Khayelitsha Integrated Family Survey 2002-2005

South Africa, 2002 - 2005

Get Microdata

Reference ID

ZAF_2002-2005_KIFS_v01_M

Producer(s)

Professor Anne Case

Metadata

DDI/XML JSON

Study website

Created on

Mar 24, 2013

Last modified

Mar 29, 2019

Page views

60192

Downloads

407

comment3: Comments: Part 3 (comment3)

Data file: khay02030405_ch_200906

Overview

Valid: 175

Type: Discrete

Start: 903

End: 1146

Width: 244

Format:

Questions and instructions

Categories

Value	Category
(yes, but not available, you cannot see it.)
, 24/6/99 and 15/03/00. Here, I have listed the vaccines in the order in which they appear. Note that they are not in chronological order. While it looks like the first, third an
, it is not specified what vaccine this is. Original data were left untouched.
.
. 3. At the end of the immunization chart, the interviewer also notes tha
. 4. In the immunization chart, under the booster column for
. Again, I included it under polio, and intepreted it as the fifth dose child received.
. All corrections made by the physician in this module are reflected here, instead of the initial responses provided by the interviewer. 3.Next to the question on general he
. I am assuming this is an extra dose of
. It is highly unlikely that this degree of accuracy was used when measuring children in their homes. Height was slightly edited and made to be 101.50cm, which is more likely to have been the actual measurement.
. Order of vaccines was not changed here. 2.Interviewer had originally recorded child's height as being as being 90.02kg. It is highly unlikely that this degree of accuracy was used when measuring children in their homes. Height was slight
. The answer for question L9 (on breastfe
. These data look very odd. In this dataset, we unde
. This is reflected here: the other vaccine administered at birth and the booster administered at 18 months ar
. Here we have included under polio the vaccine administered on 14/06/02, but have left the other two doses under measles.
/YY). This was interpreted to be 13/06/2000 and is reflected here.
08/00 and a third dose on 19/09/00. This is reflected here.
2/00). We interpret this as being the day when an extra dose of DTP was given to the child at about the 18-month mark and this is reflected here.
2/02 (DD/MM/YY) but child was not even born then. It looks like there was a typo and the month should be 07 instead, which would also make it consistent with the day the child was give the first dose of the HepB and DTP vaccines. This correcti
4.In the immuni
4.Though the immunization schedule for the measles vaccine is strange, data here were left untouched. As such, the original three doses re
7/09/99, DD/MM/YY) While these boosters also look like mistakes, they were left untouched. 2. Immunization schedule for BCG, polio and DTP are very odd for this child. Analysts may want to take a closer look at these. Aside from the changes
A dose of both DT and the Polio vaccines are normally given to children under the school booster, in preparation for school, and this is reflected here. This does seem unusally early for child to be getting one of these vaccines. Origina
DD/MM/YY); three doses of DTP were administered on the same day (13/07/02); and all doses of HepB were also administered concurrently (10/08/02). We interpret here that the polio, DTP and HepB vaccine were administered concurrently on three se
DT and polio vaccines, this is how this booster is recorded here.
DTP and HepB vaccines. It is clear that this is a very confusing health card for the interviewer. As such we leave blank immunization dates for DTP and HepB here, but include the two dates listed under polio, as strange as they may seem. c.I
G vaccine was given to the child, as well as one dose of the polio vaccine, which is in the box directly underneath the BCG vaccine in the chart.
Here we understand that interviewer had trouble transposing immunization records from the child's original Road to Health Card to the chart found in our interview guide. We interpret here that on 04/02/02, the first dose of polio, HepB and DTP
In the immunization chart, interviewer indicates that the second and third doses of the HepB vaccine were administered only one day apart. This is highly unlikely but original dates were left untouched.
It seems like the interviewer got the year wrong and that the year should be 1999, instead. This is reflected here.
Physician's additions and corrections are reflected here. 4 In the immunization chart, the date for the second dose of polio is registered as 27/31/02. This is impossible. T
Physician's corrections are reflected here.
a typo in the year and that child's birthdate is actually 26/05/91. Data here reflect a change in the year, but analysts are encouraged to take a second look at this case ID. 2.Note that this child's immunization schedule looks odd, though
a value of 3 (still breastfeeding), instead of the interviewer's originial 1. We follow the skip pattern indicated in the interview guide and skip items L8 and L9, which are given the value of .. Nevertheless, it's worth noting that
above that three doses of the DTP, HepB, and polio (plus Polio0) vaccines were given. In the case of polio, it is not exactly clear from the chart how many doses were given and whether Polio0 and a fourth dose were administered.
