Dataset Information

How reliable are self-reported estimates of birth registration completeness? Comparison with vital statistics systems.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The widely-used estimates of completeness of birth registration collected by Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) and published by UNICEF primarily rely on registration status of children as reported by respondents. However, these self-reported estimates may be inaccurate when compared with completeness as assessed from nationally-reported official birth registration statistics, for several reasons, including over-reporting of registration due to concern about penalties for non-registration. This study assesses the concordance of self-reported birth registration and certification completeness with completeness calculated from civil registration and vital statistics (CRVS) systems data for 57 countries.

Methods

Self-reported estimates of birth registration and certification completeness, at ages less than five years and 12-23 months, were compiled and calculated from the UNICEF birth registration database, DHS and MICS. CRVS birth registration completeness was calculated as birth registrations reported by a national authority divided by estimates of live births published in the United Nations (UN) World Population Prospects or the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study. Summary measures of concordance were used to compare completeness estimates.

Findings

Birth registration completeness (based on ages less than five years) calculated from self-reported data is higher than that estimated from CRVS data in most of the 57 countries (31 countries according to UN estimated births, average six percentage points (p.p.) higher; 43 countries according to GBD, average eight p.p. higher). For countries with CRVS completeness less than 95%, self-reported completeness was higher in 26 of 28 countries, an average 13 p.p. and median 9-10 p.p. higher. Self-reported completeness is at least 30 p.p. higher than CRVS completeness in three countries. Self-reported birth certification completeness exhibits closer concordance with CRVS completeness. Similar results are found for self-reported completeness at 12-23 months.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that self-reported completeness figures over-estimate completeness when compared with CRVS data, especially at lower levels of completeness, partly due to over-reporting of registration by respondents. Estimates published by UNICEF should be viewed cautiously, especially given their wide usage.

SUBMITTER: Adair T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8186773 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Civil registration and vital statistics (CRVS) systems play a key role in upholding human rights and generating data for health and good governance. They also can help monitor progress in achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Although many countries have made substantial progress in strengthening their CRVS systems, most low- and middle-income countries still have underdeveloped systems. The objective of this systematic review is to identify national policies that can help countries strengthen their systems. METHODS AND FINDINGS:The ABI/INFORM, Embase, JSTOR, PubMed, and WHO Index Medicus databases were systematically searched for policies to improve birth and/or death registration on 24 January 2017. Global stakeholders were also contacted for relevant grey literature. For the purposes of this review, policies were categorised as supply, demand, incentive, penalty, or combination (i.e., at least two of the preceding policy approaches). Quantitative results on changes in vital event registration rates were presented for individual comparative articles. Qualitative systematic review methodology, including meta-ethnography, was used for qualitative syntheses on operational considerations encompassing acceptability to recipients and staff, human resource requirements, information technology or infrastructure requirements, costs to the health system, unintended effects, facilitators, and barriers. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018085768. Thirty-five articles documenting experience in implementing policies to improve birth and/or death registration were identified. Although 25 countries representing all global regions (Africa, the Americas, Southeast Asia, the Western Pacific, Europe, and the Eastern Mediterranean) were reflected, there were limited countries from the Eastern Mediterranean and Europe regions. Twenty-four articles reported policy effects on birth and/or death registration. Twenty-one of the 24 articles found that the change in registration rate after the policy was positive, with two supply and one penalty articles being the exceptions. The qualitative syntheses identified 15 operational considerations across all policy categories. Human and financial resource requirements were not quantified. The primary limitation of this systematic review was the threat of publication bias wherein many countries may not have documented their experience; this threat is most concerning for policies that had neutral or negative effects. CONCLUSIONS:Our systematic review suggests that combination policy approaches, consisting of at least a supply and demand component, were consistently associated with improved registration rates in different geographical contexts. Operational considerations should be interpreted based on health system, governance, and sociocultural context. More evaluations and research are needed from the Eastern Mediterranean and Europe regions. Further research and evaluation are also needed to estimate the human and financial resource requirements required for different policies.

