These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: The World Fertility Survey and Contraceptive Prevalence Surveys: a comparison of substantive results.
    Author: Anderson JE, Cleland JG.
    Journal: Stud Fam Plann; 1984; 15(1):1-13. PubMed ID: 6701950.
    Abstract:
    This paper deals with the findings of the World Fertility Survey (WFS) and Contraceptive Prevalence Surveys (CPSs) in five areas of common interest: fertility, contraceptive use, measuring the effect of the availability of contraceptives on levels of use, the unmet need for family planning services, and breastfeeding. The comparisons have several implications for those designing surveys of fertility and family planning in developing countries, among them, that women should be asked for the dates of at least their last two births (not just the last birth as in the CPSs) in order to ensure accurate estimates of fertility and duration of breastfeeding. This study attempts to assess if differences in survey methodologies appear to affect the results. It deals with the findings of the World Fertility Survey (WFS) and Contraceptive Prevalence Surveys (CPSs) in 5 areas of common interest. It is reported that in the measurement of 1) fertility rates and trends, the WFS has numerous advantages over the CPSs. The latter can provide satisfactory estimates, but, their precision is difficult to estimate due to the small amount of information gathered with this method. Moreover, the CPSs approach has a much more limited analytical potential. 2) On the matter of contraceptive knowledge and use, there is a difference between both questionnaires on methods not spontaneously mentioned. The WFS gives a fairly detailed description of these, while the CPS refers to them by name only. This may result in different reported levels of knowledge for traditional methods. WFS and CPS estimates of current contraceptive use are broadly consistent with one another. 3) This same finding applies to the issue of the impact of availability on contraceptive use. It is recommended that community-level data be relied on to study the availability/use relationship. 4) Both the WFS and CPS provide data that can measure unmet needs for family planning services. Whereas CPS questions can identify spacers, WFS data can only determine women who no nlonger want children (limiters). Additional questions on spacing of births in the WFS are therefore desirable. The CPS also allows for a more comprehensive estimate of unmet needs as it includes unmarried respondents. 5) The WFS has an advantage over the CPS in measuring breastfeeding because it collects a complete maternal history which allows for the study of breastfeeding of all children born in a recent interval. The comparisons between these 2 major survey programs have additional implications for the design of fertility and family planning surveys in developing countries, among them, that women should be asked for the dates of at least their last 2 births to ensure accurate estimates of fertility and duration of breastfeeding.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]