administered on 26/08/91 (DD/MM/YY), only 12 days after the previous dose. We have left these data untouched and recorded them as such. There is a possibility that there is a typo in the year: if the year were 1992, this would correspond to
alue of 1 to vars polio1given, dtp1gven and hepbgiven.
an determine how they want to interpret it.
and 52.50cm, respectively, since these are more likely to have been the actual measurements. A new waist measurement was taken by the physician on March21/03 and is reflected here. 3.Under L8 on overall breastfeeding, interviewer had marked 2
ar. To indicate that this dose was given, we also assign var polio0given a value of 1. 2. Interviewer had originally recorded child's height as being 125.05cm. It is highly unlikely that this degree of accuracy was used when measuring ch
ard. 2. Interviewer had originally recorded child's height as being 112.05cm. It is highly unlikely that this degree of accuracy was used when measuring children in their homes. Height was slightly edited and made to be 112.50cm, which is mor
as missing. I have swaped the answers here, indicating that child was overall breastfed for 14 months but left number of months of exclusive breastfeeding as ..
at one dose of BCG was given to the child at birth, and that a dose of polio (directly underneath BCG in the immunization chart) was also given to the child at birth. 2.Child's date of birth was left untouched.
bias in the dataset. (For the record, the new immunization card indicates that the following vaccines were given on the following dates: polio (28/04/91, 04/06/91, and 01/08/91) (DD/MM/YY) and measles (05/12/91). Again, these are not included
birth. It is impossible that two doses of BCG were given to the child at the same time. Having said that, the 6-week dose listed under BCG could have been possibly listed here by mistake. There is a chance that it refers to the 6-week dose
ble to indicate that the information came from the card and not from recall. 4.The records in the immunization card are a little confusing, as most of the dates seems to follow the DD/MM/YY or YY/MM/DD structure, while one of the dates (second
by assigning a value of 1 to vars polio2given, dtp2given and hepb2given.
cate that it was given by assigning a value of 1 to var polio1given. 4. Interviewer had originally recorded child's height as being 78.05cm. It is highly unlikely that this degree of accuracy was used when measuring children in their home
cate that this was a dose of Polio0 instead. This is reflected in this dataset.
ccines on 02/10/98 (DD/MM/YY), even though these are listed under polio and BCG in the guide. (To better understand our interpretation, analysts might want to compare the layout of the immunization chart included in the South African Road to H
chart. Analysts would need to decide whether they wish to ignore immunization data entirely for this case id.
children. Waist and head circumference were slightly edited and made to be 59.50cm and 54.50cm, respectively, which are more likely to have been the actual measurements taken.
cine and a dose of the polio vaccine and these are registered as such here. 3.Dates of vaccination under measles are not in chronological order. We will leave the data here untouched.
column of the immunization chart, is the date Feb24/97. It spans the DTP, the polio, and Hep B vaccines. Here I assume that all three vaccines were administered on this date. 4.Note that the schedule fo
corrected it and put 2002 instead, when all interviews for this round of the study were conducted. 4.In the immunization chart, interviewer recorded that BCG was given to child on Jan10/98, 15 days before the child was born. While in this da
d in the immunization chart is somewhat strange. Here we understand that the interviewer had a lot of trouble transposing the dates from the child's actual health card to the immunization chart provided in the questionnaire. Data reflected her
d to be administered two days before. This, again, looks like a typo; it seems like the date should actually be 27/5/98, which would make it be chronologically consistent with other doses of this vaccine, and which would coincide with the date
date for the first dose as ., but indicate that it was given, by assigning a value of 1 to var DTP1given. Also note that the last dose of the DTP vaccine (06/02/03) was given at approximately 12 years of age. This is odd, but the date wa
des that child received other vaccine on 17/12/00 (DD/MM/YY). The description of the vaccine, however, is not legible and looks something like: PS007. We indicate that an other vaccine was given to the child here and describe it as PS0
e child's original health card to the immunization chart we have in our interview guide. Here we interpret that child was administered boosters for the polio and DTP vaccines on 02/06/98 (DD/MM/YY), even though these are listed under polio and
e it is.
e polio and DTP vaccines and this is reflected here. 4.Immunization chart is unclear. DTP vaccines are not recorded in chronological order, and this is reflected in the data above. It is possible that the interviewer had trouble transposing
e transposing the dates from the child's actual health card to the immunization chart provided in the questionnaire. Data reflected here present our best interpretation. To understand how we came to this, analysts are encouraged to look at th
