Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2009-2010
Myanmar, 2009 - 2010
Identification
MMR_2009_MICS_v01_M
Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2009-2010
| Name | Country code |
|---|---|
| Myanmar | MMR |
Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey - Round 3 [hh/mics-3]
The Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey, Round 3 (MICS3) is the third round of MICS surveys, previously conducted around 1995 (MICS1) and 2000 (MICS2). Many questions and indicators are consistent and compatible with the prior round of MICS (MICS2) but less so with MICS1, although there have been a number of changes in definition of indicators between rounds. Details can be found by reviewing the indicator definitions.
Myanmar MICS 2009-2010 was conducted by the Planning Department, Department of Health Planning and the Department of Health. Its main objectives are to provide updated information for assessing the situation of children and women in Myanmar; to furnish data needed for monitoring progress towards the Millennium Development Goals and other internationally agreed goals; and to contribute to the improvement of data collection and monitoring systems in Myanmar.
Myanmar MICS 2009-2010 is a nationally representative survey designed to provide estimates at national level, for urban and rural areas and for each of the 17 states and divisions. Data collection was mainly undertaken between October 2009 and March 2010, although data were collected from four clusters already in June 2009. A sample of 29,250 households was selected, of which 29,238 households were successfully interviewed. Data were collected for indicators at household level, as well as for 38,081 individual women aged 15 to 49, and 15,539 children under five. Data are disaggregated by gender, area of residence, education level and wealth quintile.
It is notable that most indicators do not show any significant differences between male and female children. Urban areas show better outcomes than rural areas on most indicators. There is wide variation among states and divisions, with Rakhine, Chin and Shan (North) States showing lower coverage than other states and divisions on most indicators. Disparities according to wealth level are also visible on most indicators.
Sample survey data [ssd]
- Individuals
- Households
Scope
The scope of the 2009-2010 Myanmar Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey includes:
- Household: household listing, education, water and sanitation;
- Women: child mortality, tetanus toxoid, maternal and newborn health, contraception, HIV knowledge;
- Children: birth registration and early learning, vitamin A, care of illness, immunisation and anthropometry.
Coverage
National
The survey covered all de jure household members (usual residents), all women aged between 15-49 years, all children under 5 living in the household.
Producers and sponsors
| Name | Affiliation |
|---|---|
| Department of Planning | Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development |
| Department of Health Planning | Ministry of Health |
| Department of Health | Ministry of Health |
| United Nations Children’s Fund |
| Name | Role |
|---|---|
| United Nations Children's Fund | Financial and technical support |
Sampling
The primary objective of the sample design for the Myanmar Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey was to produce statistically reliable estimates of most indicators, at the national level, for urban and rural areas, and for the 17 states and divisions of the country: Kachin, Kayah, Kayin, Chin, Mon, Rakhine, Shan (North), Shan (East), Shan (South), Ayeyarwaddy, Bago (East), Bago (West), Magwe, Mandalay, Sagaing, Tanintharyi, and Yangon.
Although aiming to produce data for the national level, 10 townships in Ayeyarwaddy Division and four townships in Yangon Division affected by Cyclone Nargis in 2008 were excluded from the sampling frame. Moreover, five townships in Shan (North) State were removed from the sampling frame due to security concerns. Urban and rural areas in each state/division were defined as the sampling domains. A multi-stage, stratified probability proportional to size (PPS) cluster sampling design was adopted for the selection of the survey sample.
The target sample size for the Myanmar MICS was calculated as 29,250 households.
The resulting number of households from this exercise was 29,250 households. The average cluster size in the Myanmar MICS was determined as 30 households, based on a number of considerations, including the budget available, and the time that would be needed per team to complete one cluster. Dividing the total number of households by the number of households per cluster, it was calculated that the selection of a total number of 975 clusters would be needed for the Myanmar MICS.
A compromise allocation procedure was adopted for allocation of 975 clusters to the 17 states and divisions. In each state/division, the clusters (primary sampling units) were distributed to urban and rural domains, proportional to the size of urban and rural populations in that state/division.
