic abstinence, 

withdrawal, and sterilization were all within 1.1 percentage points of each other in the calendar compared 

with current status data. The authors noted that the total CPR of 34.6 percent collected in the calendar was 

still significantly lower than the CPS estimate of 38.1 percent. Based on the table of results shown in the 

1986 report, readers can see that the underestimation of 3.5 percentage points, 9 percent of the current 

status CPR, is predominantly due to reporting of “other” methods in the calendar at 1.9 percentage points 

lower than the level reported in the CPS. As the initial evaluation of the contraceptive calendar compared 

retrospective estimates from the calendar with current use estimates for the same date and tested whether 

or not any differences were statistically significantly different, we believe it is appropriate to use the same 

methodology in this comprehensive analysis. 

Given that even the first implementation of the calendar produced estimates of the total CPR that were 

statistically significantly different between the calendar and current status data for the same time, it is 

worth questioning whether statistical significance is an appropriate guideline for determining the 

reliability of calendar data. In compiling the results of this analysis, we considered whether there should 

be some cutoff for what was considered “poor” correspondence between contraceptive use levels 

 

19 Injectables, condoms, and diaphragms were grouped together in the 1986 analysis. 
69 

recorded in the calendar and current use data. Should a gap of five percentage points in estimates of the 

total CPR between the two estimates be considered an indicator of poor correspondence? Or should such 

a cutoff be relative to the level of contraceptive use, i.e. an underestimate of 10 percent or more of the 

current use CPR by the calendar? 

Determining such cutoffs seemed arbitrary and subjective, so we followed the more objective convention 

of calculating whether levels of contraceptive use were statistically significantly different between the 

two sources. Please note, therefore, that while we have incorporated statistical significance as a useful 

guideline in determining whether the calendar accurately captures contraceptive use, we caution readers 

to keep in mind that a statistically significant difference may not necessarily be a meaningful difference. 

For example, the 2006 Honduras CPR was estimated to be 42.3 percent from current status data and 43.7 

percent from the 2011-12 calendar, a difference of 1.4 percentage points or 3 percent of the current-use 

CPR. This difference is statistically significant at the p<0.05 level, but that does not imply that the 

difference is meaningful. Rather, the finding of statistical significance is due in part to the large sample 

sizes of more than 16,500 women in each of the two Honduras surveys analyzed, which allows for 

detection of small differences. Nepal provides a counter-example. The 2006 CPR was estimated at 46.7 

percent from current-status and 42.5 percent from calendar data, a difference of 4.2 percentage points. 

This much larger difference is not statistically significant, however, due in large part to the much smaller 

sample sizes of under 8,000 women ages 15-43 in each survey. Additionally, the difference in the total 

CPR estimates in Nepal would be larger if the underreporting of condom use in the calendar was not 

balanced by overreporting of withdrawal in the calendar. These examples reinforce the point that 

statistical significance, while useful as a summary measure, is only one piece of information that should 

be used to determine whether calendar data plausibly capture past contraceptive use. We therefore urge 

readers interested in the quality of specific surveys not to place too much value on statistical significance 

and to focus more on the differences in CPR between estimates, including method-specific results. 

An additional concern about comparing current and retrospective data on contraceptive use is that the 

questions are phrased differently. In the calendar, women are asked about their contraceptive use during a 

specific time, while for current use no time limit is given and women may have different interpretations of 

what constitutes “currently doing anything to avoid pregnancy.” We expect that women using hormonal 

or long-term methods would report that they are currently using a method, but this expectation may not 

hold for coitus-dependent methods such as condoms, diaphragms, withdrawal, or other traditional 

methods. Women could report they are “currently” using a coitus-dependent method even if they have not 

used the method that month, while in the calendar women are asked if they used that method during a 

specific time period. If women report they are currently using a method even if they have not used the 

method that month, this would bias the current use CPR upwards and potentially lead to understandably 

poorer consistency between the current use and calendar CPRs. On the other hand, we do not know 

whether or not women consider coitus-dependent methods to reflect “current” use. If they do not, some 

users of these methods may report that they are not currently using any method despite intending to use 

such a method the next time they have sex. If women do not report such methods as “current” use, but do 

report them in the calendar, this would bias current use estimates downwards. Such a downward bias 

might lead to better correspondence between current use and calendar data because estimates of use from 

the calendar are generally lower. We cannot determine from existing data whether these two potential 

biases may cancel each other out, or if the bias in one direction may be larger than the other. 

Another potential bias in these comparisons relates to the fact that births, pregnancies, and terminations 

are recorded in the calendar prior to recording any methods of contraceptive use, and only one event per 

month is recorded in the calendar. Women who had a live birth or a pregnancy termination during the 

calendar period are asked how many months they were pregnant at the time of the birth/termination, and 

P’s are put in all of the cells in months when they were pregnant. If women were using contraception 

immediately prior to the pregnancy, contraceptive use is filled in up to the beginning of the pregnancy, 
70 

but even if the woman was using contraception during the first few months of pregnancy (as may be true 

in the case of contraceptive failure when the woman has not yet recognized she is pregnant), 

contraceptive use is not recorded in those early months of pregnancy, as the P has already been filled in 

and multiple entries are not allowed. The same is not true for current use: if, at the time of interview, a 

woman does not report she is currently pregnant, she is asked if she is currently using contraception; she 

can be recorded as a current user, even if she is (unknowingly) in her first trimester of pregnancy. 

Similarly, if a woman had a birth or termination and began using contraception in the same month, she 

will have a B or T recorded in the calendar for that month, rather than contraceptive use. If the same birth 

or termination occurs during the month of interview and the woman has begun using contraception (for 

example, a post-delivery sterilization or IUD insertion), that woman will be counted as a user in the 

current use estimate. The result of this different recording in current use versus the calendar is that the 

current CPR will be systematically higher than the CPR calculated from an earlier part of the calendar 

even when contraceptive prevalence has not changed over time. While this is certainly a real bias, a 

thought experiment makes clear that the impact on estimates of CPR is likely to be quite small. If nine 

percent of women in a survey were pregnant in a given month of the calendar (a reasonable estimate for 

many sub-Saharan African surveys), perhaps two percent were in their first or second months of 

pregnancy. If we assume that half of these women did not know they were pregnant, that would result in 

one percent of all women in the survey being unknowingly pregnant in a specific month. Given the 

general low levels of contraceptive use in surveys analyzed, and the fact that the women have become 

pregnant, it seems implausible that more than 10 percent of this group of women were using 

contraception while pregnant. If 10 percent of the one percent of unknowingly pregnant women in their 

first or second month of pregnancy were using contraception, this issue would thus affect only 0.1 percent 

of women in the entire population, and therefore is unlikely to significantly impact the comparisons 

between contraceptive use in the calendar and current status data. 

The best answer to the question of whether we should expect estimates of total and/or method-specific 

CPRs to match when calculated from the calendar and current use data for the same point would seem to 

come from the data. The calendars in the 1994 and 1999 surveys in Zimbabwe shown in Figure 18, for 

example, demonstrate near-perfect correspondence between contraceptive use reported retrospectively in 

the calendar and currently in the prior survey. Data from the Dominican Republic and Egypt also show 

very good correspondence between the two data sources. Many other survey pairs, especially in Latin 

America and the Caribbean and North Africa/West Asia/Eastern Europe, show close correspondence. 

These examples suggest that, although the expectation of perfect or near-perfect matching between 

contraceptive use levels collected from the retrospective calendar and prior current use data is clearly a 

high bar, such results are possible and feasible in at least some countries. The data from Zimbabwe are 

particularly relevant: even though the most recent survey showed substantial underestimation of 

contraceptive use in the calendar, previous surveys in the same country have shown that the collection of 

contraceptive use data in the calendar that is consistent with other data sources is clearly achievable. 

3.4.2 Summary and recommendations 

Overall, our analysis found that in most comparisons, calendar data appear to underestimate contraceptive 

use, often substantially. Levels of total contraceptive use differ significantly between the calendar and 

current use reports in 74 percent of survey pairs analyzed. While statistical significance is not a perfect 

indicator of calendar data quality, we note that in the vast majority of surveys with statistically significant 

differences in CPR, the gap in estimates was large enough to demonstrate that the contraceptive use data 

from the calendar are clearly implausible, given the levels reported for the same time point in previous 

surveys. In the 74 percent of survey pairs that were statistically significantly different, the average 

difference in total contraceptive use was 5.2 percentage points, resulting in an average discrepancy of 19 

percent relative to the current use CPR data. Ignoring statistical significance, the gap between CPR 
71 

estimates was 4.1 percentage points on average across the 106 survey pairs analyzed, or 15 percent of the 

average current status CPR. 

Condom use does not appear to be accurately captured in calendar data, with significantly lower levels of 

condom use reported in more than half of calendars as compared with current use data. On average across 

the 56 survey pairs in which condom use appears underreported in the calendar, it was recorded in the 

calendar at levels 46 percent lower than those recorded in current use data. In countries where LAM is 

reported at all, it appears to be reported inconsistently. Reported levels of use of traditional methods, 

specifically periodic abstinence and withdrawal, and short-term resupply modern methods, specifically 

pills, and injectables, differ significantly between calendar and corresponding current use data in about 40 

percent of survey pairs. The long-term methods of IUDs, implants, and sterilization appear to be reported 

much more consistently. The pattern of better reporting of longer-term methods is consistent with 

previous studies, both of DHS and other surveys, as summarized by Callahan and Becker (2012). 

The correspondence between levels of contraceptive use collected in the calendar versus current status 

data appears to vary regionally. The level of agreement between calendar and current use estimates of 

contraceptive use is generally high in several surveys in Latin America and the Caribbean, particularly in 

the Dominican Republic and Guatemala. None of the calendars from this region appear to underestimate 

contraceptive use, although overestimation of use in the calendar is evident in several surveys in Peru and 

Colombia, especially in surveys conducted using CAPI. In the North Africa/West Asia/Eastern Europe 

region, the level of consistency between calendar and current use estimates of contraceptive prevalence is 

also generally high for several surveys, with near perfect matches between data sources in multiple Egypt 

surveys. In most of the Asian and sub-Saharan African surveys, the picture looks bleak. In more than 80 

percent of surveys in these regions, the calendar does not appear to accurately capture the level of 

contraceptive use measured from current status data. In many surveys in these regions, particularly in 

lower contraceptive prevalence countries, the calendar underestimates the current use estimate of total 

CPR by 25 to 50 percent. The West African surveys analyzed show particularly large discrepancies 

between estimates of CPR from the calendar and current use data, although we note that the number of 

surveys analyzed per region is small. The only survey pairs from West Africa in which there are not 

statistically significantly different levels of contraceptive use between calendar and current status 

estimates are from Senegal, and in both cases, the data compared were collected less than two years apart. 

This finding again suggests that poor recall is indeed a problem for the comparability of calendar and 

current use data in some settings, and also suggests a potential way forward, summarized below. 

In the majority of the figures shown in this report, the CPR in the calendar decreases as the calendar 

moves further back in time, from right to left in each image. In many cases, this represents the calendar 

CPR estimate falling further and further below levels reported in earlier surveys for periods further back 

in time. Worse reporting for events further in the past is to be expected, but this trend also suggests a 

troubling pattern of underreporting of contraceptive discontinuations. In the month of interview, women’s 

current contraceptive method (if any) is recorded in the calendar, and it is filled in for all the previous 

months in which she continuously used the same method. As the calendar progresses further back in time, 

it is less and less likely that women would have been using the same contraceptive method without 

stopping. Instead, any episodes of use that occurred many years ago would likely have been stopped, at 

least temporarily, or switched to a different method at some point during the past several years. In most 

calendars, we see that the gap between the calendar CPR and the line showing the interpolated current 

status CPR grows wider as the calendar progresses further back in time. This pattern strongly suggests 

that discontinuations during the calendar period are underreported. 

Underreporting of discontinued episodes of contraceptive use is of particular concern for reports of 

contraceptive discontinuation rates, including failure rates. If discontinued episodes of use, particularly 

those that ended in contraceptive failure, are underreported, this will bias estimates of contraceptive 
72 

failure and other rates of contraceptive discontinuation, which are a primary use of contraceptive calendar 

data. There is evidence from U.S. surveys that episodes of contraceptive use that end in failures—

particularly those that result in abortion—are underreported in survey data (Trussell and Vaughan 1999; 

Jones and Kost 2007). It seems likely that this would be the case in DHS calendars as well, although we 

cannot confirm this because reliable external sources of information about abortion are not available in 

most countries analyzed in this report. It is unclear whether the omitted episodes of discontinuation would 

be balanced by omitted episodes of contraceptive acceptance; one could imagine situations in which 

discontinuation rates would be over- or under-estimated due to these omissions. On the whole, however, 

because we expect better reporting of episodes of use that continued into current use (and are censored in 

discontinuation rate calculations) than those that have been discontinued, we anticipate that on average 

such omissions will lead to underestimates of contraceptive discontinuation rates. 

Based on the results of this analysis, we recommend that The DHS Program: 

• Experiment with the length of the calendar to see if a shorter calendar—perhaps two years 

shorter, beginning in January of the calendar year three years prior to the start of the survey—

could produce better quality data by limiting the recall period while still gathering enough 

episodes of contraception to be useful for analysis. Note that in order to calculate one-year 

contraceptive discontinuation rates as in the standard DHS final report, the calendar period needs 

to be long enough for respondents to have a chance to take up a method, use it for some length of 

time, and have the possibility of discontinuing use during the calendar period. If a shorter 

calendar is adopted, we also recommend including a question about when contraceptive method 

use began for any method that was being used at the beginning of the calendar in order to include 

left truncated episodes.20 

• Experiment with ways to enhance the use of CAPI in calendar data collection. Although we only 

were able to analyze a handful of surveys that used CAPI to collect calendar data, results so far 

suggest that collecting calendar data with CAPI appears problematic as currently implemented. 

The analysis of additional surveys using CAPI that are ongoing or recently completed (but not 

available for analysis at the time of this writing) will help shed light on this issue. As the Program 

moves forward collecting more data electronically, experiments should be conducted with 

alternative ways to collect the calendar to take advantage of the technology and provide the visual 

cues available from the paper questionnaire. 

o For these two types of experiments, households could be randomized to receive different 

versions of the calendar section of the questionnaire to test the effect of different data 

collection mechanisms. We strongly recommend comparing results from different data 

collection methods within the same survey, especially regarding calendar length. If this step 

is not taken, it will be difficult to draw conclusions about the impact of questionnaire 

changes. Shorter calendars would no longer overlap with prior surveys, as DHS surveys are 

typically conducted approximately five years apart. Therefore, the only way to assess shorter 

 

20 Episodes of use that were ongoing at the time the calendar began (the earliest month in which calendar data were 

collected) are left truncated. In standard analyses of calendar data, such as one-year discontinuation rates in DHS 

final reports, these left truncated episodes of use are dropped from analysis because the date of the start of use is 

unknown and so the duration of use cannot be determined. In a shorter calendar, the number of left truncated 

episodes would not change on average, but the number of episodes starting inside the calendar would be reduced 

substantially, and thus the proportion of all episodes that are left truncated would be much greater. We therefore 

recommend that, for all episodes of use that were ongoing when the calendar began, a question be included asking 

when that episode of use began so that the duration of use can be calculated. The question about date of first use for 

ongoing episodes has been included in previous rounds of the DHS, e.g. Q333 in the DHS II Model A 

Questionnaire. 
73 

calendars in countries without frequent repeat surveys would be to compare shorter and 

longer calendar results from the same survey. 

• Investigate the successful strategies of surveys that appear to have collected high-quality 

information on contraceptive use in the calendar to see if some of the strategies used in these 

surveys could be applied more broadly, especially to surveys in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. 

Individuals’ memories are fallible, and the extent to which women do not remember their 

contraceptive use episodes cannot likely be changed. At the same time, all reasonable measures 

must be taken in training and supervision to ensure that the data collected are of the highest 

quality possible. The results of this analysis suggest that additional efforts in this area are 

warranted. 

For users of calendar data, this analysis shows that caution must be used when analyzing and interpreting 

results from calendar data in certain surveys. It is clear that the quality of contraceptive use data from 

each survey must be examined. The consistency of contraceptive use data collected in the calendar clearly 

varies across regions and even across surveys within the same country, as noted previously in the 

Zimbabwe example. We also note that although many surveys may not accurately capture total 

contraceptive prevalence in the calendar, this is often due to unreliable reporting of certain short-term 

methods, most notably LAM and condom use. For users interested in analysis of other contraceptive 

methods, calendar data in many surveys can and should still be used. 

