Demographic and Health Survey (standard) - DHS III
The 1995-1996 Egypt Demographic and Health Survey (EDHS-1995-6) is part of the worldwide Demographic and Health Surveys project. It is the third survey in a series of Demographic and Health surveys that have been carried out in Egypt. The EDHS-1995-6 collected information on fertility and child mortality, family planning awareness, approval and use, as well as basic information on maternal and child health.
The 1995-1996 Egypt Demographic and Health Survey (EDHS-1995-6) is aimed at providing policymakers and planners with important information for use in evaluating existing programs and formulating new programs and policies related to reproductive behavior and health. The survey was specifically designed to meet the following objectives:
(1) Collect data on fertility and desired family size;
(2) Monitor changes in family planning practice over time and investigate the availability and accessibility of family planning services in Egypt;
(3) Determine reasons for nonuse and intention to use family planning; and
(4) Measure the achievement of health policy objectives, particularly those concerning the GOE maternal and child health program.
In addition, because information on the status of women is of increasing interest to policymakers, the EDHS-1995-6 included a special questionnaire to collect extensive data on the lives of Egyptian women. The questionnaire was administered to eligible women in one-third of the households in the EDHS-1995-6 sample.
Kind of Data
Sample survey data
Unit of Analysis
- Children under five years
- Women age 15-49
v1: Edited, anonymised dataset for public distribution.
This version refers to the dataset available from the MeasureDHS website referred to as DHS Egypt 1995.
DataFirst has included both years of data collection in their study title.
The 1995-1996 Egypt Demographic and Health Survey covers the following topics:
- Domestic Violence
- Female Genital Cutting
- GPS/Georeferenced–Global Positioning System or Georeferenced Data
- Reproductive Calendar
- Women's Status–Questions: women's autonomy (household decisionmaking/free movement/access money) & Dom. violence
Producers and sponsors
Egypt. National Population Council (NPC)
Macro International Inc.
United States Agency for International Development, Cairo
The primary objective of the sample design for the EDHS-1995-96 is to provide estimates of key population and health indicators including fertility and child mortality rates for the country as a whole and for six major administrative regions (Urban Governorates, urban Lower Egypt, rural Lower Egypt, urban Upper Egypt, rural Upper Egypt, and the Frontier Governorates). In addition, in the Urban Governorates, Lower Egypt and Upper Egypt, the design allows for governorate-level estimates of most key variables, with the exception of fertility and mortality rates and women's status indicators. In the Frontier Governorates, the sample size for individual governorates is not sufficiently large to allow for separate governorate-level estimates. However, separate estimates are possible for the western Frontier Governorates (Matrouh and New Valley) and the eastern Frontier Governorates (North Sinai, South Sinai and Red Sea). Finally, Assuit and Souhag governorates were oversampled in the EDHS-1995-96 in order to provide sufficient cases for a special follow-up study of the reasons for nonuse of family planning in those areas.
In order to meet the survey objectives, the number of households selected in the EDHS-1995-96 sample from each governorate was disproportional to the size of the population in the governorate. As a result, the EDHS-1995-96 sample is not self-weighting at the national level, and weights had to be applied to the data to obtain the national-level estimates presented in this report.
Selection of PSUs: The EDHS-1995-96 sample was selected in three stages. At the first or primary stage, the units of selection were shiakhas/towns in urban areas, and villages in rural areas. Information from the 1986 Census was used in constructing the frame from which the primary sampling units (PSU) were selected. Prior to the selection of the PSUs, the frame was updated to take into account all of the administrative changes which had occurred since 1986. The updating process included both office work and field visits during a three-month period. After it was completed, urban and rural units were stratified by geographical location in a serpentine order from the northwest comer to the southeast within each governorate. Shiakhas or villages with less than 2,500 populations were grouped with contiguous shiakhas or villages (usually within the same kism or marquez) to obtain the minimum size required (5,000 population). During the primary stage selection, a total of 467 units (204 shiakhas/towns and 263 villages) were sampled.
Quick Count: The second stage of selection involved several steps. First, detailed maps of the PSUs chosen during the first stage were obtained and divided into parts of roughly equal size. In shiakhas/towns or villages with 20,000 or more population, two parts were selected. In the remaining smaller shiakhas/towns or villages, only one part was selected. Overall, a total of 656 parts were selected from the shiakhas/towns and villages in the EDHS-1995-96 sample.