The 2006 updated list of villages from the Population Department, Ministry of Population and Immigration was used as the sampling frame for the selection of clusters. In urban areas wards were defined as primary sampling units (PSUs), and in rural areas village tracts were defined as PSUs. Before sampling, wards and village tracts of 19 townships in Ayeyarwaddy, Yangon and Shan (North) were removed from the sampling frame. PSUs were selected from each of the sampling domains by using systematic PPS (probability proportional to size) sampling procedures. Within each village tract, one village was selected by simple random sampling.
During the fieldwork period 40 of the selected enumeration areas were not visited because they were considered inaccessible due to security concerns. These were replaced with other clusters of similar size. Substitution of selected clusters is, however, not a recommended MICS procedure. According to MICS standard protocol when sampled enumeration areas are not accessible, they should be abandoned without selecting replacement clusters. This is because the replacement clusters will not have been selected with the same probability of selection as the other clusters. The situation in these geographical areas might also systematically differ from the areas which were not possible to visit, which could introduce bias in the data.
Since the sampling frame (the 2006 list of villages from the Population Department) was not up to date, the number of households in all selected clusters was updated in consultation with local village/ward authorities prior to the selection of households. For this purpose, survey teams visited each enumeration area and listed the occupied households one day ahead of field data collection. Survey teams were required to either obtain a map from the local authorities, or draw a map themselves, detailing all dwellings in the enumeration area. The map was then divided into segments of around 15 households. Two segments were selected at random by the field team, to make up a cluster of 30 households.
The sampling procedures are fully described in "Myanmar Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2009-2010 - Final Report" pp.124-126.
Of the 29,250 households selected for the sample, all households were found to be occupied. Of these, 29,238 were successfully interviewed for a household response rate of 100 percent. In the interviewed households, 39,025 women aged 15-49 were identified. Of these, 38,081 were successfully interviewed, yielding a response rate of 97.6 percent. In addition, 15,574 children under five were listed in the household questionnaire. Questionnaires were completed for 15,539 of these children, which corresponds to a response rate of 99.8 percent. Overall response rates of 97.5 and 99.7 are calculated for the women’s and under-five’s interviews respectively.
Since the household response rate was 100 percent, no difference could be seen between urban and rural areas or across the 17 states and divisions of the country. Women’s overall response rate is slightly lower than children’s overall response rate because some women were not available in their home at the time of interview. Kachin State has the lowest women’s response rate (89.5 percent), followed by Bago (East) Division (94.1 percent), Mandalay and Sagaing (95.4 and 95.6 percent respectively). Other states and divisions showed a response rate for women above 98 percent.
Variations in women’s response rates across the country may be due to slight differences in cultural and socioeconomic situation, influencing the daily activities and working status of women.
Weights for the Myanmar Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey sample were calculated for 34 strata, that is rural and urban areas of 17 states and divisions. It was not considered possible to calculate weights at cluster level, since some clusters were replaced with others, and it was hence difficult to calculate selection probabilities at cluster level.
The major component of the weight Wh is the reciprocal of the sampling fraction employed in selecting the number of sample households in that particular sampling domain: Wh = 1 / fh
A second component which has to be taken into account in the calculation of sample weights is the level of non-response for the household and individual interviews. The adjustment for household nonresponse is equal to the inverse value of:
HHRR = (Number of interviewed households in the cluster of two segments)/ (Number of occupied households listed in the cluster of two segments)
After the completion of fieldwork, response rates were calculated for each sampling domain. These were used to adjust the sample weights calculated for each cluster.
Similarly, the adjustment for non-response at the individual level (women and under-five children) is equal to the inverse value of:
WRR (or CRR) = Completed women’s (or under-five’s) questionnaires / Eligible women (or under-fives) Numbers of eligible women and under-five children were obtained from the household listing in the Household Questionnaire in households where interviews were completed.
The unadjusted weights for the households were calculated by multiplying the above factors for each stratum. These weights were then standardized (or normalized), one purpose of which is to make the sum of the interviewed sample units equal the total sample size at the national level. Normalization is performed by multiplying the aforementioned unadjusted weights by the ratio of the number of completed households to the total unadjusted weighted number of households. A similar standardization procedure was followed in obtaining standardized weights for the women’s and underfive’s questionnaires. Adjusted (normalized) household weights varied between 0.12 for urban Kayah and 1.69 for rural Yangon in the 34 strata.