Previous assessments of the quality of contraceptive use collected with the DHS calendar data using 

similar methods found DHS contraceptive calendar data to be generally of high quality (Curtis and Blanc 

1997) or to slightly underestimate contraceptive use (Bradley, Schwandt and Khan 2009). The results of 

this analysis are more negative, in large part because this analysis includes more recent surveys and more 

surveys from sub-Saharan Africa, particularly West Africa, which tend to have greater levels of 

underreporting of contraceptive use in the calendar. Overall, this analysis finds evidence of substantial 

underreporting of contraceptive use as captured by the calendars compared with current status estimates 

in the majority of surveys analyzed. 

75 

Chapter 4: Conclusions 

In this report we have assessed the quality and consistency of birth histories, pregnancy histories, and the 

reproductive calendar, by comparing results estimated from the data to external sources of information 

believed to be more reliable. We evaluated the estimation of perinatal mortality based on how close the 

ratio of stillbirths to early neonatal mortality approaches the ratio calculated from international vital 

statistics data. We then evaluated the reports of contraceptive use collected using the reproductive 

calendar by how closely calendar-based contraceptive prevalence rates matched rates calculated from 

current status data for the same time point from an earlier survey. 

Both of these types of comparisons have limitations. The 2006 WHO report states that the stillbirth to 

early neonatal mortality ratio of 1.2 is applicable when the early neonatal mortality rate is greater than 20. 

However, in many of the surveys analyzed here, we found that the early neonatal mortality rate was less 

than 20, so it is not clear that the 1.2 standard is applicable. It is also possible that the 1.2 standard may 

not be applicable in all settings even when early neonatal mortality is high. In the analysis of 

contraceptive use data, we compared retrospectively collected data from one survey to current use data 

from another. It is possible that women answer questions differently when asked what they are currently 

doing to avoid pregnancy and what they did in a specific month in the past. It also seems logical that 

women may not be able to recall precisely episodes of contraceptive use, particularly for methods that are 

coitus-dependent and occurred multiple years ago. For this reason, some level of disagreement between 

data sources is to be expected and is simply reflective of the fallibility of human memory. These 

discrepancies do not necessarily provide information about the quality of data collection. 

Regarding perinatal mortality, we found that in general there appears to be underreporting of stillbirths in 

most surveys, regardless of the data collection method. The pregnancy history and the birth history 

supplemented by special questions generally appear to perform better at collecting perinatal mortality 

information than the birth history supplemented by the reproductive calendar. 

Regarding contraceptive use in the calendar, we found that in general there appears to be poor 

correspondence between CPRs reported from the calendar and from current status data for the same time 

point. Most calendar data CPRs are lower than current use CPRs, suggesting that the calendar does not 

completely capture episodes of contraceptive use. Similarly, use of specific contraceptive methods varies 

substantially between calendar and current use estimates, with far higher levels of correspondence for 

long-term and permanent methods and lower levels of correspondence for short-term methods such as 

condoms. There is also substantial variation in the level of correspondence by geographic region. 

Both of the analyses presented here assessed the reliability of calendar data, first focusing on perinatal 

mortality collected from the birth history combined with the reproductive calendar, and then contraceptive 

use collected from the calendar alone. Both analyses found that calendar data appear to frequently 

underestimate reproductive events—specifically stillbirths and episodes of contraceptive use—relative to 

external sources of information. 

Neither of the analyses presented here is able to answer questions about why the correspondence between 

estimates is better in some surveys than others, or to draw firm conclusions regarding the best strategy of 

data collection. To answer those questions, we recommend that controlled trials be conducted within a 

particular Demographic and Health Survey so that results can be compared directly. Specific 

recommendations include: 
76 

• To assess which data collection tool best identifies stillbirths, conduct experiments in which 

women (or households) are randomly assigned to receive a questionnaire with one of the 

following: 

o Birth history only (with reproductive calendar identifying pregnancies not ending with live 

births) 

o Birth history with supplemental questions to identify pregnancies not ending with live births 

o Pregnancy history, potentially with variations for the order in which pregnancies are queried: 

most recent pregnancy to first pregnancy versus first pregnancy to most recent pregnancy 

• To assess whether a shorter calendar could produce more reliable data by limiting the recall 

period while still gathering enough information to be useful for analysis, randomly assign some 

households to receive a shorter calendar while others receive the standard calendar within the 

same survey, and compare the results. 

• Experimentation with alternative ways of collecting calendar data using Computer Assisted 

Personal Interviews (CAPI) that would allow interviewers to draw on the visual cues provided in 

the paper questionnaire when filling in the electronic calendar record. 

We hope that the information in this report will be useful for data users and helpful for the continued 

improvement of DHS survey data quality in decades to come. 
77 

References 

Academy of Preventive Medicine [Kazakhstan] and Macro International Inc. 2000. Kazakhstan 

Demographic and Health Survey 1999. Calverton, MD: Academy of Preventive Medicine and Macro 

International Inc. 

Ali, Mohamed M., John Cleland, and Iqbal H. Shah. 2012. Causes and Consequences of Contraceptive 

Discontinuation: Evidence from 60 Demographic and Health Surveys. Geneva: World Health 

Organization. 

Becker, S. and S. Mahmud. 1984. “A Validation Study of Backward and Forward Pregnancy Histories in 

Matlab, Bangladesh.” WFS Scientific Reports No. 52. Voorburg, Netherlands: International Statistical 

Institute. 

Bradley, Sarah E.K. 2015. “More Questions, More Bias? An Assessment of the Quality of Data Used for 

Direct Estimation of Infant and Child Mortality in the Demographic and Health Surveys” (presented at 

the Population Assosciation of America Annual Conference, San Diego, CA). 

Bradley, Sarah E.K., Hilary M. Schwandt, and Shane Khan. 2009. “Levels, Trends, and Reasons for 

Contraceptive Discontinuation.” DHS Analytical Studies No. 20. Calverton, MD: ICF Macro. 

Callahan, Rebecca L. and Stan Becker. 2012. “The Reliability of Calendar Data for Reporting 

Contraceptive Use: Evidence from Rural Bangladesh.” Studies in Family Planning 43(3):213–222. 

Cousens, S., Blencowe, H., Stanton, C., Chou, D., Ahmed, S., Steinhardt, L., and Lawn, J. 2011. 

“National, Regional, and Worldwide Estimates of Stillbirth Rates in 2009 with Trends Since 1995: A 

Systematic Analysis.” The Lancet, 377, 1319–39, doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)61407-4. 

Curtis, Sian L. and Ann Blanc. 1997. “Determinants of Contraceptive Failure, Switching, and 

Discontinuation: An Analysis of DHS Contraceptive Histories.” DHS Analytical Reports No. 6. 

Calverton, MD: Macro International Inc. 

Espeut, D. 2012. “A Validation of Birth and Pregnancy Histories in Matlab, Bangladesh; Dissertation.” 

Baltimore, MD: Department of Population, Family and Reproductive Health Sciences, The Johns 

Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health. 

Fabic, Madeline Short and Yoonjoung Choi. 2013. “Assessing the Quality of Data Regarding Use of the 

Lactational Amenorrhea Method.” Studies in Family Planning 44(2):205–221. 

Goldman, Noreen, Lorenzo Moreno, and Charles F. Westoff. 1989a. “Collection of Survey Data on 

Contraception: An Evaluation of an Experiment in Peru.” Studies in Family Planning 20(3):147–157. 

Goldman, Noreen, Lorenzo Moreno, and Charles F. Westoff. 1989b. Peru Experimental Study: An 

Evaluation of Fertility and Child Health Information. Office of Population Research, Princeton 

University, Princeton, NJ and Institute for Resource Development/Macro Systems, Inc. Columbia, MD, 

USA. 

ICF International. 2012. Survey Organization Manual for Demographic and Health Surveys. MEASURE 

DHS. Calverton. MD: ICF International. 
78 

Jones, Rachel K. and Kathryn Kost. 2007. “Underreporting of Induced and Spontaneous Abortion in the 

United States: An Analysis of the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth” Studies in Family Planning

38(3):187–197. 

Moreno, Lorenzo, Noreen Goldman, and Ozer Babakol. 1991. “Use of a Monthly Calendar for Collecting 

Retrospective Data on Contraception: An Evaluation of the Experimental Field Studies of the 

Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS).” Notas Poblacion 18-19(51-52):11–37. 

National Institute of Population Research and Training (NIPORT), Mitra and Associates, and Macro 

International. 2009. Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey 2007. Dhaka, Bangladesh and 

Calverton, MD, USA: National Institute of Population Research and Training, Mitra and Associates, and 

Macro International. 

ORC Macro. 2001. “Model ‘B’ Questionnaire with Commentary for Low Contraceptive Prevalence 

Countries.” MEASURE DHS+ Basic Documentation No. 2. Calverton. MD: ORC Macro. 

Pullum, Thomas W. 2006. “An Assessment of Age and Date Reporting in the DHS Surveys, 1985–2003” 

DHS Methodological Reports No. 5. Calverton, MD: ICF Macro. 

Stanton, C., Lawn, J., Rahman, H., Wilczynska-Ketende, K., and Hill, K. 2006. “Stillbirth Rates: 

Delivering Estimates in 190 Countries.” The Lancet, 367, 1487–94, doi:10.1016/S0140- 6736(06)68586-

3. 

Strickler, Jennifer A., Robert J. Magnani, H. Gilman McCann, Lisanne F. Brown, and Janet C. Rice. 

1997. “The Reliability of Reporting of Contraceptive Behavior in DHS Calendar Data: Evidence from 

Morocco.” Studies in Family Planning 28(1):44–53. 

Tanaka, Satomi, Sarah J. Stock, Yuka Yamamoto, Jane Kondejewski, and David M. Olson. 2011. 

“Understanding Perinatal Mortality.” Obstetrics, Gynaecology & Reproductive Medicine, Volume 20, 

Issue 11, November 2010, Pages 317–322. 

Trussell, James and Barbara Vaughan. 1999. “Contraceptive Failure, Method-Related Discontinuation 

and Resumption of Use: Results from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth.” Family Planning 

Perspectives 31(2):64-72, 93. 

Westoff, Charles F., Noreen Goldman, and Lorenzo Moreno. 1990. Dominican Republic Experimental 

Study. Columbia, MD: Institute for Resource Development/Macro Systems. 

World Health Organization (WHO). 2006. Neonatal and Perinatal Mortality: Country, Regional and 

Global Estimates. Geneva: World Health Organization. 

 
79 

Appendix 

Appendix Table 1. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Ethiopia 2000, 2005, and 2011 surveys

Current-status data from 2000 Calendar data from 2005 Current-status data from 2005 Calendar data from 2011 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

April 2000 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

September 2005 

% SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 93.8 0.3 93.2 94.4 95.8 0.3 95.2 96.3 89.4 0.5 88.3 90.3 88.8 0.7 87.4 90.1 

Pill 2.0 0.2 1.7 2.5 1.5 0.2 1.2 1.9 2.2 0.2 1.8 2.6 1.5 0.2 1.2 1.9 

IUD 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 

Injections 2.2 0.2 1.8 2.7 1.6 0.2 1.3 2.1 7.0 0.4 6.2 7.9 8.2 0.6 7.1 9.3 

Male Condom 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 

Sterilization 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 

Periodic Abstinence 1.1 0.1 0.8 1.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 

Withdrawal 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 

Implant 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.4 

LAM 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Other Traditional Methods 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 

Other Modern Methods 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Any Method 6.2 0.3 5.6 6.8 4.2 0.3 3.7 4.8 10.7 0.5 9.7 11.7 11.2 0.7 9.9 12.6 

Any Modern Method 4.9 0.3 4.3 5.5 3.7 0.3 3.3 4.3 9.8 0.5 8.9 10.8 10.4 0.6 9.2 11.7 

N 13,886 10,485 12,792 11,902 

Appendix Table 2. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Kenya 1993, 1998, 2003, and 2008-09 

surveys 

Current-status data 

from 1993 

Calendar data 

from 1998 

Current-status data 

from 1998 

Calendar data 

from 2003 

Current-status data 

from 2003 

Calendar data from 

2008-09 

Women ages 15-43 at 

time of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

May 1993 

Women ages 15-43 at 

time of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

April 1998 

Women ages 15-43 at 

time of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

June 2003 

% SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 74.3 0.8 72.7 75.8 71.8 0.8 70.2 73.3 70.2 0.7 68.7 71.6 76.2 0.8 74.5 77.8 70.9 0.7 69.5 72.3 74.1 1.1 71.8 76.2

Pill 7.9 0.5 6.9 8.9 7.8 0.5 7.0 8.8 6.8 0.4 6.0 7.6 5.8 0.4 5.1 6.6 5.3 0.4 4.6 6.0 5.7 0.5 4.8 6.8 

IUD 2.8 0.3 2.3 3.4 2.6 0.3 2.1 3.2 1.7 0.2 1.4 2.1 2.0 0.2 1.6 2.5 1.5 0.2 1.2 1.9 1.0 0.2 0.7 1.4 

Injections 5.6 0.3 5.0 6.3 6.3 0.4 5.6 7.1 9.1 0.5 8.3 10.0 7.6 0.5 6.8 8.6 11.3 0.5 10.4 12.3 11.5 0.7 10.2 12.9

Male Condom 0.9 0.1 0.7 1.2 1.0 0.2 0.7 1.4 1.5 0.2 1.2 1.9 0.7 0.1 0.5 1.0 1.9 0.2 1.5 2.3 1.3 0.2 1.0 1.7 

Sterilization 3.3 0.3 2.9 3.8 3.4 0.3 2.9 4.0 3.6 0.3 3.1 4.2 2.5 0.2 2.1 2.9 2.2 0.2 1.9 2.6 1.9 0.2 1.5 2.5 

Periodic Abstinence 4.5 0.3 3.9 5.2 6.0 0.4 5.3 6.8 5.4 0.3 4.8 6.1 4.0 0.3 3.4 4.7 4.6 0.3 4.0 5.3 2.9 0.5 2.1 4.0 

Withdrawal 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.7 

Implant 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.5 1.0 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.9 1.3 0.2 1.0 1.7 0.8 0.2 0.5 1.2 

LAM 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 

Other Traditional 

Methods 

0.4 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 

Other Modern Methods 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 

Missing/Unknown if 

Using 

 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 

Any Method, Including 

Missing 

25.7 0.8 24.2 27.3 28.2 0.8 26.7 29.8 29.8 0.7 28.4 31.3 23.8 0.8 22.2 25.5 29.1 0.7 27.7 30.5 25.9 1.1 23.8 28.2

Any Method, Excluding 

Missing 

 28.1 0.8 26.6 29.6 23.8 0.8 22.2 25.5 25.9 1.1 23.8 28.2

Any Modern Method 20.5 0.8 19.1 22.1 21.3 0.8 19.8 22.8 22.8 0.7 21.4 24.2 18.6 0.8 17.1 20.2 22.2 0.7 20.8 23.7 21.6 1.0 19.8 23.6

Any Traditional Method 5.2 0.4 4.5 5.9 6.6 0.4 5.9 7.5 6.4 0.4 5.7 7.2 4.6 0.4 3.9 5.3 5.6 0.3 4.9 6.3 3.5 0.5 2.6 4.6 

N 7,003 5,979 7,285 6,225 7,255 6,380 
80 

Appendix Table 3. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Lesotho 2004 and 2009 surveys

 Current-status data from 2004 Calendar data from 2009 

Women ages 15-43 at time of survey Women ages 15-43 in November 2004 

% SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 70.4 0.7 68.9 71.8 76.0 0.8 74.4 77.5 

Pill 7.5 0.4 6.7 8.3 6.0 0.4 5.2 6.8 

IUD 1.4 0.2 1.1 1.8 1.6 0.2 1.3 2.1 

Injections 11.3 0.5 10.3 12.3 7.8 0.5 6.9 8.7 

Male Condom 6.6 0.4 5.9 7.3 6.0 0.4 5.3 6.8 

Sterilization 1.6 0.2 1.3 2.0 1.4 0.2 1.1 1.8 

Periodic Abstinence 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 

Withdrawal 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.9 

LAM 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 

Other Traditional Methods 0.8 0.1 0.5 1.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.6 