ected this by indicating that one dose of BCG and one dose of polio were given to child at birth. This is reflected in this dataset.
ed on 14/04/01 (DD/MM/YY), at birth. This is impossible. Here, we understand that one dose of BCG was given at birth and that the second dose recorded here actually refers to the first dose of polio (Polio0), which is found in the box directl
ee details. 3.To the right of the immunization chart , next to the booster column, interviewer wrote another date: 24/10/01 (DD/MM/YY). Here we interpret that on this date child was administered the equivalent of the 18-month booster of t
eeding. Corrections made by the physican who examined family are reflected here.
eft this question blank, I inputed a zero here -- it seems like the baby was receiving some sort of supplement while still hospitalized.
em like any edits were actually made on the original chart. Original data here were left untouched.
ese are recorded as such here.
ese dates in the child's immunization chart. 3. It also looks like the dose listed in the Booster column (under BCG) is actually the 18-month booster for the polio vaccine. This was listed as such in this dataset.
firm breastfeeding question. In a different handwriting, someone fills in the answers for these questions (12 months and 0 month, respectively). These answers are reflected here. 3.Next to question on general health, interviewer adds: Has
first dose of DTP and HepB were also administered. There seems to be a typo in the date for the third dose of the vaccine (polio2). Interviewer indicates that it was given to child on 6/1/98, but we changed it here to 26/1/98, making it compat
from the child's actual health card to the immunization chart provided in the questionnaire. Data reflected here present our best interpretation. To understand how we came to this, analysts are encouraged to look at the two different immuniza
g children in their homes. Height was slightly edited and made to be 98.50cm, which is more likely to have been the actual measurement.
guide. Here we interpret that child was administered the 18-month booster for the polio and DTP vaccines on 25/08/99 (DD/MM/YY), even though these are listed under polio and BCG in the guide. (To better understand our interpretation, analysts
hanged to 52cm instead.
hat this degree of accuracy was used when measuring children in their homes. Waist measurement was slightly edited and made to be 54.50cm, which is more likely to have been the actual measurement.
hat vaccine it is. It is possible that this vaccine corresponds to the (belated) 18-month boosted for DTP, but since it is difficult to tell for sure what vaccine was administered on this date, we keep it under other in this dataset as well.
he date the first dose of the DTP vaccine was given to the child.
here was changed to 2002 instead, since this makes it consistent with the rest of the immunization data for this child. 3.Note that the interviewer also records that the third dose of DTP was given on 18/12/03 (DD/MM/YY), while the interview
here). Physician's corrections are reflected in these data.
here.
here. c.Under L8, interviewer had written that child was breastfed for 12 months, and under L9 specified that exclusive breastfeeding was also carried out for that long. Next to this question, physician adds: not possible and changes the l
hey were indeed given, we also assigned a value of 1 to vars polio1given, polio2given, dtp1given and dtp2given.
his degree of accuracy was used when measuring children in their homes. Height was slightly edited and made to be 132.50cm, which is more likely to have been the actual measurement.
his is vaccine number 5 and writes next to it: Pre-school booster. Since the polio vaccines are numbered one through four, and the interviewer changes the number of the booster to 5 (instead of the original 2 under BCG), I understand t
ht, it is clear that the respondent did not have the card at the time of the interview. I changed the answer in this question from a 1 to a 3 (card not available.) The interviewer's note next to the empty immunization chart leads me to be
ild on 19/06/01 (DD/MM/YY). b.Interviewer also indicated that three doses of BCG were given to the child at approximately 6weeks, 9 weeks and 11months(01/11/99, 20/11/99, and 28/08/00, DD/MM/YY, respectively). This pattern of immunization lo
ild was even born. We record the date as . but indicate that an other vaccine was given to child, by assigning a value of 1 to var other21given.
ild.
immunization, interviewer indicates that a vaccin
impossible. While we record that one dose of BCG was given to child at birth, we understand the second dose was recorded here by mistake and that it should have been recorded in the box immediately underneath the BCG vaccine to indicate that t
indicates that child has an immunization card, but it is not available, this module indicates that the source of child's birthweight was taken from the card. This is not possible. The value of this variable was changed from 1 to 2 to indic
ing children in their homes. Height was slightly edited and made to be 124.50cm, which is more likely to have been the actual measurement.
ings under the booster column, look like mistakes and were not included at all in this dataset. It could be that the 18-month measles vaccine was just recorded here in the wrong column, or it is possible that these two extra markings refer to t
