Cargando…

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

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-report...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Adair, Tim, Lopez, Alan D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8186773/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34101745
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252140
_version_ 1783705013077409792
author Adair, Tim
Lopez, Alan D.
author_facet Adair, Tim
Lopez, Alan D.
author_sort Adair, Tim
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8186773
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81867732021-06-16 How reliable are self-reported estimates of birth registration completeness? Comparison with vital statistics systems Adair, Tim Lopez, Alan D. PLoS One Research Article 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. Public Library of Science 2021-06-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8186773/ /pubmed/34101745 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252140 Text en © 2021 Adair, Lopez https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Adair, Tim
Lopez, Alan D.
How reliable are self-reported estimates of birth registration completeness? Comparison with vital statistics systems
title How reliable are self-reported estimates of birth registration completeness? Comparison with vital statistics systems
title_full How reliable are self-reported estimates of birth registration completeness? Comparison with vital statistics systems
title_fullStr How reliable are self-reported estimates of birth registration completeness? Comparison with vital statistics systems
title_full_unstemmed How reliable are self-reported estimates of birth registration completeness? Comparison with vital statistics systems
title_short How reliable are self-reported estimates of birth registration completeness? Comparison with vital statistics systems
title_sort how reliable are self-reported estimates of birth registration completeness? comparison with vital statistics systems
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8186773/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34101745
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252140
work_keys_str_mv AT adairtim howreliableareselfreportedestimatesofbirthregistrationcompletenesscomparisonwithvitalstatisticssystems
AT lopezaland howreliableareselfreportedestimatesofbirthregistrationcompletenesscomparisonwithvitalstatisticssystems