Other Modern Methods 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.6 

Any Method 29.6 0.7 28.2 31.1 23.9 0.8 22.4 25.4 

Any Modern Method 28.4 0.8 27.0 29.9 22.9 0.7 21.4 24.4 

Any Traditional Method 1.2 0.2 1.0 1.6 1.0 0.2 0.7 1.4 

N 6,343 5,703 

Appendix Table 4. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Madagascar 2003-04 and 2008-09 

surveys 

 Current-status data from 2003-04 Calendar data from 2008-09 

Women ages 15-43 at time of survey Women ages 15-43 in January 2004 

% SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 77.9 1.2 75.4 80.2 81.4 0.6 80.3 82.6 

Pill 3.1 0.3 2.5 3.9 2.8 0.2 2.3 3.3 

IUD 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 

Injections 7.9 0.7 6.6 9.3 6.9 0.4 6.2 7.7 

Male Condom 1.2 0.2 0.9 1.5 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.8 

Sterilization 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.7 

Periodic Abstinence 7.0 0.7 5.8 8.5 6.2 0.3 5.7 6.8 

Withdrawal 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 

Implant 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.4 

LAM 1.3 0.2 1.0 1.7 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 

Other Traditional Methods 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 

Other Modern Methods 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 

Any Method 22.1 1.2 19.8 24.6 18.6 0.6 17.4 19.7 

Any Modern Method 14.3 0.9 12.6 16.2 11.3 0.5 10.5 12.3 

Any Traditional Method 7.5 0.7 6.3 9.0 6.9 0.3 6.4 7.5 

N 7,119 13,157 

Appendix Table 5. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Malawi 2000, 2004, and 2010 surveys

 Current-status data from 2000 Calendar data from 2004 Current-status data from 2004 Calendar data from 2010 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

September 2000 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

January 2005 

% SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 74.9 0.6 73.7 76.1 85.7 0.5 84.6 86.6 74.7 0.6 73.5 75.8 80.8 0.4 80.0 81.6 

Pill 2.4 0.2 2.1 2.8 1.2 0.1 0.9 1.5 1.5 0.1 1.3 1.8 1.3 0.1 1.1 1.5 

IUD 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 

Injections 13.5 0.5 12.5 14.5 7.8 0.4 7.2 8.6 14.6 0.5 13.7 15.5 11.0 0.3 10.4 11.7 

Male Condom 2.0 0.2 1.7 2.4 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.9 0.2 1.6 2.2 1.0 0.1 0.8 1.2 

Sterilization 3.3 0.2 2.9 3.7 2.6 0.2 2.2 3.0 3.7 0.2 3.3 4.2 3.7 0.2 3.4 4.2 

Periodic Abstinence 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.5 

Withdrawal 1.1 0.1 0.9 1.4 1.2 0.2 0.9 1.6 1.6 0.2 1.3 1.9 0.9 0.1 0.8 1.1 

Implant 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 

LAM 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.5 

Other Traditional Methods 1.5 0.1 1.3 1.8 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.9 1.2 0.1 1.0 1.4 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.7 

Other Modern Methods 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 

Any Method 25.1 0.6 23.9 26.3 14.3 0.5 13.4 15.4 25.3 0.6 24.2 26.5 19.2 0.4 18.4 20.0 

Any Modern Method 21.7 0.6 20.4 22.9 12.1 0.4 11.3 13.0 21.8 0.5 20.8 22.9 17.1 0.4 16.3 17.9 

Any Traditional Method 3.4 0.2 3.0 3.8 2.2 0.2 1.8 2.6 3.1 0.2 2.7 3.6 1.9 0.1 1.6 2.2 

N 12,099 9,466 10,778 17,373 
81 

Appendix Table 6. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Namibia 2000, 2006-07, and 2013 surveys

 

Current-status data from 

2000 

Calendar data from 

2006-07 

Current-status data from 

2006-07 

Calendar data from 

2013 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

January 2001 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

January 2008 

% SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 61.8 1.2 59.3 64.2 76.1 0.8 74.5 77.6 53.1 0.7 51.7 54.6 67.2 0.6 65.9 68.4 

Pill 6.0 0.4 5.2 6.8 3.6 0.3 3.0 4.2 5.6 0.3 5.0 6.3 4.0 0.3 3.4 4.7

IUD 0.7 0.1 0.4 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.7

Injections 17.9 0.9 16.3 19.7 8.1 0.5 7.3 9.1 18.3 0.6 17.2 19.5 12.4 0.5 11.4 13.4

Male Condom 9.4 0.6 8.3 10.7 7.4 0.5 6.5 8.3 17.7 0.6 16.5 19.0 13.3 0.5 12.3 14.4

Sterilization 3.4 0.3 2.8 4.1 3.8 0.3 3.2 4.4 3.3 0.3 2.8 3.9 2.1 0.2 1.8 2.6

Periodic Abstinence 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Withdrawal 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2

Implant 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Other Traditional Methods 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2

Other Modern Methods 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5

Any Method 38.2 1.2 35.8 40.7 23.9 0.8 22.4 25.5 46.9 0.7 45.4 48.3 32.8 0.6 31.6 34.1

Any Modern Method 37.5 1.3 35.1 40.0 23.4 0.8 21.8 25.0 45.9 0.8 44.4 47.4 32.6 0.6 31.4 33.8

Any Traditional Method 0.7 0.1 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.7 1.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3

N 6,244 7,162 8,960 6,994 

Appendix Table 7. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Rwanda 2005, 2007-08, and 2010 surveys

 Current-status data from 2005 Calendar data from 2010 Current-status data from 2007-08 Calendar data from 2010 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

May 2005 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

February 2008 

% SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 90.5 0.3 89.8 91.2 94.7 0.3 94.1 95.3 75.6 0.9 73.7 77.4 85.4 0.4 84.6 86.2

Pill 1.3 0.1 1.1 1.7 0.9 0.1 0.7 1.1 3.7 0.3 3.1 4.3 2.2 0.2 1.9 2.5

IUD 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2

Injections 2.4 0.2 2.1 2.8 2.3 0.2 1.9 2.6 9.4 0.5 8.4 10.4 8.1 0.3 7.5 8.7

Male Condom 0.9 0.1 0.7 1.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.5 0.2 1.2 1.9 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.9

Sterilization 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.4

Periodic Abstinence 2.3 0.2 2.0 2.6 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.8 6.0 0.6 4.8 7.4 0.9 0.1 0.7 1.1

Withdrawal 1.4 0.1 1.2 1.7 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.9 1.6 0.2 1.3 2.0 1.0 0.1 0.8 1.2

Implant 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.0 0.1 0.7 1.3 1.1 0.1 0.9 1.3

LAM 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3

Other Traditional Methods 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Other Modern Methods 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3

Any Method 9.5 0.3 8.8 10.2 5.3 0.3 4.8 5.9 24.4 0.9 22.6 26.3 14.6 0.4 13.8 15.4

Any Modern Method 5.7 0.3 5.1 6.2 3.9 0.2 3.4 4.4 15.9 0.6 14.7 17.2 11.6 0.4 10.9 12.3

Any Traditional Method 3.7 0.2 3.3 4.1 1.3 0.1 1.1 1.5 7.6 0.7 6.3 9.0 1.9 0.1 1.6 2.2

N 10,220 10,326 6,564 11,149 

Appendix Table 8. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Tanzania 1999, 2004-05, and 2010 surveys

 

Current-status data from 

1999 

Calendar data from 

2004-05 

Current-status data from 

2004-05 

Calendar data from 

2010 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

October 1999 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

January 2005 

% SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 77.0 1.3 74.3 79.5 85.4 0.6 84.2 86.6 77.3 0.6 76.1 78.5 80.8 0.7 79.4 82.1 

Pill 5.0 0.7 3.8 6.5 3.5 0.3 3.0 4.1 4.9 0.3 4.4 5.5 4.1 0.3 3.6 4.7

IUD 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4

Injections 5.6 0.6 4.5 6.8 4.5 0.3 3.8 5.2 7.2 0.4 6.4 8.1 7.5 0.4 6.7 8.4

Male Condom 3.8 0.6 2.7 5.2 0.8 0.1 0.6 1.1 3.3 0.3 2.8 3.8 1.8 0.2 1.4 2.3

Sterilization 1.1 0.3 0.6 1.9 1.3 0.2 1.0 1.7 1.4 0.2 1.1 1.7 1.4 0.2 1.1 1.8

Periodic Abstinence 2.3 0.4 1.7 3.1 1.4 0.2 1.0 1.8 1.8 0.2 1.5 2.3 1.9 0.2 1.6 2.4

Withdrawal 2.7 0.5 1.8 3.9 1.6 0.2 1.2 2.0 2.2 0.2 1.7 2.7 1.0 0.2 0.7 1.4

Implant 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.8

LAM 1.4 0.3 0.9 2.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.9

Other Traditional Methods 0.6 0.2 0.4 1.2 0.8 0.2 0.5 1.2 0.9 0.2 0.6 1.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5

Other Modern Methods 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 

Any Method 23.0 1.3 20.5 25.7 14.6 0.6 13.4 15.8 22.7 0.6 21.5 23.9 19.2 0.7 17.9 20.6

Any Modern Method 17.2 1.2 14.9 19.8 10.7 0.6 9.6 11.9 17.4 0.7 16.1 18.7 15.4 0.6 14.3 16.6

Any Traditional Method 5.6 0.6 4.5 7.0 3.7 0.3 3.1 4.4 4.9 0.4 4.2 5.7 3.3 0.3 2.8 3.9

N 3,682 7,896 9,422 7,810 
82 

Appendix Table 9. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Uganda 2000-01, 2006, and 2011 surveys

 

Current-status data from 

2000-01 

Calendar data from 

2006 

Current-status data from 

2006 

Calendar data from 

2011 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

 of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

January 2001 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

July 2006 

% SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 79.4 0.9 77.6 81.1 88.9 0.6 87.8 90.0 80.4 0.6 79.1 81.6 87.0 0.8 85.4 88.4 

Pill 2.8 0.3 2.3 3.5 1.8 0.2 1.5 2.2 2.5 0.2 2.1 3.0 1.7 0.2 1.4 2.2 

IUD 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 

Injections 5.2 0.3 4.6 5.9 4.0 0.3 3.4 4.6 8.0 0.4 7.3 8.9 6.6 0.5 5.7 7.5 

Male Condom 4.0 0.3 3.4 4.7 1.7 0.2 1.3 2.2 3.4 0.2 2.9 3.9 1.0 0.2 0.8 1.4 

Sterilization 1.3 0.2 0.9 1.7 1.1 0.1 0.8 1.4 1.3 0.1 1.1 1.6 1.4 0.2 1.0 1.8 

Periodic Abstinence 2.1 0.2 1.7 2.6 1.3 0.2 1.0 1.7 2.0 0.2 1.7 2.4 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.8 

Withdrawal 0.9 0.1 0.6 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.5 1.0 1.4 0.2 1.1 1.7 1.1 0.2 0.8 1.6 

Implant 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.4 

LAM 3.2 0.3 2.6 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 

Other Traditional Methods 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 

Other Modern Methods 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 

Any Method 20.6 0.9 18.9 22.4 11.1 0.6 10.0 12.2 19.6 0.6 18.4 20.9 13.0 0.8 11.6 14.6 

Any Modern Method 16.7 0.8 15.2 18.4 8.7 0.5 7.8 9.7 15.4 0.6 14.2 16.5 11.0 0.6 9.9 12.3 

Any Traditional Method 3.6 0.3 3.1 4.2 2.3 0.2 1.9 2.8 4.0 0.3 3.5 4.6 1.7 0.3 1.2 2.4 

N 6,755 6,269 7,813 6,457 

Appendix Table 10. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Zambia 2001-02, 2007, and 2013-14

surveys 

 

Current-status data from 

2001-02 

Calendar data from 

2007 

Current-status data from 

2007 

Calendar data from 

2013-14 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

February 2002 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

January 2008 

% SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 74.6 0.7 73.3 75.9 82.3 0.7 80.9 83.7 69.7 0.7 68.2 71.1 82.2 0.5 81.1 83.3 

Pill 8.6 0.5 7.7 9.6 7.0 0.5 6.1 7.9 7.8 0.4 7.1 8.5 7.6 0.4 7.0 8.3 

IUD 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 

Injections 3.2 0.3 2.7 3.9 2.2 0.2 1.8 2.7 6.5 0.4 5.7 7.3 4.5 0.3 4.1 5.1 

Male Condom 4.3 0.3 3.8 4.9 1.8 0.2 1.4 2.3 5.3 0.4 4.6 6.1 1.5 0.1 1.3 1.8 

Sterilization 1.2 0.2 0.9 1.5 1.1 0.2 0.7 1.5 0.9 0.2 0.7 1.3 1.0 0.1 0.8 1.3 

Periodic Abstinence 0.8 0.1 0.6 1.0 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.1 0.6 1.1 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 

Withdrawal 3.4 0.3 2.9 3.9 2.3 0.3 1.8 2.9 3.6 0.4 2.9 4.4 1.5 0.2 1.2 1.8 

Implant 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.8 

LAM 1.8 0.2 1.5 2.2 1.9 0.2 1.5 2.5 4.3 0.3 3.7 5.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 

Other Traditional Methods 1.7 0.2 1.4 2.1 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.9 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 

Other Modern Methods 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 

Any Method 25.4 0.7 24.1 26.7 17.7 0.7 16.3 19.1 30.3 0.7 28.9 31.8 17.8 0.5 16.8 18.9 

Any Modern Method 19.3 0.7 18.0 20.6 14.0 0.6 12.8 15.3 24.9 0.6 23.6 26.1 15.1 0.5 14.2 16.1 

Any Traditional Method 5.9 0.3 5.2 6.6 3.5 0.3 2.9 4.2 5.2 0.4 4.4 6.0 2.1 0.2 1.8 2.5 

N 7,079 5,424 6,569 12,179 
83

Appendix Table 11. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Zimbabwe 1988, 1994, 1999, 2005-06, and 2010-11 surve

Current-status data 

from 1988 

Calendar data from 

1994 

Current-status data 

from 1994 

Calendar data from 

1999 

Current-status data 

from 1999 

Calendar data from 

2005-06 

Current-st

from 20

Women ages 15-43 at 

time of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

January 1989 

Women ages 15-43 at 

time of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

September 1994 

Women ages 15-43 at 

time of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

January 2000 

Women age

time of 

% SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE 

Not using 66.9 0.9 65.0 68.6 67.3 1.0 65.4 69.2 64.1 0.8 62.4 65.7 65.9 0.9 64.2 67.6 61.7 1.0 59.8 63.7 64.8 0.7 63.4 66.3 59.1 0.7 

Pill 25.0 0.9 23.1 26.9 25.0 0.9 23.2 26.8 24.9 0.8 23.3 26.5 25.8 0.9 24.1 27.5 25.0 1.0 23.2 27.0 25.2 0.6 24.0 26.5 28.2 0.8 

IUD 0.7 0.2 0.4 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.5 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.5 1.0 0.8 0.2 0.5 1.1 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.0 Injections 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.8 2.5 0.3 2.0 3.1 2.5 0.3 2.1 3.1 5.9 0.4 5.2 6.7 5.6 0.3 4.9 6.3 7.3 0.4 Male Condom 0.9 0.2 0.7 1.3 1.1 0.2 0.8 1.5 2.6 0.2 2.1 3.1 1.0 0.2 0.7 1.4 2.5 0.3 2.0 3.0 1.3 0.2 1.0 1.7 2.0 0.2 Sterilization 1.4 0.2 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.2 0.7 1.3 1.3 0.2 1.0 1.7 1.4 0.2 1.0 1.8 1.5 0.2 1.1 1.9 1.2 0.2 0.9 1.5 0.8 0.1 Periodic Abstinence 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 Withdrawal 3.2 0.4 2.6 4.0 3.1 0.3 2.5 3.8 2.5 0.3 2.0 3.2 1.7 0.3 1.3 2.3 1.4 0.2 1.0 2.0 0.8 0.1 0.6 1.0 0.7 0.1 Implant 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.9 0.1 LAM 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.1 Other Traditional 

Methods 

1.2 0.2 0.9 1.6 1.1 0.2 0.9 1.5 1.2 0.2 0.9 1.6 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.1 