A quick count was then carded out to divide each part into standard segments of about 200 households. This operation was conducted in order to provide an estimate of the number of households in each part so that the part could be divided into segments of roughly equal size. A group of 36 experienced field workers participated in the quick count operation. They were divided into 12 teams, each consisting of one supervisor, one cartographer and one or two counters. A one-week training course conducted prior to the quick count included both classroom sessions and field practice in a shiakha/town and a village not covered in the survey. The quick-count operation took place between late April and late July 1995.
As a quality control measure, the quick count was repeated in 10 percent of the parts. If the difference between the results of the first and second quick count were within 2 percent, then the first count was accepted. There were no major discrepancies between the two counts in most of the areas for which the count was repeated; however, in a few cases in Kafr El-Sheikh govemorate, a third visit was made to the field in order to resolve discrepancies between the counts.
Household Listing: Following the quick count, a total of 934 segments was chosen from the parts in each shiakha/town and village in the EDHS-1995-96 sample (i.e., two segments were selected from each of the 467 PSUs). A household listing operation was then implemented in each of the selected segments. To conduct this operation, 16 supervisors and 32 listers were organized into 16 teams. Generally, each listing team consisted of a supervisor and two listers. A training course for the listing staff was held at the end of August for one week. The training involved classroom lectures and two days of field practice in two urban and rural locations. The listing operation began at the end of August and continued for about 40 days.
Around 10 percent of the segments were relisted. Two different criteria were used to select segments for relisting. First, segments were relisted when the number of households in the listing differed markedly from that expected according to the quick count information. Second, a number of segments were randomly selected to be relisted as an additional quality control test. Overall, few major discrepancies were found in comparisons of the two listings. However, a third visit to the field was necessary in a few segments in Gharbia governorate because of significant discrepancies between the results of the original listing and the relisting operation.
Selection of the Household Sample: Using the household lists for each segment, a systematic random sample of households was chosen to be interviewed in the EDHS-1995-96. A subsample of one-third of these households was also selected for the woman's status survey, except in Assuit and Souhag governorates, where all households were included in the women's status survey. All ever-married women 15-49, who were usual residents or present in the household on the night before the interview, were eligible for the survey.
Note: See detailed description of sample design in APPENDIX B of the report which is presented in this documentation.
A total of 14,879 women were identified as eligible to be interviewed. Questionnaires were completed for 14,779 of those women, which represents a response rate of 99.3 percent. A total of 7,223 respondents were in the subsample selected for the women's status interview. Questionnaires were completed for 7,121 of these women, which represents a response rate of 98.6 percent.
There was almost no difference between urban and rural areas in response rates for the household, individual and women's status interviews. Looking at place of residence, the response rate for the household and individual interviews exceeds 98 percent, and the response rate for the women's status interviews exceeds 97 percent, in all areas.
Note: See summarized response rates by place of residence in Table 1.3 of the report which is presented this documentation.
Dates of Data Collection
Data Collection Mode
Data Collection Notes
In order to recruit interviewers and field editors, a list was obtained from the Ministry of Social Affairs (MOSA) of female personnel who were working to fulfill the mandatory one-year period of governmental public service for university graduates. All candidates nominated by MOSA for the field staff positions were interviewed, and only those who were qualified were accepted into the training program.
All candidates for the interviewer and field editor positions were recent university graduates. Another basic qualification was a willingness to work in any of the governorates covered in the survey. With a few exceptions, interviewers who had previous experience in surveys were not accepted into the training program. This decision was taken to reduce any bias that might result from previous survey experience and to ensure that all trainees had a similar background. However, previous survey experience was a basic qualification for the candidates for the positions of supervisor and assistant supervisor.
A variety of materials were developed for use in training personnel involved in the fieldwork. A lengthy interviewer's manual including general guidelines to follow while conducting an interview, as well as specific instructions for asking particular questions in the questionnaire, was prepared and given to all field staff. In addition, a chart to convert months from the Islamic calendar to the Gregorian calendar was designed for the 74 months before the EDHS-95 and distributed to all field workers.
Other training materials including special manuals describing the duties of the team supervisor and the rules for field editing were prepared. Instructions regarding anthropometric data collection were included in a manual for interviewers and assistant supervisors who were trained to collect height and weight data.
Supervisor and Interviewer Training
A special training program for supervisors and assistant supervisors was conducted during a three-day period prior to the main fieldwork training. This training focused specifically on the supervisor's duties, but it also covered the EDHS-95 questionnaires in order to give supervisors a basic understanding of the content of the survey prior to the main training program.
Interviewer training for the EDHS-95 data collection began in late September 1995. Eighteen supervisors, 22 assistant supervisors and 96 interviewers participated in the training program. The training program, which was held in Cairo for five weeks, included:
• General lectures related to basic interview techniques and to specific survey topics (i.e., fertility and family planning, maternal and child health, and female circumcision);
• Specific sessions with visual aids on how to fill out the questionnaire;
• Opportunities for role playing and mock interviews;
• Four days of field practice in areas not covered in the survey; and
• Nine quizzes.