Sample weights were appended to all data sets and analyses were performed by weighting each household, woman or under-five with these sample weights.
Survey instrument
The questionnaires for the Myanmar MICS were structured questionnaires based on the MICS3 Model Questionnaire with some modifications and additions. A household questionnaire was administered in each household, which collected various information on household members including sex, age, relationship, and orphanhood status. The household questionnaire includes household listing, education, and water and sanitation.
In addition to a household questionnaire, questionnaires were administered in each household for women age 15-49 and children under age five. For children, the questionnaire was administered to the mother or caretaker of the child.
The women's questionnaire includes child mortality, tetanus toxoid, maternal and newborn health, contraception, HIV knowledge.
The children's questionnaire includes birth registration and early learning, vitamin A, care of illness, immunisation and anthropometry.
The questionnaires are based on the MICS3 model questionnaire. From the MICS3 model English version, the questionnaires were translated into Myanmar and were pre-tested in Pyan-ka-pyae Village in Pyinmana Township, Mandalay Division during May 2009. Based on the results of the pretest, modifications were made to the wording and translation of the questionnaires. Questionnaires were not translated into any of the other languages spoken in Myanmar. In addition to the administration of questionnaires, fieldwork teams measured the weights and heights of children under five.
Data collection
| Start | End |
|---|---|
| 2009-10 | 2010-03 |
| Name | Affiliation |
|---|---|
| Department of Planning | Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development |
| Department of Health Planning | Ministry of Health |
| Department of Health | Ministry of Health |
| United Nations Children’s Fund |
In July and August 2009, three rounds of Trainings of Trainers (TOT) were conducted in Nay Pyi Taw with participants from central level and each state and division. Participants from five to seven states or divisions, with three to five representatives from each, attended each TOT. Each TOT lasted for 10 days including practice on field work for three days such as map sketching, GPS use, filling in cluster control sheets, interviewing practice using the three sets of questionnaires and anthropometry measurements for under-five children. Field practices were conducted in Ngan-sat, Pyan-ka-pyae and Nat-thu-ye villages in Pyinmana Township for each TOT. A total of 77 trainers attended TOTs, and they became supervisors for data collection teams.
State and division level trainings for data editors and enumerators were conducted from September to October 2009 in all 17 states and divisions. Each training lasted for seven days including three days field practice where questionnaire interviewing and anthropometric measurement for under-five children were practiced. These trainings were organized by trainers who had attended at central level TOT, one central level supervisor and one nutritional team leader for anthropometric training. In each state and division level training, 15 to 25 participants were trained.
Data entry training was carried out from November to December 2009. Trainings were conducted in the three data entry centres in Nay Pyi Taw, Yangon and Mandalay. Each training lasted for four days each, and a total of six data entry supervisors and 30 data entry operators were trained.
A total of 63 data collection teams collected data throughout the country in 17 states and divisions. In each state or division, there were three to five data collection teams, and each team was composed of one supervisor, one data editor, four enumerators and one field guide. Most of the data editors were Health Assistants, Lady Health Visitors and Public Health Nurses from the Department of Health who had previous experience with anthropometric measurement and survey data collection. Field teams were accompanied by local authorities to facilitate appointment for interview, and in some cases midwives and Lady Health Visitors who helped translate interviews with respondents from a few clusters who could not speak Myanmar. Additionally, midwives assisted in recording data related to immunization.
A series of trainings were conducted throughout the country:
o Training for 20 core trainers at central level in Nay Pyi Taw for six days in June 2009
o Three rounds of Trainings of Trainers (TOT) at central level in July and August 2009
o State and division level trainings for data editors and enumerators in September and October 2009
o Data entry training in November and December 2009
Initially, training for core trainers was conducted at central level in June 2009. A total of 20 core trainers comprised of senior and mid-level officials from various concerned departments attended the training, which lasted for six days including field practice for two days in Pyan-ka-pyae village, Pyinmana Township. MICS coordinators and team members from the Department of Health Planning (DHP) and the Planning Department (PD), some of whom have medical background and previous experience on conducting MICS, provided trainings. Specialists from the Nutrition Division of the Department of Health (DoH) conducted training on Anthropometry including theoretical background and practical measurements. Core trainers were assigned later as trainers for Training of Trainers (TOT).