Other Modern Methods 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Any Method 33.1 0.9 31.4 35.0 32.7 1.0 30.8 34.6 35.9 0.8 34.3 37.6 34.1 0.9 32.4 35.8 38.3 1.0 36.3 40.2 35.2 0.7 33.7 36.6 40.9 0.7 Any Modern Method 28.3 1.0 26.4 30.2 28.3 0.9 26.4 30.2 31.9 0.9 30.2 33.6 31.9 0.9 30.2 33.6 36.1 1.0 34.1 38.2 33.7 0.7 32.3 35.2 39.0 0.7 Any Traditional Method 4.9 0.4 4.1 5.8 4.4 0.3 3.8 5.2 3.9 0.4 3.3 4.7 2.1 0.3 1.6 2.7 1.8 0.3 1.3 2.4 1.2 0.1 1.0 1.6 1.0 0.1 N 3,871 4,451 5,637 4,400 5,471 6,438 8,210 
84 

Appendix Table 12. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Benin 2006 and 2011-12 surveys

 Current-status data from 2006 Calendar data from 2011-12 

Women ages 15-43 at time of survey Women ages 15-43 in September 2006 

% SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 82.3 0.5 81.4 83.2 93.1 0.4 92.3 93.8

Pill 1.4 0.1 1.2 1.6 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.7

IUD 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2

Injections 1.5 0.1 1.3 1.7 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.8

Male Condom 2.8 0.2 2.5 3.1 0.8 0.1 0.6 1.1

Sterilization 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

Periodic Abstinence 7.4 0.3 6.9 8.0 1.2 0.2 1.0 1.6

Withdrawal 2.9 0.2 2.6 3.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.4

Implant 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3

LAM 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Other Traditional Methods 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.3

Other Modern Methods 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6

Missing/Unknown if Using 2.3 0.2 1.9 2.8

Any Method, Including Missing 17.7 0.5 16.8 18.6 6.9 0.4 6.2 7.7

Any Method, Excluding Missing 4.6 0.3 4.1 5.2

Any Modern Method 6.7 0.3 6.2 7.2 2.7 0.2 2.3 3.1

Any Traditional Method 10.5 0.4 9.9 11.3 1.7 0.2 1.4 2.1

N 16,217 13,346 

Appendix Table 13. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Ghana 2003 and 2008 surveys

 Current-status data from 2003 Calendar data from 2008 

Women ages 15-43 at time of survey Women ages 15-43 in September 2003 

% SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 78.9 0.8 77.3 80.4 88.3 0.6 87.0 89.5 

Pill 4.3 0.4 3.6 5.1 2.2 0.3 1.7 2.9

IUD 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.6

Injections 3.7 0.3 3.2 4.4 2.4 0.3 1.9 3.1

Male Condom 4.8 0.4 4.1 5.6 1.7 0.2 1.3 2.2

Sterilization 0.9 0.2 0.6 1.2 0.7 0.1 0.5 1.0

Periodic Abstinence 4.2 0.4 3.5 5.1 3.0 0.3 2.4 3.7

Withdrawal 0.8 0.1 0.6 1.1 0.8 0.2 0.5 1.1

Implant 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.7

LAM 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4

Other Traditional Methods 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4

Other Modern Methods 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3

Any Method 21.1 0.8 19.6 22.7 11.7 0.6 10.5 13.0

Any Modern Method 15.0 0.7 13.7 16.3 7.5 0.5 6.5 8.6

Any Traditional Method 5.5 0.5 4.7 6.5 3.9 0.4 3.3 4.7

N 5,136 3,829 

Appendix Table 14. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Mali 2006 and 2012-13 surveys

 Current-status data from 2006 Calendar data from 2012-13 

Women ages 15-43 at time of survey Women ages 15-43 in January 2007 

% SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 92.2 0.5 91.2 93.1 98.5 0.2 98.2 98.8

Pill 2.7 0.2 2.3 3.2 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6

IUD 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Injections 2.3 0.2 2.0 2.7 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.8

Male Condom 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Sterilization 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Periodic Abstinence 0.7 0.1 0.5 1.0

Withdrawal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Implant 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2

LAM 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Other Traditional Methods 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2

Other Modern Methods 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2

Missing/Unknown if Using 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3

Any Method, Including Missing 7.8 0.5 6.9 8.8 1.5 0.2 1.2 1.8

Any Method, Excluding Missing 1.2 0.2 1.0 1.6

Any Modern Method 6.4 0.4 5.6 7.2 1.0 0.2 0.8 1.4

Any Traditional Method 1.3 0.2 1.0 1.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2

N 13,276 7,932 
85 

Appendix Table 15. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Nigeria 2003, 2008, and 2013 surveys

 Current-status data from 2003 Calendar data from 2008 Current-status data from 2008 Calendar data from 2013 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

May 2003 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

August 2008 

% SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 86.3 0.7 84.7 87.7 92.0 0.3 91.3 92.6 84.1 0.4 83.2 84.9 91.9 0.3 91.3 92.6 

Pill 2.1 0.2 1.6 2.6 0.8 0.1 0.6 0.9 1.6 0.1 1.4 1.8 1.1 0.1 0.9 1.2 

IUD 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.6 

Injections 1.6 0.2 1.2 2.0 0.9 0.1 0.8 1.0 2.0 0.1 1.8 2.2 1.2 0.1 1.0 1.4 

Male Condom 3.6 0.3 3.0 4.4 1.9 0.1 1.7 2.2 5.1 0.2 4.7 5.5 1.9 0.1 1.6 2.1 

Sterilization 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 

Periodic Abstinence 2.3 0.3 1.7 3.0 1.6 0.1 1.4 1.8 2.1 0.1 1.9 2.4 1.4 0.1 1.2 1.7 

Withdrawal 1.3 0.2 0.9 1.7 1.0 0.1 0.8 1.2 1.9 0.1 1.6 2.1 1.0 0.1 0.8 1.2 

Implant 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 

LAM 1.1 0.2 0.8 1.4 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.6 1.2 0.1 1.0 1.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.3 

Other Traditional Methods 1.0 0.2 0.7 1.3 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.9 1.2 0.1 1.0 1.4 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.4 

Other Modern Methods 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.3 

Any Method 13.7 0.7 12.4 15.3 8.0 0.3 7.4 8.7 15.9 0.4 15.1 16.8 8.1 0.3 7.4 8.7 

Any Modern Method 9.2 0.5 8.3 10.2 4.7 0.2 4.3 5.1 10.8 0.3 10.2 11.4 5.3 0.2 4.9 5.8 

Any Traditional Method 4.5 0.5 3.7 5.5 3.3 0.2 2.9 3.8 5.1 0.2 4.7 5.6 2.7 0.2 2.4 3.0 

N 6,976 25,992 30,178 30,499 

Appendix Table 16. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Niger 2006 and 2012 surveys

 Current-status data from 2006 Calendar data from 2012 

Women ages 15-43 at time of survey Women ages 15-43 in January 2007 

% SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 89.9 0.6 88.6 91.1 95.5 0.3 94.8 96.1 

Pill 2.8 0.3 2.3 3.3 2.0 0.2 1.7 2.4 

IUD 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 

Injections 1.3 0.2 1.0 1.7 0.7 0.1 0.5 1.0 

Male Condom 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 

Sterilization 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 

Periodic Abstinence 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 

Withdrawal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 

Implant 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 

LAM 4.2 0.5 3.3 5.4 1.1 0.2 0.8 1.4 

Other Traditional Methods 1.3 0.2 1.0 1.7 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.7 

Other Modern Methods 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 

Any Method 10.1 0.6 8.9 11.4 4.5 0.3 3.9 5.2 

Any Modern Method 8.7 0.6 7.6 9.8 3.9 0.3 3.4 4.6 

Any Traditional Method 1.4 0.2 1.1 1.8 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.7 

N 8,498 9,003 

Appendix Table 17. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Sierra Leone 2008 and 2013 surveys

 Current-status data from 2008 Calendar data from 2013 

Women ages 15-43 at time of survey Women ages 15-43 in May 2008 

% SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 89.5 0.6 88.3 90.6 94.6 0.6 93.2 95.7 

Pill 3.1 0.3 2.7 3.7 1.8 0.3 1.3 2.5 

IUD 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 

Injections 3.2 0.3 2.6 3.9 1.7 0.2 1.4 2.1 

Male Condom 1.2 0.1 0.9 1.5 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.9 

Sterilization 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 

Periodic Abstinence 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 

Withdrawal 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 

Implant 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 

LAM 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 

Other Traditional Methods 1.2 0.2 0.9 1.7 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 

Other Modern Methods 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 

Any Method 10.5 0.6 9.4 11.7 5.4 0.6 4.3 6.8 

Any Modern Method 8.5 0.5 7.6 9.6 4.6 0.5 3.7 5.7 

Any Traditional Method 2.0 0.2 1.6 2.5 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.9 

N 6,774 12,414 
86

Appendix Table 18. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Senegal 2005, 2010-11, 2012-13, and 2014 surveys

Current-status data from 

2005 

Calendar data from 

2010-11 

Current-status data from 

2010-11 

Calendar data from 

2012-13 

Current-status data from 

2010-11 

Calendar data from 

2014 

Current-sta

20

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

April 2005 

Women ages 15-43 at 

time of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

January 2011 

Women ages 15-43 at 

time of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

January 2011 

Women a

time o

% SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE 

Not using 91.6 0.4 90.8 92.3 96.2 0.3 95.7 96.7 90.5 0.4 89.7 91.2 91.4 0.5 90.3 92.3 90.5 0.4 89.7 91.2 92.1 0.6 90.8 93.2 87.4 0.7 

Pill 2.5 0.2 2.2 2.9 1.2 0.2 0.9 1.6 2.9 0.2 2.5 3.4 2.9 0.4 2.3 3.8 2.9 0.2 2.5 3.4 2.7 0.3 2.2 3.4 3.5 0.4 IUD 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.2 Injections 2.3 0.2 2.0 2.7 1.0 0.1 0.8 1.4 3.7 0.2 3.3 4.1 2.9 0.2 2.5 3.4 3.7 0.2 3.3 4.1 3.0 0.5 2.2 4.1 4.4 0.4 Male Condom 1.4 0.1 1.1 1.7 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.9 0.7 0.2 0.4 1.2 0.7 0.1 Sterilization 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 Periodic 

Abstinence 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.1 

Withdrawal 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Implant 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.9 0.1 0.7 1.2 0.8 0.1 0.6 1.2 0.9 0.1 0.7 1.2 0.7 0.1 0.5 1.0 2.0 0.3 LAM 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 Other Traditional 

Methods 

0.5 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.1 

Other Modern 

Methods 

0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 

Any Method 8.4 0.4 7.7 9.2 3.8 0.3 3.3 4.3 9.5 0.4 8.8 10.3 8.6 0.5 7.7 9.7 9.5 0.4 8.8 10.3 7.9 0.6 6.8 9.2 12.6 0.7 Any Modern 

Method 7.1 0.4 6.4 7.8 3.0 0.2 2.6 3.5 7.9 0.3 7.3 8.6 7.0 0.5 6.2 8.0 7.9 0.3 7.3 8.6 6.8 0.5 5.8 7.9 9.5 0.6 

Any Traditional 

Method 

1.0 0.1 0.8 1.2 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.5 1.0 0.8 0.1 0.6 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.8 1.1 0.1 

N 13,376 11,606 14,525 7,420 14,525 7,014 7,950 
87 

Appendix Table 19. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Armenia 2000, 2005, and 2010 

surveys 

 Current-status data from 2000 Calendar data from 2005 Current-status data from 2005 Calendar data from 2010 

Women ages 15-43 at time of 

survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

October 2000 

Women ages 15-43 at time of 

survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

October 2005 

 % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 59.9 0.8 58.4 61.4 65.9 1.0 63.8 67.9 65.9 0.9 64.1 67.6 67.7 1.0 65.7 69.6 

Pill 0.8 0.1 0.6 1.1 0.9 0.2 0.6 1.2 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.1 0.4 1.0 

IUD 6.3 0.4 5.6 7.2 5.0 0.4 4.4 5.8 6.5 0.5 5.6 7.4 5.8 0.4 5.0 6.8 

Injections 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 

Male Condom 4.9 0.3 4.2 5.6 5.0 0.4 4.2 5.9 5.9 0.5 5.1 6.8 8.1 0.8 6.6 9.9 

Sterilization 1.4 0.2 1.1 1.7 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 

Periodic Abstinence 2.9 0.2 2.5 3.5 2.4 0.3 1.9 3.0 2.1 0.3 1.7 2.7 1.3 0.2 1.0 1.7 

Withdrawal 21.2 0.6 20.0 22.5 19.1 0.7 17.7 20.6 17.1 0.7 15.8 18.5 15.5 0.6 14.3 16.7 

Implant 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 

LAM 1.4 0.2 1.1 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 

Other Traditional Methods 0.8 0.1 0.6 1.2 1.2 0.2 0.9 1.5 1.2 0.2 0.9 1.7 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.6 

Other Modern Methods 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.6 

Any Method 40.1 0.8 38.6 41.6 34.1 1.0 32.1 36.2 34.1 0.9 32.4 35.9 32.3 1.0 30.4 34.3 

Any Modern Method 15.0 0.6 13.9 16.2 11.5 0.6 10.3 12.8 13.7 0.6 12.5 14.9 15.2 0.9 13.6 17.0 

Any Traditional Method 25.0 0.7 23.7 26.3 22.7 0.8 21.1 24.4 20.5 0.8 19.0 22.0 17.1 0.6 15.9 18.4 

N 5,437 5,300 5,404 4,905 
88

Appendix Table 20. Comparison of calendar and current status data for currently married women for Egypt 1988, 1992, 2005, 2008, and 2014 surveys 

Current-status data 

from 1988 

Calendar data 

from 1992 

Current-status data 

from 1992 

Calendar data 

from 1995 

Current-status data 

from 1995 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

November 1988 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

November 1992 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

% SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 60.7 1.1 58.5 62.9 61.6 0.9 59.7 63.4 51.7 1.0 49.7 53.6 52.9 0.8 51.3 54.5 50.3 0.8 48.8 51.8 4

Pill 15.9 0.6 14.8 17.2 14.8 0.5 13.8 15.9 13.6 0.5 12.6 14.6 13.2 0.4 12.4 14.1 10.8 0.4 10.0 11.6 1IUD 16.8 0.7 15.4 18.3 17.9 0.7 16.5 19.4 29.4 0.8 27.9 31.0 28.9 0.8 27.4 30.5 31.8 0.7 30.4 33.3 3Injections 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.5 1.0 2.6 0.2 2.2 3.0 2Male Condom 2.5 0.2 2.1 3.0 1.8 0.2 1.5 2.3 1.7 0.2 1.4 2.1 1.2 0.1 0.9 1.4 1.3 0.1 1.0 1.6 0Sterilization 1.2 0.1 1.0 1.5 0.8 0.1 0.6 1.1 0.8 0.1 0.6 1.1 0.8 0.1 0.6 1.0 0.9 0.1 0.7 1.2 1Periodic Abstinence 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.1 0.6 1.0 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.8 0Withdrawal 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 0Implant 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0Other Traditional Methods 1.4 0.2 1.1 1.7 1.3 0.2 0.9 1.7 1.0 0.2 0.7 1.4 1.2 0.1 0.9 1.5 1.2 0.1 0.9 1.5 1Other Modern Methods 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0Any Method 39.3 1.1 37.1 41.5 38.4 0.9 36.6 40.3 48.3 1.0 46.4 50.3 47.1 0.8 45.5 48.7 49.7 0.8 48.2 51.2 5Any Modern Method 36.9 1.1 34.8 39.1 35.9 0.9 34.2 37.7 46.3 1.0 44.4 48.2 45.0 0.8 43.4 46.6 47.5 0.8 45.9 49.0 4Any Traditional Method 2.3 0.2 2.0 2.8 2.5 0.2 2.1 3.0 2.0 0.2 1.7 2.5 2.1 0.2 1.8 2.5 2.2 0.2 1.9 2.6 1N 7,260 7,619 8,051 11,387 11,881 11

Current-status data 

from 2000 

Calendar data 

from 2003 

Current-status data 

from 2000 

Calendar data 

from 2005 

Current-status data 

from 2003 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

March 2000 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

March 2000 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

% SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % 

Not using 41.9 0.6 40.6 43.1 39.8 0.7 38.4 41.3 41.9 0.6 40.6 43.1 44.5 0.6 43.3 45.7 38.3 0.7 36.9 39.7 4

