# **Dataset**

The Kagera Health and Development Survey (KHDS) is a longitudinal living standards survey of over 800 households, with 4 waves of data collected at 6 to 7 month intervals from 1991 to 1994 (Ainsworth et al 1992; Over and Ainsworth 1989). The objective of the data collection and research effort was to measure the impact of prime-aged adult deaths on the welfare of surviving household members. Even with the high HIV infection and mortality rates in Kagera, the sample of households had to be heavily stratified in order to observe a sufficient number of households likely to suffer an adult death during the short time frame of the panel (2.5 years). A total of 51 primary sampling units (PSU) were chosen from both high- and lowmortality communities in each of four geographical zones of the region.<sup>6</sup> In each PSU, a sample of 16 households was randomly selected from one of two groups: 14 households were selected from among households reporting either an adult death from illness, an adult too sick to work, or both; and 2 households were selected from among those reporting neither event.<sup>7</sup> A total of 816 households were selected for the original sample and 757 completed all four interviews.<sup>8</sup> We will analyze the height and weight of a total of 695 persons over 50, observed at least once and as many as four times.<sup>9</sup> The average BMI of the elderly in the KHDS was about 20% lower than that in the U.S. and the lowest among the four developing countries for which information is available (Table 1). In the developing countries, including in Kagera, the BMI of elderly women is generally greater than that for men, and BMI declines with age. In contrast, in the US, average male and female BMI are roughly the same. More than a third (36%) of the elderly 60 and older observed for the first time in the KHDS sample had a BMI less than 18.5 (not shown). This is a much larger share of low BMI than measured in Indonesia (14%) and Cote d'Ivoire (4%), although in these two countries the population included prime-aged adults (18 and older and 20-60, respectively), so the results are not strictly comparable (Frankenberg et al 1999, Thomas et al 1996).

6 An exhaustive listing was made of all households in these 51 PSUs, more than 29,000 households in total, each of which was asked about the recent mortality of prime-aged adults (in the 12 preceding months), the cause of death (illness, accident, childbirth, etc.) and whether there were any adults too sick to work.

> 7 The questionnaire and sampling are described in greater detail in Ainsworth et al (1992).

8 Since households that left the sample were replaced, a total of 915 households were interviewed at least once.

**9** 413 persons in our sample (59%) were interviewed 4 times, 107 (15%) 3 times, 87 (13%) twice, and 88 (13%/6) once. The most important reasons why some people were not interviewed four times were: they turned 51 during the survey; their household moved out of the sample during the survey; their household moved into the sample (replacing a household that dropped out) during the survey. Among the households interviewed four times, there was remarkable stability in the population of household members over 50 (see Ainsworth and Dayton 2000).

_8_