Trainees who failed to show interest in the survey, or did not attend the training program on a regular basis, or failed in the first three tests were terminated immediately.
At the beginning of the third week of training, a list was prepared of the 17 trainees who had performed best during both the classroom and field exercises. These trainees were further examined in order to select 13 field editors. A special training session was held for the field editors following their selection.
Forty-six trainees and all of the assistant supervisors were selected for anthropometric training, which included both classroom lectures and practice measurement in a nursery school. At the end of the program, the 31 most qualified trainees were selected to serve as measurers during the EDHS fieldwork.
By the end of the training course, 66 of the 96 candidates originally recruited for interviewer training had been selected to work as interviewers or field editors in the EDHS fieldwork.
The initial round of fieldwork for the EDHS-95 began on November 4, 1995 and was completed on January 1, 1996. A total of 95 staff, including one fieldwork coordinator, two assistant fieldwork coordinators, 13 supervisors, l 3 assistant supervisors, 13 field editors and 53 interviewers were responsible for the data collection. All supervisors and assistant supervisors were male while the field editors and interviewers were female.
The field staff was divided into 13 teams; each team had a supervisor, assistant supervisor, field editor and three to five interviewers. Usually two of the interviewers in the team plus the field editor and the assistant supervisor were responsible of the anthropometric measurements. During the field work the 13 field teams worked in separate governorates; the number of governorates assigned to an individual team varied from one to three, according to the sample size in the governorates.
As soon as the main data collection was completed in the first group of governorates, a random sample of up to 10 percent of the households was selected for re-interview as a quality control measure. Shorter versions of the EDHS-95 questionnaires were prepared and used for the re-interviews. The visits to PSUs to conduct re-interviews also afforded an opportunity to make callbacks to complete interviews with households or individuals who were not available at the time of the original visit by the EDHS-95 interviewers. Household or individual questionnaires in which there were significant errors which could not be corrected in the office were also assigned for callbacks. Special teams were organized to handle callbacks and re-interviews. During this phase of the survey, interviewers were not allowed to work in the governorate in which they had participated in the initial fieldwork. Callbacks and re-interviews began on December 16, 1995 and were completed on February 7, 1996.
The questionnaire for each DHS can be found as an appendix in the final report for each study.
The EDHS-1995-96 involved three types of questionnaires: a household questionnaire, an individual questionnaire, and a women's status questionnaire. The household and individual questionnaires were based on the model survey instruments developed by the Demographic and Health Surveys program for high contraceptive prevalence countries. Additional questions on a number of topics not covered in the DHS mode/questionnaires were included in EDHS-95 questionnaires. In some cases, those items were drawn from the questionnaires used for the 1988 EDHS and the 1992 EDHS. In other cases, the questions were intended to collect information on topics not covered in the earlier surveys (e.g., schooling of children and female circumcision). The women's status questionnaire was based on a special set of modules developed in the DHS program to explore a number of dimensions of the status of women. The modules were modified to obtain data of interest in understanding the position of women in Egyptian society.
The household questionnaire consisted of two parts: a household schedule and a series of questions relating to the health and socioeconomic status of the household. The household schedule was used to list all usual household members and visitors and to identify those present in the household during the night before the interviewer's visit. For each of the individuals included in the schedule, information was collected on the relationship to the household head, age, sex, marital status (for those fifteen years and older), educational level and work status (for those six years and older). The second part of the household questionnaire included questions on characteristics of the physical and social environment of the household (e.g., type of dwelling, availability of electricity, source of drinking water, household possessions, and type of salt the household uses for cooking).
The individual questionnaire was administered to all ever-married women age 15-49 who were usual residents or who were present in the household during the night before the interviewer's visit. It obtained information on the following topics:
• Respondent's background
• Contraceptive knowledge and use
• Fertility preferences and attitudes about family planning.
• Pregnancy and breastfeeding
• Immunization and health
• Schooling of children
• Female circumcision
• Marriage and husband's background
• Woman's work and residence
The individual questionnaire included a monthly calendar, which was used to record a respondent's fertility, contraceptive use, and marriage status during each month of nearly a six-year period beginning in January 1990. Height and weight data were obtained during the individual interview for children born since January 1990 and mothers of these children, as well as other women who had had a live birth since January 1990.
The women's status questionnaire obtained more detailed information from a subsample of women on the following topics:
• Parent's background
• Relations with the husband and other household members
• Women's workload and eating practices
• Financial Autonomy
• Treatment of women in the household.