Pill 9.9 0.4 9.3 10.7 10.6 0.4 9.7 11.5 9.9 0.4 9.3 10.7 9.6 0.3 9.0 10.3 9.7 0.4 8.9 10.5 1IUD 37.4 0.6 36.2 38.6 39.1 0.8 37.5 40.7 37.4 0.6 36.2 38.6 36.0 0.7 34.8 37.3 38.1 0.8 36.6 39.7 3Injections 6.3 0.3 5.8 6.9 5.7 0.3 5.1 6.4 6.3 0.3 5.8 6.9 5.6 0.3 5.2 6.2 8.1 0.4 7.4 8.9 7Male Condom 0.8 0.1 0.7 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.1 0.7 1.0 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.1 0.6 1.1 0Sterilization 1.0 0.1 0.9 1.3 0.7 0.1 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.1 0.9 1.3 0.9 0.1 0.7 1.1 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.8 0Periodic Abstinence 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.9 0Withdrawal 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 0Implant 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.9 0.1 0.7 1.3 0Other Traditional Methods 1.5 0.1 1.3 1.8 2.5 0.2 2.1 3.0 1.5 0.1 1.3 1.8 1.4 0.1 1.2 1.7 2.5 0.2 2.1 3.0 1Other Modern Methods 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0Any Method 58.1 0.6 56.9 59.4 60.1 0.7 58.7 61.6 58.1 0.6 56.9 59.4 55.5 0.6 54.2 56.7 61.7 0.7 60.3 63.1 5Any Modern Method 55.6 0.6 54.4 56.9 56.6 0.7 55.1 58.1 55.6 0.6 54.4 56.9 53.0 0.6 51.7 54.2 57.3 0.7 55.8 58.7 5Any Traditional Method 2.2 0.2 2.0 2.6 3.3 0.3 2.8 3.8 2.2 0.2 2.0 2.6 2.2 0.2 1.9 2.5 3.5 0.2 3.0 4.0 2N 12,239 6,866 12,239 13,913 7,225 14
89

Appendix Table 20. − Continued

Current-status data 

from 2003 

Calendar data 

from 2008 

Current-status data 

from 2005 

Calendar data 

from 2008 

Current-status data 

from 2008 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

June 2003 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

 May 2005 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

% SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % 

Not using 38.3 0.7 36.9 39.7 38.7 0.5 37.7 39.8 39.4 0.6 38.2 40.5 37.2 0.5 36.2 38.2 38.8 0.5 37.8 39.8 41

Pill 9.7 0.4 8.9 10.5 10.3 0.3 9.7 11.0 10.3 0.3 9.7 11.0 10.9 0.3 10.2 11.6 12.5 0.3 11.8 13.2 13IUD 38.1 0.8 36.6 39.7 39.7 0.6 38.6 40.8 37.6 0.6 36.3 38.8 39.7 0.6 38.6 40.9 36.4 0.6 35.3 37.5 33Injections 8.1 0.4 7.4 8.9 7.8 0.3 7.2 8.5 7.4 0.3 6.9 8.0 7.9 0.3 7.2 8.5 7.7 0.3 7.1 8.3 8.Male Condom 0.8 0.1 0.6 1.1 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.1 0.7 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.Sterilization 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.1 0.6 1.0 0.9 0.1 0.7 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.1 0.6 0.9 0.Periodic Abstinence 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.Withdrawal 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.Implant 0.9 0.1 0.7 1.3 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.9 0.8 0.1 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.1 0.7 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.Other Traditional Methods 2.5 0.2 2.1 3.0 1.0 0.1 0.8 1.2 1.9 0.2 1.6 2.2 1.8 0.1 1.6 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.Other Modern Methods 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.3 0.1 2.0 2.6 0.0 Any Method 61.7 0.7 60.3 63.1 61.3 0.5 60.2 62.3 60.6 0.6 59.5 61.8 62.8 0.5 61.8 63.8 61.2 0.5 60.2 62.2 58Any Modern Method 57.3 0.7 55.8 58.7 59.1 0.5 58.0 60.1 57.0 0.6 55.8 58.2 59.6 0.5 58.5 60.6 60.1 0.5 59.1 61.2 57Any Traditional Method 3.5 0.2 3.0 4.0 1.5 0.1 1.3 1.8 2.8 0.2 2.4 3.1 2.4 0.2 2.1 2.8 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.8 0.N 7,225 11,657 15,582 12,116 13,206 15,5
90

Appendix Table 21. Comparison of calendar and current status data for ever-married women in Jordan 1997, 2002, 2007, 2009, an

Current-status data from 1997 Calendar data from 2002 Current-status data from 2002 Calendar data from 2007 Current-status data from 200

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

July 1997 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

August 2002 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

% SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 48.7 0.8 47.1 50.4 51.0 1.0 49.1 52.9 45.4 0.9 43.7 47.2 52.7 0.9 50.9 54.6 44.7 0.9 43.0 46

Pill 6.8 0.4 6.0 7.6 7.9 0.5 7.0 8.9 7.8 0.5 6.9 8.8 8.0 0.5 7.1 9.0 8.9 0.5 8.0 9IUD 23.4 0.7 22.2 24.7 23.0 0.9 21.3 24.8 23.5 0.9 21.8 25.3 21.1 0.7 19.7 22.6 21.7 0.7 20.4 23Injections 0.8 0.1 0.6 1.1 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.9 0.2 0.7 1.3 0.8 0.1 0.5 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.5 1Male Condom 2.5 0.2 2.0 3.0 1.8 0.3 1.4 2.4 3.4 0.3 2.9 4.0 2.5 0.3 2.1 3.2 5.6 0.4 4.9 6Sterilization 2.9 0.3 2.4 3.5 2.0 0.2 1.6 2.5 1.8 0.2 1.4 2.3 2.4 0.3 2.0 3.0 2.1 0.2 1.7 2Periodic Abstinence 4.4 0.3 3.7 5.1 4.4 0.4 3.7 5.2 4.8 0.4 4.1 5.6 3.2 0.3 2.6 3.9 3.7 0.3 3.2 4Withdrawal 7.4 0.4 6.7 8.3 6.4 0.4 5.6 7.2 9.1 0.5 8.3 10.1 7.2 0.5 6.3 8.1 10.8 0.5 9.9 11Implant 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0LAM 2.4 0.2 2.0 2.9 2.9 0.2 2.4 3.4 1.9 0.3 1.4 2.4 1.5 0.2 1.2 2Other Traditional 

Methods 

2.5 0.2 2.1 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 

Other Modern 

Methods 

0.5 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0

Any Method 51.3 0.8 49.6 52.9 49.0 1.0 47.1 50.9 54.6 0.9 52.8 56.3 47.3 0.9 45.4 49.1 55.4 0.9 53.7 57Any Modern Method 36.8 0.8 35.3 38.4 38.2 0.9 36.4 40.0 40.6 0.9 38.8 42.3 36.9 0.9 35.2 38.6 40.8 0.8 39.2 42Any Traditional 

Method 

14.3 0.6 13.3 15.4 10.8 0.5 9.8 11.8 13.9 0.6 12.8 15.1 10.4 0.5 9.4 11.5 14.5 0.5 13.5 15

N 4,829 4,649 5,189 8,492 9,315 

Current-status data from 2007 Calendar data from 2012 Current-status data from 2009 Calendar data from 2012 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

August 2007 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

November 2009 

% SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 44.7 0.9 43.0 46.3 48.6 1.0 46.6 50.6 42.3 0.9 40.6 44.0 43.5 0.9 41.6 45.3 

Pill 8.9 0.5 8.0 9.9 8.4 0.5 7.5 9.5 8.9 0.5 8.0 9.9 9.2 0.5 8.2 10.2 IUD 21.7 0.7 20.4 23.0 20.6 0.8 19.0 22.2 21.7 0.8 20.1 23.4 21.3 0.8 19.8 23.0 Injections 0.7 0.1 0.5 1.0 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.9 0.8 0.1 0.6 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.5 1.0 Male Condom 5.6 0.4 4.9 6.4 4.3 0.4 3.6 5.2 6.4 0.4 5.7 7.2 5.8 0.5 4.9 6.7 Sterilization 2.1 0.2 1.7 2.7 1.4 0.3 1.0 2.1 1.5 0.2 1.1 2.0 1.3 0.3 0.9 1.9 Periodic Abstinence 3.7 0.3 3.2 4.4 3.3 0.5 2.5 4.4 2.9 0.3 2.3 3.6 3.1 0.4 2.4 3.9 Withdrawal 10.8 0.5 9.9 11.8 9.9 0.5 8.9 11.0 13.3 0.6 12.1 14.6 11.9 0.6 10.7 13.1 Implant 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 LAM 1.5 0.2 1.2 2.0 1.9 0.2 1.5 2.5 1.7 0.2 1.3 2.1 1.7 0.2 1.3 2.1 Other Traditional 

Methods 

0.0 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.5 1.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.7 1.5 0.2 1.2 2.0 

Other Modern 

Methods 

0.3 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 

Any Method 55.4 0.9 53.7 57.0 51.4 1.0 49.4 53.4 57.7 0.9 56.0 59.4 56.5 0.9 54.7 58.4 Any Modern Method 40.8 0.8 39.2 42.5 37.4 0.9 35.7 39.2 41.1 0.9 39.2 42.9 40.1 0.8 38.6 41.6 Any Traditional 

Method 

14.5 0.5 13.5 15.6 14.0 0.7 12.7 15.3 16.6 0.8 15.1 18.1 16.4 0.7 15.1 17.8 

N 9,315 8,810 8,523 9,185 
91 

Appendix Table 22. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Kazakhstan 1995 and 1999 surveys

 Current-status data from 1995 Calendar data from 1999 

Women ages 15-43 at time of survey Women ages 15-43 in July 1995 

% SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 55.5 1.2 53.2 57.8 50.8 1.1 48.8 52.9 

Pill 1.7 0.3 1.2 2.2 2.0 0.4 1.4 2.9 

IUD 29.1 0.9 27.3 31.0 33.6 0.9 31.9 35.3 

Injections 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 

Male Condom 3.5 0.4 2.8 4.4 3.6 0.4 3.0 4.5 

Sterilization 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.8 1.5 0.3 1.1 2.1 

Periodic Abstinence 4.9 0.5 4.0 6.0 3.4 0.4 2.8 4.2 

Withdrawal 2.5 0.5 1.7 3.6 1.3 0.2 1.0 1.9 

Other Traditional Methods 2.1 0.3 1.6 2.8 2.5 0.3 2.0 3.1 

Other Modern Methods 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 

Any Method 44.5 1.2 42.2 46.8 48.1 1.1 46.0 50.3 

Any Modern Method 35.0 1.0 33.2 37.0 40.9 1.0 39.0 42.8 

Any Traditional Method 9.4 0.9 7.8 11.3 7.2 0.5 6.3 8.3 

N 3,322 3,972 

Appendix Table 23. Comparison of calendar and current status data for ever-married women in Morocco 1987 

and 1992 surveys 

 Current-status data from 1987 Calendar data from 1992 

Women ages 15-43 at time of survey Women ages 15-43 in June 1987 

% SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 66.5 1.3 64.0 68.9 70.3 1.2 67.9 72.7 

Pill 22.2 1.0 20.3 24.2 20.0 1.0 18.1 22.0 

IUD 2.6 0.3 2.1 3.2 2.6 0.3 2.1 3.3 

Injections 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 

Male Condom 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.7 

Sterilization 1.6 0.2 1.3 2.0 1.8 0.2 1.4 2.2 

Periodic Abstinence 2.0 0.3 1.6 2.6 2.5 0.3 2.0 3.2 

Withdrawal 2.9 0.4 2.2 3.7 1.8 0.3 1.3 2.4 

Other Traditional Methods 1.2 0.2 0.9 1.5 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.6 

Other Modern Methods 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 

Any Method 33.4 1.3 31.0 35.9 29.7 1.2 27.3 32.1 

Any Modern Method 27.3 1.1 25.2 29.6 25.0 1.1 23.0 27.2 

Any Traditional Method 6.1 0.5 5.2 7.1 4.6 0.4 3.8 5.6 

N 5,094 4,413 

Appendix Table 24. Comparison of calendar and current status data for currently married women for Turkey 

1993, 1998, and 2003 surveys 

 Current-status data from 1993 Calendar data from 1998 Current-status data from 1998 Calendar data from 2003 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

September 1993 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

September 1998 

% SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 34.9 1.0 33.0 36.8 38.0 1.0 36.2 40.0 33.3 0.8 31.7 34.9 30.8 0.8 29.3 32.4 

Pill 5.3 0.4 4.6 6.1 5.9 0.4 5.1 6.8 4.7 0.4 4.0 5.6 5.3 0.3 4.7 6.0 

IUD 20.3 0.7 18.9 21.7 20.7 0.8 19.2 22.3 21.5 0.7 20.1 23.0 22.6 0.7 21.2 24.0 

Injections 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 

Male Condom 7.0 0.4 6.2 7.8 5.9 0.4 5.1 6.7 9.0 0.5 8.0 10.1 8.6 0.6 7.6 9.8 

Sterilization 2.7 0.2 2.3 3.1 2.4 0.3 1.9 2.9 4.0 0.3 3.4 4.7 3.6 0.3 3.1 4.2 

Periodic Abstinence 1.0 0.2 0.7 1.4 1.3 0.2 0.9 1.8 0.9 0.2 0.6 1.3 1.3 0.2 1.0 1.7 

Withdrawal 26.9 0.8 25.3 28.5 24.8 0.8 23.2 26.4 25.0 0.8 23.4 26.6 25.7 0.7 24.2 27.1 

LAM 0.8 0.1 0.6 1.1 

Other Traditional Methods 0.7 0.1 0.5 1.0 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.7 

Other Modern Methods 1.2 0.1 1.0 1.6 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.8 

Any Method 65.1 1.0 63.2 67.0 62.0 1.0 60.0 63.8 66.7 0.8 65.1 68.3 69.2 0.8 67.6 70.7 

Any Modern Method 36.5 0.8 34.9 38.2 35.4 1.0 33.5 37.3 40.4 0.9 38.5 42.2 41.7 0.9 40.0 43.5 

Any Traditional Method 28.6 0.8 27.0 30.2 26.6 0.8 25.0 28.2 26.4 0.8 24.8 28.0 27.4 0.8 26.0 28.9 

N 5,528 4,696 5,131 6,241 
92

Appendix Table 25. Comparison of calendar and current status data for ever-married women in Bangladesh 1993-94, 1996-97, 1

2011 surveys 

Current-status data from 1993-94 Calendar data from 1996-97 Current-status data from 1993-94 Calendar data from 1999-00 Current-status data from 19

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

January 1994 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

April 1994 

Women ages 15-43 at tim

of survey 

% SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 56.4 0.8 54.9 58.0 59.8 0.8 58.2 61.3 56.4 0.8 54.9 58.0 59.2 0.9 57.5 61.0 52.0 0.9 50.3 

Pill 17.4 0.6 16.3 18.6 17.6 0.6 16.5 18.7 17.4 0.6 16.3 18.6 18.0 0.7 16.8 19.4 21.0 0.7 19.8 IUD 2.2 0.2 1.9 2.7 1.7 0.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 0.2 1.9 2.7 1.5 0.2 1.2 1.9 1.7 0.2 1.4 Injections 4.5 0.3 3.9 5.2 3.7 0.3 3.2 4.3 4.5 0.3 3.9 5.2 4.1 0.3 3.5 4.8 6.3 0.4 5.6 Male Condom 3.0 0.2 2.6 3.4 2.3 0.2 1.9 2.8 3.0 0.2 2.6 3.4 2.4 0.2 2.0 2.8 3.8 0.3 3.3 Sterilization 8.8 0.5 7.9 9.7 8.9 0.5 8.0 10.0 8.8 0.5 7.9 9.7 7.9 0.5 7.1 8.9 7.8 0.5 7.0 Periodic Abstinence 4.4 0.3 3.9 5.0 4.3 0.3 3.8 4.8 4.4 0.3 3.9 5.0 4.1 0.3 3.6 4.7 4.7 0.3 4.1 Withdrawal 2.3 0.2 2.0 2.7 1.3 0.2 1.0 1.6 2.3 0.2 2.0 2.7 2.1 0.2 1.7 2.4 1.8 0.2 1.5 Implant 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 LAM Other Traditional Methods 0.9 0.1 0.8 1.2 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.9 0.1 0.8 1.2 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.5 Other Modern Methods 0.0 0.0 0.0 Any Method 43.6 0.8 42.0 45.1 40.2 0.8 38.7 41.8 43.6 0.8 42.0 45.1 40.7 0.9 39.0 42.5 48.0 0.9 46.3 Any Modern Method 35.9 0.8 34.4 37.4 34.2 0.8 32.7 35.7 35.9 0.8 34.4 37.4 34.0 0.9 32.3 35.7 40.7 0.8 39.1 Any Traditional Method 7.7 0.4 7.1 8.4 6.0 0.3 5.4 6.7 7.7 0.4 7.1 8.4 6.7 0.4 6.0 7.5 7.2 0.4 6.5 N 8,693 7,490 8,693 7,807 8,167 