ion, interviewer includes a last dose of the polio vaccine, which I include here, instead, under polio and not under other.
is vaccine was also given. It is clear that the first dose listed under this vaccine, indeed corresponds to a dose of BCG. The other two doses (on 28/04/92 at birth, and on 16/05/97 at 5yrs) seem to have been written in this box by mistake.
is wrong, since it comes three months before the child was born. The year was changed to 2002 here. 2.Note that the year for the measles vaccine appears to also be wrong. Interviewer indicated that child was given this vaccine on 11/03/01 (DD
ld's date of birth.** 2.Note that all child measurements were edited by physician: height, weight, waist, and head circumference. Interviewer had these measures to be, respectively: 136cm, 29.55kg, 61cm, and 75cm but these were corrected and
like 0607-07-01 and 0607-08-01 are twins.
listed on the immunization chart for this vaccine is 30/01//96 (DD/MM/YY), which is about 4 months before the child was born. This is clearly a mistake and we record the date for this dose as ., though we assign a value of 1 to var hepb1
lth card, we have indicated here that the birthweigjt, too, was obtained here.
ly edited and made to be 130.50cm, 58.50cm and 53.50cm, respectively, since these are more likely to have been the actual measurements taken.
many of these months were spent on exclusive breastfeeding. The data here reflect this interpretation. 2.Next to the empty immunization chart, interviewer writes: Up to date, according to her mother. No marks were made here on any specific
may have been administered there. The variable polio0given is thus assigned a value of 1 here. ANALYSTS ARE ENCOURAGED TO CONSIDER WHETHER THEY WANT TO KEEP THESE IMMUNIZATION RECORDS AT ALL OR DISCARD THEM. Here we have left them untou
measles (third dose). I have not left these vaccines under other but instead integrated them with the polio, DTP and measles categories, respectively. Note that the date of this third dose of measles is not listed in chronological ord
nd the third dose was given for all three vaccines was given on 16/08/01. This interpretation is reflected here. 2.Also note that in the immunization chart, interviewer lists one date for the measles vaccine (04/03/02) and under other, in
nder the column where the name of vaccines are written in the chart, next to DTP, interviewer also writes HIB2, but does not cross out DTP. Here we assume that the vaccinations dates recorded refer to both HIB2 and DTP and we have recorded the
nic card.
nintelligible rubric following that. Data here reflect this, and we specify that child was exclusively (with no other supplements) for 2.75 months. 2.Respondent does not know child's birthweight.
nt with the rest of the data here. 4.Note that, in general, this child's immunizatioin records look very strange. 4a) Immunization dates for measles are not in chronological order. Interviewer indicates that a dose of the vaccine was given
nterviewer indicates that three doses of the measles vaccine were given to child on 15/06/92, 16/09/93 and 13/08/96 (DD/MM/YY). Data here were left untouched.
ntly, with the first dose of each vaccine given on 21/01/03, the second dose of each given on 18/02/03, and the third dose on 18/03/03. This is reflected here.
once on 11/02/02, once on 11/03/02, and once on 08/04/02, constituting three doses for each of these vaccines. This is reflected in the
onths or age. Data here were left untouched.
ore likely to have been the actual measurements.
ource of birthweight) was thus assigned a value of 2 to indicate that the information came from recall, instead.
possible. While we have kept the date for the second dose untouched, we leave the date for the first dose as . and assign a value of 1 to var DTP1given, to indicate that child did, indeed, receive an earlier dose of this vaccine. 3.Under
re also administered. The change is reflected here. 3.In the immunization chart, under other immunization, interviewer includes 2 dates (16/08/01 and 20/01/02). As what looks like the description, she adds: EPI5/02. It's difficult to te
reflected here.
rred to clinic [card.] Since the question here asks about parental report, the yes answer was kept. We did not record interviewer's interpretation of whether or not child was fully immunized. 4.Immunization records for this child also loo
ry strange, original data here were left untouched.
s administered the 18-month booster for the polio and DTP vaccines on 15/04/02 (DD/MM/YY), even though these are listed under polio and BCG in the guide. (To better understand our interpretation, analysts might want to compare the layout of th
s it as Meas. I included this record as a second dose of the measles vaccine here.
s slightly edited and made to be 52.50cm, which is more likely to have been the actual measurement.
s vaccine.
seems to be wrong. Interviewer indicates that vaccine was given on 27/03/96, while the second dose was administered on 26/03/1996 (a day before it.) It seems like there is typo on the month of the first dose and that it should actually be 27
she has good health but she has no appetite then sh
stfed.
t looks like the interviewer used the DD/MM/YY format for dates, the first two vaccines listed under DTP seem to follow the MM/DD/YY format. For instance, here we have 09/21/95 and 04/19/95. Only in these cases were immunization dates changed t