The household and individual questionnaires were pretested in June 1995 following a two-week training course. Two supervisors, two assistant supervisors and eight interviewers participated in the pretest. The pretest was conducted in Gharbia and Beni-Suef governorates. A total of 303 household and 260 individual interviews were completed during the pretest, out of which 140 household and 126 individual interviews were in urban areas, with the remaining interviews being conducted in rural areas.
The women's status questionnaire was pretested in July 1995 following a one-week training course for supervisors and interviewers. Two supervisors and six interviewers participated in the pretest. It was conducted with the same individuals who were interviewed in the pretest of the main survey questionnaires. A total of 229 questionnaires were completed, out of which 103 were in urban areas and 126 were in rural areas.
The questionnaires from the EDHS-1995-96 were finalized following the pretest. Both interviewer comments and tabulations of the pretest results were reviewed during the process of modifying the questionnaires.
The central office of the EDHS-1995-96 was responsible for collecting questionnaires from supervisors as soon as a cluster completed. Questionnaires were reviewed for consistency and completeness by office editors, and a few questions (e.g., occupation) were coded in the office prior to data entry. To provide feedback for the field teams, the office editors were instructed to report any problems detected while editing the questionnaires. These reports were reviewed by the senior staff. If serious errors were found in one or more questionnaires from a cluster, the supervisor of the team working in the cluster was notified and advised of the steps to be taken to avoid these problems in the future.
Machine Entry and Editing
The machine entry and editing phase began while interviewing teams were still in the field. The data from the questionnaires were entered and edited on microcomputers using the Integrated System for Survey Analysis (ISSA), a software package developed especially for the Demographic and Health Surveys program.
Eleven data entry personnel used eight IBM-compatible microcomputers to process the EDHS-1995-96 survey. During the machine entry, one-third of each segment was reentered for verification. One of the computers was assigned solely for this purpose. By working two shifts six days per week, the data processing staff completed the entry and editing of data by the end of February 1996.
Estimates of Sampling Error
The estimates from a sample survey are affected by two types of errors: (1) non sampling errors, and (2) sampling errors. Non-sampling errors are the results of mistakes made in implementing data collection and data processing, such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, misunderstanding of the questions on the part of either the interviewer or the respondent, and data entry errors. Although numerous efforts were made during the implementation of the EDHS-95 to minimize this type of error, non-sampling errors are impossible to avoid and difficult to evaluate statistically.
Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be evaluated statistically. The sample of respondents selected in the EDHS-1995-96 is only one of many samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and expected size. Each of these samples would yield results that differ somewhat from the results of the actual sample selected. Sampling errors are a measure of the variability between all possible samples. Although the degree of variability is not known exactly, it can be estimated from the survey results.
A sampling error is usually measured in terms of the standard error for a particular statistic (mean, percentage, etc.), which is the square root of the variance. The standard error can be used to calculate confidence intervals within which the true value for the population can reasonably be assumed to fall. For example, for any given statistic calculated from a sample survey, the value of that statistic will fall within a range of plus or minus two times the standard error of that statistic in 95 percent of all possible samples of identical size and design.
If the sample of respondents had been selected as a simple random sample, it would have been possible to use straightforward formulas for calculating sampling errors. However, the EDHS-1995-96 sample is the result of a multi-stage stratified design, and, consequently, it was necessary to use more complex formulae. The computer software used to calculate sampling errors for the EDHS-1995-96 is the ISSA Sampling Error Module (ISSAS). This module used the Taylor linearization method of variance estimation for survey estimates that are means or proportions. The Jacknife repeated replication method is used for variance estimation of more complex statistics such as fertility and mortality rates.
Note: See detailed estimate of sampling error calculation in APPENDIX C of the report which is presented in this documentation.
Data Quality Tables
- Household age distribution
- Age distribution of eligible and interviewed women
- Completeness of reporting
- Births by calendar years
- Reporting of age at death in days
- Reporting of age at death in months
Note: See detailed tables in APPENDIX D of the report which is presented in this documentation.
Data and Data Related Resources
Use of the dataset must be acknowledged using a citation which would include:
- the Identification of the Primary Investigator
- the title of the survey (including acronym and year of implementation)
- the survey reference number
- the source and date of download
Egypt National Population Council (NPC) and Macro International Inc., Calverton, Maryland USA. Egypt Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) 1995-1996. Dataset downloaded from www.measuredhs.com on [date].
Disclaimer and copyrights
The user of the data acknowledges that the original collector of the data, the authorized distributor of the data, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.