Current-status data from 1999-00 Calendar data from 2004 Current-status data from 2004 Calendar data from 2007 Current-status data from 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

January 2000 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

March 2004 

Women ages 15-43 at ti

of survey 

% SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 48.4 0.8 46.8 49.9 53.8 0.9 52.1 55.5 44.0 0.7 42.6 45.4 51.7 0.8 50.2 53.2 45.9 0.8 44.3 

Pill 23.2 0.7 21.9 24.5 22.8 0.6 21.6 24.1 26.5 0.6 25.3 27.8 24.5 0.6 23.3 25.8 28.8 0.7 27.4 IUD 1.2 0.1 1.0 1.5 1.0 0.1 0.8 1.4 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.1 0.6 1.1 0.9 0.1 0.7 Injections 7.4 0.4 6.5 8.3 6.0 0.4 5.3 6.8 9.8 0.5 8.8 10.8 9.0 0.5 8.1 10.1 7.1 0.4 6.3 Male Condom 4.2 0.3 3.7 4.8 2.3 0.2 1.9 2.8 4.1 0.3 3.6 4.7 3.1 0.3 2.7 3.7 4.6 0.3 4.0 Sterilization 5.8 0.4 5.2 6.6 6.0 0.4 5.2 6.8 4.5 0.3 3.9 5.2 4.2 0.3 3.6 4.8 4.5 0.3 3.9 Periodic Abstinence 4.7 0.3 4.2 5.3 5.4 0.3 4.8 6.0 5.8 0.3 5.2 6.5 3.8 0.2 3.4 4.3 4.3 0.3 3.8 Withdrawal 3.8 0.2 3.4 4.3 1.8 0.2 1.5 2.2 3.2 0.2 2.8 3.6 1.6 0.2 1.3 2.0 2.7 0.2 2.4 Implant 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.1 0.6 1.1 0.8 0.1 0.6 1.1 0.8 0.1 0.6 LAM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 

Other Traditional Methods 0.8 0.1 0.6 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.3 Other Modern Methods Any Method 51.7 0.8 50.1 53.2 46.2 0.9 44.5 47.9 56.0 0.7 54.6 57.4 48.3 0.8 46.8 49.8 54.2 0.8 52.6 Any Modern Method 41.9 0.8 40.3 43.5 38.1 0.8 36.5 39.8 45.5 0.7 44.1 47.0 41.7 0.8 40.2 43.2 45.9 0.8 44.4 Any Traditional Method 9.3 0.4 8.5 10.2 7.5 0.4 6.8 8.3 9.6 0.4 8.9 10.4 5.8 0.3 5.2 6.4 7.5 0.4 6.8 N 9,291 8,975 10,029 8,902 9,735 
93 

Appendix Table 26. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Cambodia 2005 and 2010 surveys

 Current-status data from 2005 Calendar data from 2010 

Women ages 15-43 at time of survey Women ages 15-43 in December 2005 

% SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 75.2 0.5 74.3 76.1 81.5 0.5 80.5 82.4 

Pill 7.1 0.3 6.6 7.7 6.5 0.3 5.9 7.2 

IUD 1.1 0.1 0.8 1.4 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.9 

Injections 5.0 0.3 4.5 5.6 3.8 0.2 3.3 4.3 

Male Condom 1.9 0.1 1.6 2.1 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.9 

Sterilization 0.9 0.1 0.7 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.9 

Periodic Abstinence 2.6 0.2 2.3 2.9 1.6 0.2 1.3 1.9 

Withdrawal 5.0 0.2 4.6 5.5 4.4 0.3 3.9 4.9 

Implant 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 

LAM 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 

Other Traditional Methods 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 

Other Modern Methods 1.0 0.1 0.8 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Any Method 24.8 0.5 23.9 25.7 18.5 0.5 17.6 19.4 

Any Modern Method 17.0 0.4 16.2 17.9 12.4 0.4 11.6 13.2 

Any Traditional Method 7.7 0.3 7.1 8.2 6.0 0.3 5.5 6.6 

N 14,705 14,692 
94

Appendix Table 27. Comparison of calendar and current status data for ever-married women in Indonesia 1987, 1991, 1994, 1997, 2

surveys 

Current-status data from 1987 Calendar data from 1991 Current-status data from 1991 Calendar data from 1994 Current-status data from 1991 Calendar data fro

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

October 1987 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

June 1991 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15

January 19

% SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE 

Not using 52.5 1.1 50.3 54.7 60.7 0.7 59.3 62.2 50.7 0.8 49.2 52.2 55.1 0.7 53.6 56.5 50.7 0.8 49.2 52.2 54.9 0.7 53

Pill 16.5 0.8 14.9 18.2 12.8 0.5 11.9 13.8 14.9 0.5 13.9 16.0 14.3 0.5 13.4 15.4 14.9 0.5 13.9 16.0 13.5 0.5 12IUD 12.8 0.9 11.1 14.8 11.8 0.6 10.7 13.1 12.8 0.6 11.7 14.1 10.8 0.5 9.8 11.9 12.8 0.6 11.7 14.1 9.6 0.5 8.Injections 9.7 0.6 8.6 10.9 8.7 0.4 8.0 9.5 12.3 0.5 11.4 13.2 10.8 0.5 9.8 11.7 12.3 0.5 11.4 13.2 13.3 0.5 12Male Condom 1.5 0.2 1.2 1.9 0.8 0.1 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.1 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.9 0.8 0.1 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.1 0.Sterilization 2.8 0.3 2.3 3.5 2.3 0.2 2.0 2.7 2.9 0.2 2.5 3.3 2.8 0.2 2.4 3.3 2.9 0.2 2.5 3.3 2.7 0.2 2.Periodic Abstinence 1.2 0.1 0.9 1.4 0.9 0.1 0.7 1.2 1.0 0.1 0.9 1.3 1.0 0.1 0.9 1.2 1.0 0.1 0.9 1.3 1.0 0.1 0.Withdrawal 1.2 0.2 0.9 1.6 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.1 0.Implant 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.7 3.2 0.3 2.7 3.8 3.1 0.3 2.6 3.6 3.2 0.3 2.7 3.8 3.4 0.3 2.LAM Other Traditional 

Methods 

1.4 0.2 1.1 1.8 0.8 0.1 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.1 0.

Other Modern 

Methods 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.

Any Method 47.5 1.1 45.3 49.7 39.3 0.7 37.8 40.7 49.3 0.8 47.8 50.8 44.9 0.7 43.5 46.4 49.3 0.8 47.8 50.8 45.1 0.7 43

Any Modern Method 43.4 1.1 41.1 45.6 36.5 0.7 35.0 37.9 43.7 0.8 42.1 45.2 39.4 0.7 38.0 40.9 43.7 0.8 42.1 45.2 39.4 0.7 38Any Traditional 

Method 

3.7 0.3 3.3 4.3 2.3 0.2 2.0 2.6 2.4 0.2 2.1 2.7 2.4 0.2 2.1 2.7 2.4 0.2 2.1 2.7 2.3 0.2 2.

N 10,153 18,728 19,816 23,466 19,816 22,007 

Calendar data from 1997 Current-status data from 1997 Calendar data from 2002 Current-status data from 2002 Calendar data from 2007 Current-status data 

Women ages 15-43 in 

August 1994 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

October 1997 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

December 2002 

Women ages 15-43 

of survey 

% SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE 

Not using 51.3 0.7 50.0 52.7 42.7 0.6 41.4 43.9 49.8 0.8 48.2 51.4 39.2 0.7 37.9 40.6 46.9 0.6 45.8 48.1 38.3 0.6 37.

Pill 14.0 0.5 13.0 15.0 15.8 0.5 14.8 16.9 12.8 0.5 11.8 13.9 13.6 0.5 12.6 14.6 11.0 0.4 10.2 11.8 13.5 0.4 12.IUD 8.6 0.5 7.7 9.6 7.2 0.4 6.4 8.1 6.8 0.4 6.1 7.6 5.5 0.3 4.9 6.2 5.3 0.3 4.7 6.0 4.0 0.3 3.5 Injections 15.7 0.5 14.7 16.7 22.2 0.7 21.0 23.6 20.0 0.6 18.9 21.2 29.7 0.7 28.4 31.1 26.6 0.6 25.5 27.7 34.0 0.6 32.Male Condom 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.6 1.0 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.9 1.3 0.1 1.1 Sterilization 2.6 0.2 2.3 3.0 2.7 0.2 2.4 3.2 3.5 0.3 3.0 4.1 3.1 0.3 2.6 3.7 2.6 0.3 2.2 3.2 2.2 0.2 1.8 Periodic 

Abstinence 

1.0 0.1 0.8 1.2 1.0 0.1 0.9 1.2 1.2 0.1 1.0 1.5 1.5 0.1 1.2 1.8 1.3 0.1 1.1 1.5 1.5 0.1 1.2 

Withdrawal 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.1 0.6 1.0 1.1 0.2 0.8 1.5 1.5 0.2 1.1 1.9 1.4 0.1 1.2 1.6 2.0 0.1 1.7 Implant 4.9 0.4 4.2 5.8 6.2 0.4 5.4 7.1 3.8 0.3 3.2 4.4 4.5 0.4 3.7 5.4 3.8 0.3 3.3 4.4 2.9 0.2 2.5 LAM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other Traditional 

Methods 

0.7 0.1 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.3 

Other Modern 

Methods 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Any Method 48.7 0.7 47.3 50.0 57.3 0.6 56.1 58.6 50.2 0.8 48.6 51.8 60.8 0.7 59.4 62.1 53.1 0.6 51.9 54.2 61.7 0.6 60.

Any Modern 

Method 

41.3 0.7 39.9 42.8 48.7 0.8 47.2 50.1 43.6 0.9 41.9 45.3 52.9 0.8 51.4 54.4 46.3 0.6 45.0 47.5 55.0 0.6 53.

Any Traditional 

Method 

2.4 0.2 2.1 2.7 2.5 0.2 2.2 2.8 2.8 0.2 2.4 3.3 3.4 0.3 2.9 4.0 3.0 0.2 2.7 3.3 3.8 0.2 3.4 

N 23,715 24,741 23,607 24,748 26,382 27,105 
95 

Appendix Table 28. Comparison of calendar and current status data for ever-married women in Nepal 2001, 

2006 and 2011 surveys 

 Current-status data from 2001 Calendar data from 2006 Current-status data from 2006 Calendar data from 2011 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

April 2001 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

June 2006 

% SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 62.1 1.2 59.7 64.5 62.3 1.6 59.1 65.3 53.3 2.0 49.3 57.2 57.5 1.3 55.0 60.0 

Pill 1.7 0.2 1.3 2.2 2.8 0.4 2.0 3.8 3.7 0.4 2.9 4.6 3.2 0.3 2.6 4.0

IUD 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.9 0.7 0.1 0.5 1.1

Injections 8.8 0.6 7.7 10.0 9.1 0.8 7.7 10.8 10.4 0.8 9.0 12.0 9.3 0.5 8.3 10.4

Male Condom 3.1 0.3 2.6 3.7 1.8 0.2 1.4 2.2 5.1 0.4 4.3 6.0 2.7 0.3 2.2 3.3

Sterilization 19.2 1.0 17.4 21.2 20.3 1.4 17.7 23.2 22.5 1.8 19.2 26.2 21.1 1.1 18.9 23.3

Periodic Abstinence 1.1 0.1 0.9 1.5 0.7 0.1 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.2 0.7 1.4 0.9 0.1 0.6 1.2

Withdrawal 2.6 0.3 2.1 3.1 1.8 0.2 1.4 2.4 2.6 0.3 2.2 3.2 3.7 0.4 3.0 4.5

Implant 0.7 0.2 0.4 1.1 0.8 0.2 0.5 1.2 0.7 0.1 0.5 1.0 0.8 0.1 0.5 1.1

Other Traditional Methods 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Other Modern Methods 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Any Method 37.9 1.2 35.5 40.3 37.7 1.6 34.7 40.9 46.7 2.0 42.8 50.7 42.5 1.3 40.0 45.0

Any Modern Method 33.3 1.2 31.1 35.6 34.4 1.6 31.3 37.7 42.3 2.1 38.3 46.4 37.1 1.2 34.7 39.5

Any Traditional Method 3.9 0.3 3.3 4.5 2.5 0.3 2.0 3.2 3.6 0.3 3.1 4.3 4.6 0.4 3.8 5.5

N 7,719 6,762 7,521 7,829 

Appendix Table 29. Comparison of calendar and current status data for ever-married women in Pakistan 

2006-07 and 2012-13 surveys 

 Current-status data from 2006-07 Calendar data from 2012-13 

Women ages 15-43 at time of survey Women ages 15-43 in January 2007 

% SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 72.1 0.7 70.7 73.5 78.7 0.9 76.9 80.3

Pill 2.1 0.2 1.8 2.4 1.0 0.1 0.7 1.2

IUD 2.3 0.2 2.0 2.7 1.7 0.2 1.3 2.1

Injections 2.3 0.2 2.0 2.8 1.5 0.2 1.2 1.9

Male Condom 7.0 0.4 6.3 7.8 5.5 0.4 4.7 6.3

Sterilization 6.6 0.3 5.9 7.3 6.5 0.4 5.7 7.3

Periodic Abstinence 3.3 0.3 2.7 4.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4

Withdrawal 4.0 0.3 3.4 4.7 4.4 0.3 3.8 5.1

Implant 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2

LAM 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.8

Other Traditional Methods 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2

Other Modern Methods 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Any Method 27.9 0.7 26.5 29.3 21.3 0.9 19.7 23.1

Any Modern Method 20.3 0.6 19.2 21.5 16.6 0.7 15.3 18.0

Any Traditional Method 7.4 0.4 6.7 8.3 4.7 0.3 4.1 5.4

N 8,598 9,931 

Appendix Table 30. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Philippines 1993, 1998, and 2003 

surveys 

 Current-status data from 1993 Calendar data from 1998 Current-status data from 1998 Calendar data from 2003 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

May 1993 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

March 1998 

% SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 76.0 0.4 75.1 76.9 78.4 0.5 77.3 79.4 71.2 0.5 70.1 72.3 77.2 0.5 76.3 78.1 

Pill 5.5 0.2 5.1 6.0 4.5 0.3 4.0 5.1 6.5 0.3 6.0 7.1 6.0 0.3 5.5 6.5

IUD 1.9 0.1 1.6 2.2 1.6 0.2 1.3 1.9 2.3 0.2 2.0 2.7 2.0 0.2 1.8 2.4

Injections 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 1.6 0.2 1.3 1.9 1.3 0.1 1.1 1.5

Male Condom 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.7 1.0 0.1 0.8 1.3 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.8

Sterilization 6.7 0.2 6.2 7.2 6.0 0.3 5.5 6.6 5.4 0.3 4.9 5.9 6.0 0.3 5.5 6.5

Periodic Abstinence 4.5 0.2 4.1 4.9 4.6 0.2 4.2 5.1 5.1 0.2 4.7 5.6 3.2 0.2 2.9 3.6

Withdrawal 4.5 0.2 4.1 4.9 3.5 0.2 3.1 4.0 5.4 0.2 4.9 5.8 3.3 0.2 3.0 3.7

LAM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Other Traditional Methods 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.4 0.1 1.1 1.6 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4