t this corresponds to the 18-month booster of both the polio and DTP vaccines and record it here as such.
te for the first of these as . but indicate that an earlier dose was indeed given by assigning a value of 1 to vars polio1given and dtp1given. Also note that two other doses of the polio vaccine were said to be administered concurrentl
th African Road to Health Card to the one provided in our interview guide.)
that child was vaccinated on 10/05/02 but does not specify what vaccine the child was given. Original data were left untouched.
the HepB vaccine listed in the immunization chart is 05/03/02 (DD/MM/YY), which is before the child was even born. It looks like there is a typo in the month. Here we changed the date to 05/06/02, which makes it compatible with the day the po
the actual measurement.
the child was actually born in the month of February. Immunizations look pretty consistent and reliable. I have thus changed the month of birth here. 3. Interviewer indicates that a dose of BCG was given to the child at birth, and in the b
the general health question. Original question had not been administered at the time of the first interview.
these vaccines, given at approximately 9 and 18 months (05/06/02 and 03/03/03) could potentially correspond to the measles vaccine, but since this is not entirely clear, we leave these data untouched and record them under other, instead.
this is.
ths. It looks like these numbers were swaped. From here, we understand that the child was breastfed for a total of 4 months, instead, and of those 4 months, 2 months were of exclusive breastfeeding, with no supplements. This interpretation i
tion for the latter blank (.) but have included the dates under other1. 3.It looks like the interviewer had trouble transposing vaccine boosters from the child's original health card to the immunization chart we have in our interview guide
to allow analysts the freedom to interpret them as they see best fit. 2.It looks like there is a mistake in this imunization chart and that the
to indicate a dose was administered to the child, even though we do not have a record of when this was done.
to reflect this.
to the clinic. Here we have kept the physician's correction.
to var polio0given to indicate this dose was given.
to variable
to where dates for the DTP vaccine are registered are two other dates: 30/04/99 and 24/02/03 (DD/MM/YY). It looks like these are additional doses of DTP that were given to the child, but just did not fit in the chart itself. I have included
trouble transposing vaccine boosters from the child's original health card to the immunization chart we have in our interview guide. Here we interpret that child was administered the 18-month boosterequivalent for the polio and DTP vaccines on
ttle over five years of age. This second dose looks like a mistake and most likely stands for the 5th year booster of the polio vaccine. We include it here as such.
urements were not taken at the time of the interview, but instead later. No date to indicate when these measurements were taken, however, is provided.
vaccine was also administered to the child on 19/07/95, but what type of vaccine this was is not specified. 4.Though the immunization schedule for this child looks odd, no other changes, aside from those dis
vaccine was given to child on 10/09/96, but what type of vaccine this was is not specified. 3. Aside from the third dose of polio (polio2), intervi
vaccine was given to child on 19/02/93, but what type of vaccine this was is not specified.
vaccine, interviewer indicates that a vaccine is given to
vaccines at birth-- a dose of polio, DTP and Hepatitis B, but no dose of BCG. The BCG dose was only given to the child at 6 weeks, but a dose of DTP, polio and HepB were not given at the time, as would be expected. Though this schedule is odd,
vaccines in the immunization chart, interviewer listed that a second dose of measles was administered in May/June 2000. In th
vaccines; one next to polio; and another one next to HepB. Unless otherwise specified, data here wer
variable to capture comment on the immunization chart. We also record here that child does not have an immunization chart, a question that was skipped in this child's module.
variable. 3.This child's immunization chart looks strange. Interviewer recorded that a do
ven on 24/01/01, the second dose for each of these vaccines was given on 22/05/01, and the third dose for all three vaccines was also given simltaneously on 19/06/01. Note that it looks like there is a typo in the date for the first dose of the
ven. 3.Interviewer also notes that an other vaccine is given to child at about 5 years but fails to specify what it is.
visited family.
was imputed for L9 (number of months child was breastfed with supplements), since interviewer had left this question blank. 4. Next to the empty immunization chart, interviewer adds:
what vaccine this is.
with the date that other doses of polio and measles vaccines were also administered. This is reflected here. 4.The date for the third dose of DTP is odd. Interviewer wrote what looks like: 91/60/08 . There is clearly a mistake here, but sin
writing down DPT.
ype of vaccine it is, isn't. This is reflected here.

Warning: these figures indicate the number of cases found in the data file. They cannot be interpreted as summary statistics of the population of interest.

Back to Catalog