Project description:IntroductionThe Case Surveillance and Vital Registration (CSAVR) model within Spectrum estimates HIV incidence trends from surveillance data on numbers of new HIV diagnoses and HIV-related deaths. This article describes developments of the CSAVR tool to more flexibly model diagnosis rates over time, estimate incidence patterns by sex and age group and by key population group.MethodsWe modelled HIV diagnosis rate trends as a mixture of three factors, including temporal and opportunistic infection components. The tool was expanded to estimate incidence rate ratios by sex and age for countries with disaggregated reporting of new HIV diagnoses and AIDS deaths, and to account for information on key populations such as men who have sex with men (MSM), males who inject drugs (MWID), female sex workers (FSW) and females who inject drugs (FWID). We used a Bayesian framework to calibrate the tool in 71 high-income or low-HIV burden countries.ResultsAcross countries, an estimated median 89% (interquartile range [IQR]: 78%-96%) of HIV-positive adults knew their status in 2019. Mean CD4 counts at diagnosis were stable over time, with a median of 456 cells/μl (IQR: 391-508) across countries in 2019. In European countries reporting new HIV diagnoses among key populations, median estimated proportions of males that are MSM and MWID was 1.3% (IQR: 0.9%-2.0%) and 0.56% (IQR: 0.51%-0.64%), respectively. The median estimated proportions of females that are FSW and FWID were 0.36% (IQR: 0.27%-0.45%) and 0.14 (IQR: 0.13%-0.15%), respectively. HIV incidence per 100 person-years increased among MSM, with median estimates reaching 0.43 (IQR: 0.29-1.73) in 2019, but remained stable in MWID, FSW and FWID, at around 0.12 (IQR: 0.04-1.9), 0.09 (IQR: 0.06-0.69) and 0.13% (IQR: 0.08%-0.91%) in 2019, respectively. Knowledge of HIV status among HIV-positive adults gradually increased since the early 1990s to exceed 75% in more than 75% of countries in 2019 among each key population.ConclusionsCSAVR offers an approach to using routine surveillance and vital registration data to estimate and project trends in both HIV incidence and knowledge of HIV status.

Project description:BackgroundBirth registration is a child's first right. Registration of live births, stillbirths and deaths is foundational for national planning. Completeness of birth registration for live births in low- and middle-income countries is measured through population-based surveys which do not currently include completeness of stillbirth or death registration.MethodsThe EN-INDEPTH population-based survey of women of reproductive age was undertaken in five Health and Demographic Surveillance System sites in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau and Uganda (2017-2018). In four African sites, we included new/modified questions regarding registration for 1177 stillbirths and 11,881 livebirths (1333 neonatal deaths and 10,548 surviving the neonatal period). Questions were evaluated for completeness of responses, data quality, time to administer and estimates of registration completeness using descriptive statistics. Timing of birth registration, factors associated with non-registration and reported barriers were assessed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression.ResultsAlmost all women, irrespective of their baby's survival, responded to registration questions, taking an average of < 1 min. Reported completeness of birth registration was 30.7% (6.1-53.5%) for babies surviving the neonatal period, compared to 1.7% for neonatal deaths (0.4-5.7%). Women were able to report age at birth registration for 93.6% of babies. Non-registration of babies surviving the neonatal period was significantly higher for home-born children (aOR 1.43 (95% CI 1.27-1.60)) and in Dabat (Ethiopia) (aOR 4.11 (95% CI 3.37-5.01)). Other socio-demographic factors associated with non-registration included younger age of mother, more prior births, little or no education, and lower socio-economic status. Neonatal death registration questions were feasible (100% women responded; only 1% did not know), revealing extremely low completeness with only 1.2% of neonatal deaths reported as registered. Despite > 70% of stillbirths occurring in facilities, only 2.5% were reported as registered.ConclusionsQuestions on birth, stillbirth and death registration were feasible in a household survey. Completeness of birth registration is low in all four sites, but stillbirth and neonatal death registration was very low. Closing the registration gap amongst facility births could increase registration of both livebirths and facility deaths, including stillbirths, but will require co-ordination between civil registration systems and the often over-stretched health sector. Investment and innovation is required to capture birth and especially deaths in both facility and community systems.