Other Modern Methods 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

Any Method 24.0 0.4 23.1 24.9 21.0 0.5 20.0 22.1 28.8 0.5 27.7 29.9 22.8 0.5 21.9 23.7

Any Modern Method 14.8 0.4 14.1 15.5 12.7 0.4 11.8 13.6 17.0 0.4 16.1 17.8 16.0 0.4 15.2 16.8

Any Traditional Method 9.2 0.3 8.6 9.7 8.4 0.3 7.8 9.0 11.8 0.3 11.2 12.5 6.8 0.3 6.3 7.4

N 13,625 10,847 12,544 10,691 
96 

Appendix Table 31. Comparison of calendar and current status data for currently married women for Vietnam 

1997 and 2002 surveys 

 Current-status data from 1997 Calendar data from 2002 

Women ages 15-43 at time of survey Women ages 15-43 in August 1997 

% SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 23.5 1.0 21.5 25.5 27.9 1.0 26.1 29.8 

Pill 4.8 0.6 3.8 6.0 4.0 0.3 3.5 4.7 

IUD 39.7 1.3 37.0 42.3 37.9 1.3 35.4 40.5 

Injections 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 

Male Condom 6.3 0.5 5.3 7.4 4.5 0.4 3.7 5.3 

Sterilization 6.3 0.6 5.2 7.6 5.1 0.5 4.2 6.1 

Periodic Abstinence 7.3 0.6 6.2 8.5 7.3 0.5 6.4 8.4 

Withdrawal 11.7 0.8 10.3 13.3 13.0 1.0 11.2 15.1 

Other Traditional Methods 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 

Any Method 76.5 1.0 74.5 78.5 72.1 1.0 70.2 73.9 

Any Modern Method 57.2 1.2 54.8 59.5 51.7 1.3 49.2 54.2 

Any Traditional Method 19.3 1.0 17.4 21.4 20.4 1.2 18.1 22.9 

N 4,706 4,466 

Appendix Table 32. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Bolivia 1989, 1994, 2003, and 2008

surveys 

 Current-status data from 1989 Calendar data from 1994 Current-status data from 2003 Calendar data from 2008 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

April 1989 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

November 2003 

% SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 79.4 0.7 78.0 80.7 75.0 0.7 73.6 76.3 60.3 0.5 59.2 61.4 61.2 0.6 60.1 62.4 

Pill 1.3 0.2 1.0 1.7 1.9 0.2 1.6 2.4 2.6 0.2 2.3 3.0 3.0 0.2 2.6 3.4 

IUD 3.4 0.3 2.9 4.0 4.0 0.3 3.5 4.6 7.0 0.3 6.5 7.6 6.9 0.3 6.4 7.5 

Injections 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.5 1.0 5.7 0.3 5.2 6.2 5.2 0.3 4.8 5.8 

Male Condom 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 3.4 0.2 3.0 3.8 2.4 0.2 2.1 2.7 

Sterilization 2.7 0.2 2.3 3.2 2.3 0.2 1.9 2.7 3.6 0.2 3.2 3.9 3.0 0.2 2.6 3.4 

Periodic Abstinence 11.1 0.5 10.1 12.2 13.5 0.5 12.5 14.5 12.9 0.5 12.0 13.9 14.5 0.4 13.7 15.4 

Withdrawal 0.7 0.1 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.1 0.8 1.3 2.4 0.2 2.0 2.9 3.0 0.2 2.6 3.4 

LAM 1.7 0.1 1.5 2.0 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 

Other Traditional Methods 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.9 1.1 0.1 0.9 1.5 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 

Other Modern Methods 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 

Any Method 20.6 0.7 19.3 22.0 25.0 0.7 23.7 26.4 39.7 0.5 38.6 40.8 38.8 0.6 37.6 39.9 

Any Modern Method 8.2 0.4 7.4 9.1 9.4 0.5 8.5 10.4 24.2 0.5 23.1 25.2 21.2 0.5 20.2 22.2 

Any Traditional Method 12.4 0.6 11.3 13.5 15.6 0.5 14.6 16.7 15.5 0.5 14.6 16.6 17.6 0.5 16.7 18.6 

N 7,115 6,706 15,812 13,294 
97

Appendix Table 33. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Colombia 1986, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010 surve

Current-status data from 1986 Calendar data from 1990 Current-status data from 1990 Calendar data from 1995 

Women ages 15-43 at time of survey Women ages 15-43 in October 1986 Women ages 15-43 at time of survey Women ages 15-43 in July 1990 

% SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 61.4 1.0 59.3 63.3 62.9 0.9 61.0 64.6 60.5 0.7 59.0 61.9 54.3 0.6 53.1 55.5 

Pill 10.6 0.6 9.4 11.9 10.0 0.5 9.1 11.1 9.1 0.5 8.2 10.1 11.7 0.4 10.9 12.5 IUD 6.7 0.4 5.9 7.6 7.7 0.4 6.8 8.6 7.9 0.5 7.1 8.9 7.1 0.3 6.5 7.7 Injections 1.6 0.2 1.2 2.0 1.4 0.2 1.1 1.8 1.5 0.2 1.2 1.9 1.1 0.1 0.9 1.3 Male Condom 1.1 0.2 0.8 1.4 1.3 0.3 0.9 1.9 1.6 0.2 1.3 2.0 1.8 0.2 1.5 2.2 Sterilization 10.3 0.6 9.2 11.5 9.5 0.5 8.5 10.5 11.6 0.5 10.7 12.7 13.2 0.6 12.1 14.3 Periodic Abstinence 3.3 0.3 2.8 4.0 3.9 0.3 3.4 4.5 3.5 0.3 3.1 4.1 5.1 0.3 4.6 5.7 Withdrawal 2.9 0.3 2.3 3.5 2.0 0.3 1.5 2.7 2.8 0.4 2.2 3.6 3.3 0.2 2.9 3.8 Implant 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 LAM Other Traditional Methods 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.2 0.1 1.0 1.5 Other Modern Methods 1.7 0.2 1.3 2.1 1.1 0.1 0.8 1.3 1.1 0.1 0.9 1.4 1.1 0.1 0.9 1.3 Any Method 38.7 1.0 36.7 40.7 37.1 0.9 35.4 39.0 39.5 0.7 38.1 41.0 45.7 0.6 44.5 46.9 Any Modern Method 31.9 1.0 30.0 33.9 30.9 0.8 29.3 32.6 32.8 0.8 31.4 34.4 36.0 0.6 34.7 37.2 Any Traditional Method 6.8 0.4 6.0 7.7 6.2 0.4 5.4 7.1 6.7 0.4 5.9 7.6 9.7 0.4 9.0 10.4 N 4,869 6,798 7,681 8,854 

Calendar data from 2000 Current-status data from 2000 Calendar data from 2005 Current-status data from 2005 

Women ages 15-43 in May 1995 Women ages 15-43 at time of survey Women ages 15-43 in April 2000 Women ages 15-43 at time of survey 

% SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 49.6 0.6 48.4 50.7 48.1 0.6 47.0 49.2 46.3 0.4 45.5 47.2 44.6 0.4 43.8 45.4 

Pill 10.7 0.4 10.0 11.4 8.8 0.3 8.2 9.5 10.7 0.3 10.2 11.2 7.9 0.2 7.5 8.3 IUD 8.5 0.3 7.8 9.2 8.5 0.3 7.8 9.2 8.8 0.2 8.3 9.3 8.5 0.3 8.0 9.0 Injections 2.0 0.2 1.7 2.3 3.5 0.2 3.1 3.9 4.3 0.2 4.0 4.7 5.6 0.2 5.3 6.0 Male Condom 3.3 0.2 2.9 3.8 6.0 0.3 5.5 6.6 5.2 0.2 4.8 5.6 7.3 0.2 6.8 7.8 Sterilization 14.8 0.4 14.0 15.7 15.2 0.4 14.4 16.0 15.8 0.3 15.2 16.3 18.4 0.3 17.8 19.0 Periodic Abstinence 5.4 0.3 4.9 5.9 4.0 0.2 3.6 4.4 3.9 0.2 3.6 4.2 2.5 0.1 2.3 2.8 Withdrawal 3.4 0.2 3.0 3.9 4.4 0.2 4.0 4.9 3.5 0.1 3.2 3.8 4.0 0.1 3.8 4.3 Implant 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.3 LAM 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.5 Other Traditional Methods 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.5 Other Modern Methods 0.8 0.1 0.6 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 Any Method 50.4 0.6 49.3 51.6 51.9 0.6 50.8 53.0 53.7 0.4 52.8 54.5 55.4 0.4 54.6 56.2 Any Modern Method 40.7 0.6 39.5 41.8 42.9 0.6 41.8 44.0 45.7 0.4 44.8 46.5 48.2 0.4 47.4 49.0 Any Traditional Method 9.4 0.4 8.7 10.1 8.9 0.3 8.3 9.5 7.8 0.2 7.3 8.2 6.9 0.2 6.6 7.3 N 9,139 10,258 30,717 33,051 
98

Appendix Table 34. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Dominican Republic 1986, 1991, 1996, 1999, and 2002 s

Current-status data from 1986 Calendar data from 1991 Current-status data from 1991 Calendar data from 1996 

Women ages 15-43 at time of survey Women ages 15-43 in October 1986 Women ages 15-43 at time of survey Women ages 15-43 in September 1991 

% SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 69.8 0.7 68.5 71.1 68.9 0.9 67.1 70.6 64.3 0.7 63.0 65.6 63.7 0.7 62.3 65.1 

Pill 5.8 0.3 5.2 6.5 5.6 0.4 4.9 6.4 6.6 0.4 5.9 7.4 7.5 0.4 6.7 8.3 IUD 2.0 0.2 1.6 2.5 2.1 0.3 1.6 2.8 1.4 0.2 1.1 1.9 1.6 0.2 1.2 2.1 Injections 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 Male Condom 0.8 0.1 0.6 1.1 0.6 0.2 0.3 1.0 0.8 0.2 0.6 1.2 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.9 Sterilization 19.4 0.6 18.3 20.5 20.1 0.8 18.6 21.6 23.6 0.6 22.4 24.8 23.1 0.6 21.9 24.4 Periodic Abstinence 0.8 0.1 0.5 1.1 1.6 0.3 1.1 2.2 1.4 0.2 1.0 1.9 1.5 0.2 1.2 2.0 Withdrawal 0.9 0.1 0.6 1.2 0.8 0.2 0.5 1.1 1.5 0.2 1.1 2.0 1.0 0.2 0.7 1.3 Implant 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 LAM 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 Other Traditional Methods 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.7 Other Modern Methods 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 Any Method 30.2 0.7 28.9 31.5 31.1 0.9 29.4 32.9 35.7 0.7 34.4 37.0 36.3 0.7 34.9 37.7 Any Modern Method 28.2 0.7 26.9 29.5 28.4 0.9 26.8 30.1 32.5 0.7 31.2 33.9 33.1 0.7 31.8 34.5 Any Traditional Method 1.9 0.2 1.5 2.4 2.6 0.3 2.1 3.3 3.1 0.3 2.6 3.7 3.0 0.2 2.5 3.4 N 7,034 5,545 6,761 6,502 

Calendar data from 1999 Current-status data from 1996 Calendar data from 2002 Current-status data from 1999 

Women ages 15-43 in October 1996 Women ages 15-43 at time of survey Women ages 15-43 in January 1997 Women ages 15-43 at time of survey 

% SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 57.0 1.8 53.3 60.6 57.0 0.8 55.5 58.5 56.8 0.5 55.7 57.8 53.2 1.6 50.0 56.3 

Pill 9.3 1.0 7.6 11.5 9.1 0.4 8.3 10.0 9.4 0.3 8.8 10.0 10.7 0.9 9.1 12.5 IUD 1.4 0.4 0.8 2.4 2.0 0.2 1.7 2.5 1.9 0.2 1.6 2.2 2.3 0.5 1.4 3.5 Injections 0.5 0.2 0.2 1.3 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.3 1.3 Male Condom 0.5 0.3 0.2 1.4 1.3 0.2 1.1 1.6 0.7 0.1 0.5 1.0 1.6 0.4 1.0 2.8 Sterilization 26.2 1.8 22.8 29.9 25.9 0.6 24.7 27.1 27.9 0.5 27.0 28.9 27.2 1.5 24.3 30.2 Periodic Abstinence 2.1 0.5 1.3 3.4 1.6 0.2 1.2 2.0 1.3 0.1 1.1 1.6 1.4 0.4 0.8 2.4 Withdrawal 1.9 0.5 1.2 3.1 1.5 0.2 1.2 1.9 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.8 2.1 0.5 1.3 3.2 Implant 0.5 0.3 0.2 1.5 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.2 1.7 LAM 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.0 

Other Traditional Methods 0.3 0.2 0.1 1.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.9 Other Modern Methods 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 

Any Method 42.7 1.8 39.1 46.3 43.0 0.8 41.5 44.5 43.2 0.5 42.2 44.3 46.8 1.6 43.7 50.0 Any Modern Method 37.9 2.0 34.1 41.9 39.1 0.8 37.6 40.6 40.5 0.5 39.5 41.5 42.7 1.6 39.5 45.9 Any Traditional Method 4.2 0.7 3.1 5.8 3.4 0.2 2.9 3.9 2.4 0.2 2.1 2.8 3.6 0.6 2.5 5.0 N 1,039 7,704 18,063 1,149 
99 

Appendix Table 35. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Guatemala 1995 and 1998-99 surveys

 Current-status data from 1995 Calendar data from 1998-99 

Women ages 15-43 at time of survey Women ages 15-43 in September 1995 

% SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 79.1 0.9 77.2 80.9 77.5 1.9 73.6 80.9 

Pill 2.9 0.2 2.4 3.4 2.9 0.4 2.2 3.7 

IUD 1.9 0.3 1.5 2.5 1.3 0.3 0.8 2.0 

Injections 1.8 0.2 1.4 2.2 2.1 0.4 1.4 3.0 

Male Condom 1.6 0.2 1.3 2.1 1.0 0.4 0.5 2.1 

Sterilization 9.7 0.5 8.7 10.8 10.0 0.9 8.3 11.9 

Periodic Abstinence 2.4 0.2 2.0 2.9 3.9 0.5 3.0 5.1 

Withdrawal 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.3 0.6 1.6 

Other Traditional Methods 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.6 

Other Modern Methods 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.8 

Any Method 20.9 0.9 19.1 22.8 22.5 1.9 19.1 26.4 

Any Modern Method 17.9 0.9 16.2 19.7 17.5 1.6 14.6 20.8 

Any Traditional Method 3.1 0.2 2.6 3.6 5.1 0.7 3.8 6.7 

N 11,133 4,835 

Appendix Table 36. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Honduras 2005-06 and 2011-12 

surveys 

 Current-status data from 2005-06 Calendar data from 2011-12 

Women ages 15-43 at time of survey Women ages 15-43 in March 2006 

% SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 57.7 0.5 56.7 58.6 56.3 0.5 55.4 57.3 

Pill 7.6 0.3 7.1 8.1 8.1 0.3 7.5 8.6 

IUD 4.5 0.2 4.2 4.9 5.3 0.2 4.8 5.8 

Injections 9.4 0.3 8.8 9.9 9.6 0.3 9.1 10.2 

Male Condom 2.3 0.1 2.1 2.6 2.0 0.1 1.8 2.3 

Sterilization 13.1 0.3 12.4 13.7 12.8 0.4 12.1 13.5 

Periodic Abstinence 1.8 0.1 1.5 2.0 2.1 0.1 1.9 2.4 

Withdrawal 3.5 0.2 3.2 3.8 3.7 0.2 3.3 4.0 

LAM 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 

Other Traditional Methods 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 

Other Modern Methods 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 

Any Method 42.3 0.5 41.4 43.3 43.7 0.5 42.7 44.6 

Any Modern Method 37.1 0.5 36.2 38.0 37.8 0.5 36.8 38.8 

Any Traditional Method 5.2 0.2 4.9 5.6 5.9 0.2 5.5 6.4 

N 18,053 16,890 
100

Appendix Table 37. Comparison of calendar and current status data for Peru 1986, 1991-92, 1996, 2000, 2004-06, 2007-08, 2009, 20surveys 

Current-status data from 

1986 

Calendar data from 

1991-92 

Current-status data from 

1991-92 

Calendar data from 

1996 

Current-status data from 

1996 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

November 1986 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

December 1991 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

% SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 71.7 0.8 70.1 73.2 67.6 0.5 66.6 68.5 64.6 0.5 63.7 65.5 64.7 0.4 63.9 65.6 59.0 0.4 58.1 59.8 

Pill 4.3 0.4 3.6 5.1 4.3 0.2 3.9 4.8 3.8 0.2 3.5 4.2 4.4 0.2 4.0 4.8 4.2 0.2 3.9 4.6 IUD 4.7 0.4 4.0 5.4 5.6 0.2 5.1 6.1 8.3 0.3 7.8 8.9 7.7 0.3 7.2 8.2 8.0 0.2 7.5 8.4 Injections 0.9 0.1 0.7 1.3 1.1 0.1 0.9 1.3 1.2 0.1 1.0 1.5 1.2 0.1 1.1 1.4 5.5 0.2 5.1 5.9 Male Condom 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.7 1.2 0.1 1.0 1.5 1.9 0.2 1.7 2.3 1.6 0.1 1.4 1.9 3.2 0.2 2.9 3.5 Sterilization 3.1 0.3 2.6 3.8 3.6 0.2 3.2 4.0 3.9 0.2 3.6 4.3 3.6 0.2 3.2 4.0 5.4 0.2 5.0 5.8 Periodic Abstinence 11.1 0.5 10.2 12.2 12.9 0.3 12.2 13.6 12.3 0.3 11.7 12.9 13.2 0.3 12.6 13.9 11.2 0.3 10.7 11.8 Withdrawal 2.2 0.2 1.8 2.7 1.9 0.1 1.7 2.2 2.2 0.1 2.0 2.5 1.8 0.1 1.6 2.1 2.0 0.1 1.8 2.3 Implant 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 LAM Other Traditional Methods 0.9 0.1 0.7 1.2 1.1 0.1 0.9 1.3 0.9 0.1 0.8 1.1 1.1 0.1 1.0 1.3 0.9 0.1 0.8 1.1 Other Modern Methods 0.7 0.1 0.5 1.0 0.8 0.1 0.7 1.0 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.6 Any Method 28.3 0.8 26.8 29.9 32.4 0.5 31.5 33.4 35.4 0.5 34.5 36.3 35.3 0.4 34.4 36.1 41.0 0.4 40.2 41.9 Any Modern Method 14.1 0.6 12.9 15.4 16.6 0.4 15.8 17.4 20.0 0.4 19.2 20.8 19.1 0.4 18.4 19.8 26.7 0.4 25.9 27.5 Any Traditional Method 14.2 0.6 13.1 15.4 15.8 0.4 15.1 16.6 15.4 0.3 14.8 16.1 16.2 0.3 15.5 16.9 14.2 0.3 13.6 14.8 

N 4,515 12,163 14,403 22,660 26,135 2

Current-status data from 

2000 

Calendar data from 

2004-06 

Current-status data from 

2004-06 

Calendar data from 

2007-08 

Current-status data from 

2004-06 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

January 2001 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

June 2005 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

% SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 55.9 0.5 55.0 56.8 51.9 0.6 50.8 53.1 54.4 0.5 53.4 55.5 48.3 0.6 47.1 49.5 54.4 0.5 53.4 55.5 

Pill 4.6 0.2 4.3 5.0 5.0 0.2 4.5 5.5 4.9 0.2 4.5 5.4 6.2 0.3 5.7 6.7 4.9 0.2 4.5 5.4 IUD 5.9 0.2 5.5 6.4 5.8 0.3 5.3 6.4 3.6 0.2 3.1 4.0 3.2 0.2 2.8 3.7 3.6 0.2 3.1 4.0 Injections 10.1 0.3 9.5 10.6 10.5 0.4 9.8 11.3 9.5 0.4 8.8 10.2 12.1 0.4 11.3 12.9 9.5 0.4 8.8 10.2 

Male Condom 4.0 0.2 3.7 4.4 4.4 0.3 3.9 4.9 6.9 0.3 6.3 7.6 7.8 0.3 7.2 8.5 6.9 0.3 6.3 7.6 Sterilization 6.9 0.2 6.5 7.4 6.4 0.3 5.9 7.0 5.2 0.2 4.7 5.7 5.6 0.3 5.1 6.1 5.2 0.2 4.7 5.7 Periodic Abstinence 9.0 0.2 8.6 9.5 12.2 0.4 11.5 13.0 11.2 0.3 10.5 11.9 12.4 0.4 11.7 13.1 11.2 0.3 10.5 11.9 Withdrawal 2.1 0.1 1.9 2.3 2.1 0.2 1.8 2.5 2.7 0.2 2.4 3.1 3.3 0.2 2.9 3.7 2.7 0.2 2.4 3.1 Implant 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 LAM 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.5 Other Traditional Methods 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.6 1.0 0.1 0.8 1.2 0.9 0.1 0.7 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.1 0.7 1.1 Other Modern Methods 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 Any Method 44.1 0.5 43.2 45.0 48.1 0.6 46.9 49.2 45.6 0.5 44.5 46.6 51.7 0.6 50.4 52.9 45.6 0.5 44.5 46.6 

Any Modern Method 32.3 0.5 31.4 33.2 32.6 0.6 31.5 33.7 30.8 0.5 29.7 31.8 35.2 0.6 33.9 36.4 30.8 0.5 29.7 31.8 Any Traditional Method 11.6 0.3 11.1 12.1 15.4 0.4 14.5 16.2 14.8 0.4 14.0 15.6 16.4 0.4 15.6 17.2 14.8 0.4 14.0 15.6 

N 24,769 14,069 15,306 18,874 15,306 
101 

Appendix Table 37. − Continued

Current-status data from 

2004-06 

Calendar data from 

2010 

Current-status data from 

2004-06 

Calendar data from 

 2011 

Current-status data from 

2007-08 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

June 2005 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

January 2006 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

% SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 54.4 0.5 53.4 55.5 50.5 0.6 49.4 51.6 54.4 0.5 53.4 55.5 49.5 0.5 48.4 50.5 52.4 0.6 51.2 53.5 

Pill 4.9 0.2 4.5 5.4 5.6 0.3 5.1 6.1 4.9 0.2 4.5 5.4 5.5 0.2 5.1 6.0 5.8 0.3 5.2 6.3 IUD 3.6 0.2 3.1 4.0 3.5 0.2 3.1 4.0 3.6 0.2 3.1 4.0 3.7 0.2 3.3 4.1 2.5 0.2 2.2 3.0 Injections 9.5 0.4 8.8 10.2 12.0 0.4 11.3 12.7 9.5 0.4 8.8 10.2 12.9 0.4 12.2 13.7 11.4 0.4 10.7 12.1 

Male Condom 6.9 0.3 6.3 7.6 7.0 0.3 6.4 7.6 6.9 0.3 6.3 7.6 7.1 0.3 6.5 7.7 8.4 0.4 7.7 9.1 Sterilization 5.2 0.2 4.7 5.7 5.5 0.2 5.1 6.0 5.2 0.2 4.7 5.7 5.0 0.2 4.6 5.4 4.2 0.2 3.8 4.6 Periodic Abstinence 11.2 0.3 10.5 11.9 10.9 0.3 10.3 11.6 11.2 0.3 10.5 11.9 11.4 0.3 10.8 12.0 10.6 0.3 9.9 11.2 Withdrawal 2.7 0.2 2.4 3.1 3.9 0.2 3.5 4.3 2.7 0.2 2.4 3.1 4.0 0.2 3.6 4.4 3.6 0.2 3.2 4.0 Implant 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 

LAM 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 Other Traditional Methods 0.9 0.1 0.7 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.7 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.7 Other Modern Methods 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 

Any Method 45.6 0.5 44.5 46.6 49.5 0.6 48.4 50.6 45.6 0.5 44.5 46.6 50.5 0.5 49.5 51.6 47.6 0.6 46.5 48.8 Any Modern Method 30.8 0.5 29.7 31.8 34.0 0.5 33.0 35.1 30.8 0.5 29.7 31.8 34.4 0.5 33.4 35.5 32.8 0.6 31.6 33.9 Any Traditional Method 14.8 0.4 14.0 15.6 15.5 0.4 14.8 16.2 14.8 0.4 14.0 15.6 16.0 0.4 15.3 16.8 14.7 0.4 14.0 15.5 

N 15,306 18,155 15,306 17,838 19,860 2

Current-status data from 

2007-08 

Calendar data from 

2010 

Current-status data from 

2007-08 

Calendar data from 

2011 

Current-status data from 

2007-08 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

April 2008 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

April 2008 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

% SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 52.4 0.6 51.2 53.5 48.4 0.5 47.4 49.5 52.4 0.6 51.2 53.5 49.1 0.5 48.1 50.1 52.4 0.6 51.2 53.5 

Pill 5.8 0.3 5.2 6.3 5.7 0.3 5.3 6.2 5.8 0.3 5.2 6.3 5.8 0.2 5.4 6.3 5.8 0.3 5.2 6.3 IUD 2.5 0.2 2.2 3.0 2.6 0.2 2.3 2.9 2.5 0.2 2.2 3.0 3.0 0.2 2.6 3.4 2.5 0.2 2.2 3.0 Injections 11.4 0.4 10.7 12.1 12.8 0.4 12.1 13.5 11.4 0.4 10.7 12.1 12.6 0.4 11.9 13.3 11.4 0.4 10.7 12.1 Male Condom 8.4 0.4 7.7 9.1 9.0 0.3 8.4 9.7 8.4 0.4 7.7 9.1 8.6 0.3 8.0 9.2 8.4 0.4 7.7 9.1 Sterilization 4.2 0.2 3.8 4.6 4.8 0.2 4.4 5.2 4.2 0.2 3.8 4.6 4.5 0.2 4.1 4.9 4.2 0.2 3.8 4.6 Periodic Abstinence 10.6 0.3 9.9 11.2 10.9 0.3 10.3 11.4 10.6 0.3 9.9 11.2 11.0 0.3 10.4 11.6 10.6 0.3 9.9 11.2 Withdrawal 3.6 0.2 3.2 4.0 4.6 0.2 4.2 5.1 3.6 0.2 3.2 4.0 4.3 0.2 3.9 4.8 3.6 0.2 3.2 4.0 Implant 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 LAM 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 Other Traditional Methods 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.1 0.7 1.1 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.7 Other Modern Methods 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 Any Method 47.6 0.6 46.5 48.8 51.6 0.5 50.5 52.6 47.6 0.6 46.5 48.8 50.9 0.5 49.9 51.9 47.6 0.6 46.5 48.8 Any Modern Method 32.8 0.6 31.6 33.9 35.3 0.5 34.3 36.4 32.8 0.6 31.6 33.9 34.7 0.5 33.7 35.7 32.8 0.6 31.6 33.9 Any Traditional Method 14.7 0.4 14.0 15.5 16.2 0.4 15.5 16.9 14.7 0.4 14.0 15.5 16.2 0.4 15.4 17.0 14.7 0.4 14.0 15.5 

N 19,860 18,992 19,860 18,425 19,860 
102 

Appendix Table 37. − Continued

Current-status data from 2009 Calendar data from 2010 Current-status data from 2009 Calendar data from 2011 Current-status data from 2009 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

June 2009 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

June 2009 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

% SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 50.9 0.5 50.0 51.8 48.9 0.5 47.8 49.9 50.9 0.5 50.0 51.8 48.2 0.5 47.1 49.2 50.9 0.5 50.0 51.8 

Pill 5.6 0.2 5.2 6.1 5.7 0.2 5.3 6.2 5.6 0.2 5.2 6.1 5.7 0.2 5.3 6.2 5.6 0.2 5.2 6.1 IUD 2.4 0.2 2.1 2.8 2.3 0.2 2.0 2.7 2.4 0.2 2.1 2.8 2.6 0.2 2.3 2.9 2.4 0.2 2.1 2.8 Injections 12.8 0.3 12.2 13.5 12.8 0.4 12.1 13.5 12.8 0.3 12.2 13.5 12.8 0.4 12.1 13.5 12.8 0.3 12.2 13.5 Male Condom 8.7 0.3 8.1 9.4 9.3 0.3 8.7 10.0 8.7 0.3 8.1 9.4 9.5 0.3 8.9 10.2 8.7 0.3 8.1 9.4 Sterilization 4.4 0.2 4.1 4.9 4.4 0.2 4.1 4.9 4.4 0.2 4.1 4.9 4.4 0.2 4.0 4.8 4.4 0.2 4.1 4.9 Periodic Abstinence 9.7 0.3 9.2 10.3 10.8 0.3 10.2 11.3 9.7 0.3 9.2 10.3 11.1 0.3 10.5 11.6 9.7 0.3 9.2 10.3 Withdrawal 4.3 0.2 3.9 4.7 4.6 0.2 4.2 5.1 4.3 0.2 3.9 4.7 4.6 0.2 4.2 5.0 4.3 0.2 3.9 4.7 Implant 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 LAM 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 Other Traditional Methods 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.1 0.7 1.0 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.8 Other Modern Methods 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 Any Method 49.1 0.5 48.2 50.0 51.1 0.5 50.1 52.2 49.1 0.5 48.2 50.0 51.8 0.5 50.8 52.9 49.1 0.5 48.2 50.0 Any Modern Method 34.4 0.5 33.4 35.3 35.1 0.5 34.1 36.1 34.4 0.5 33.4 35.3 35.3 0.5 34.4 36.3 34.4 0.5 33.4 35.3 Any Traditional Method 14.7 0.4 14.0 15.4 16.0 0.4 15.3 16.7 14.7 0.4 14.0 15.4 16.5 0.4 15.7 17.2 14.7 0.4 14.0 15.4 N 21,057 19,389 21,057 18,825 21,057 1

Current-status data from 2010 Calendar data from 2011 Current-status data from 2010 Calendar data from 2012 Current-status data from 2011 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

August 2010 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

Women ages 15-43 in 

August 2010 

Women ages 15-43 at time 

of survey 

% SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI % SE CI 

Not using 50.2 0.5 49.2 51.1 47.8 0.5 46.8 48.8 50.2 0.5 49.2 51.1 46.7 0.5 45.7 47.7 49.3 0.5 48.2 50.4 

Pill 6.2 0.2 5.7 6.7 5.9 0.3 5.4 6.4 6.2 0.2 5.7 6.7 6.8 0.3 6.3 7.3 6.1 0.2 5.6 6.6 IUD 2.0 0.2 1.7 2.3 2.1 0.1 1.8 2.4 2.0 0.2 1.7 2.3 2.3 0.2 1.9 2.6 1.7 0.1 1.4 2.0 Injections 12.5 0.3 11.9 13.2 13.2 0.4 12.5 13.9 12.5 0.3 11.9 13.2 14.2 0.4 13.5 15.0 12.9 0.4 12.2 13.6 Male Condom 9.2 0.3 8.6 9.9 10.3 0.4 9.6 11.0 9.2 0.3 8.6 9.9 9.8 0.3 9.2 10.5 9.9 0.3 9.3 10.6 Sterilization 4.1 0.2 3.8 4.6 4.3 0.2 3.9 4.7 4.1 0.2 3.8 4.6 3.9 0.2 3.5 4.2 4.3 0.2 3.9 4.7 Periodic Abstinence 10.0 0.3 9.5 10.5 10.7 0.3 10.2 11.3 10.0 0.3 9.5 10.5 10.7 0.3 10.2 11.3 10.0 0.3 9.4 10.5 Withdrawal 4.8 0.2 4.4 5.2 4.6 0.2 4.3 5.1 4.8 0.2 4.4 5.2 4.5 0.2 4.1 4.9 4.7 0.2 4.3 5.1 Implant 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 LAM 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 Other Traditional Methods 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.8 Other Modern Methods 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.5 Any Method 49.8 0.5 48.9 50.8 52.2 0.5 51.2 53.2 49.8 0.5 48.9 50.8 53.3 0.5 52.3 54.3 50.7 0.5 49.6 51.8 Any Modern Method 34.4 0.5 33.4 35.4 36.2 0.5 35.2 37.1 34.4 0.5 33.4 35.4 37.3 0.5 36.3 38.4 35.3 0.5 34.3 36.4 Any Traditional Method 15.3 0.3 14.7 16.0 16.1 0.3 15.4 16.7 15.3 0.3 14.7 16.0 15.8 0.3 15.2 16.5 15.3 0.4 14.6 16.0 N 19,818 19,179 19,818 19,864 19,484