After the first round of training for core trainers, data collection was launched in the last week of June 2009 and was carried out by these trainers in four clusters in Mandalay. Actual mass data collection started in October 2009 following the state and division level training and concluded in March 2010. Data collection was supervised by members from the central level monitoring team of the Planning Department, the Department of Health Planning and the Department of Health, and staff from UNICEF.
Data processing
Completed questionnaires from each state/division were sent back to three assigned data entry centres in Yangon, Mandalay and Nay Pyi Taw, where data entry was done for five to seven states or divisions in each centre. A total of 30 data entry operators and six data entry supervisors were involved in entering the data, and 11 microcomputers were used in each centre. Data were entered using the CSPro software. In order to ensure quality control, all questionnaires were double entered and internal consistency checks were performed. Procedures and standard programmes developed under the global MICS3 project and adapted to the Myanmar questionnaire were used throughout. Data entry started in December 2009 and concluded in April 20104. Final consistency checks were then performed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 18 software programme.
Data were analysed using SPSS Version 18 and the model syntax and tabulation plans developed by UNICEF for this purpose, with adaptations to the Myanmar questionnaire.
Data appraisal
The sample of respondents selected in the Myanmar Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey is only one of the samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and 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. The extent of variability is not known exactly, but can be estimated statistically from the survey results.
The following sampling error measures are presented in this appendix for each of the selected indicators:
- Standard error (se): Sampling errors are usually measured in terms of standard errors for particular indicators (means, proportions etc). Standard error is the square root of the variance. The Taylor linearization method is used for the estimation of standard errors.
- Coefficient of variation (se/r) is the ratio of the standard error to the value of the indicator
- Design effect (deff) is the ratio of the actual variance of an indicator, under the sampling method used in the survey, to the variance calculated under the assumption of simple random sampling. The square root of the design effect (deft) is used to show the efficiency of the sample design. A deft value of 1.0 indicates that the sample design is as efficient as a simple random sample, while a deft value above 1.0 indicates the increase in the standard error due to the use of a more complex sample design.
- Confidence limits are calculated to show the interval within which the true value for the population can be reasonably assumed to fall. For any given statistic calculated from the survey, the value of that statistic will fall within a range of plus or minus two times the standard error (p + 2.se or p – 2.se) of the statistic in 95 per cent of all possible samples of identical size and design.
For the calculation of sampling errors from MICS data, SPSS Version 18 Complex Samples module has been used. The results are shown in the tables that follow. In addition to the sampling error measures described above, the tables also include weighted and unweighted counts of denominators for each indicator.
Sampling errors are calculated for indicators of primary interest, for the national total, for the states and divisions, and for urban and rural areas. Ten of the selected indicators are based on household members, 11 are based on women, and 10 are based on children under five. All indicators presented here are in the form of proportions.
A series of data quality tables and graphs are available to review the quality of the data and include the following:
Age distribution of the household population
Age distribution of eligible women and interviewed women
Age distribution of eligible and interviewed under-5s
Age distribution of under-5 children
Heaping on ages and periods
Completeness of reporting
Presence of mother in the household and the person interviewed for the under-5 questionnaire
School attendance by single age
Sex ratio at birth among children ever born and living
The results of each of these data quality tables are shown in appendix D in document "Myanmar Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2009-2010 - Final Report" pp.176-182.
Data Access
| Name | Affiliation | URL | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Childinfo | UNICEF | http://www.childinfo.org/mics4_surveys.html | mics@unicef.org |
| Is signing of a confidentiality declaration required? | Confidentiality declaration text |
|---|---|
| yes | Users of the data agree to keep confidential all data contained in these datasets and to make no attempt to identify, trace or contact any individual whose data is included in these datasets. |
Survey datasets are distributed at no cost for legitimate research, with the condition that we receive a description of the objectives of any research project that will be using the data prior to authorizing their distribution.
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 country, acronym and year of implementation)
- the survey reference number
- the source and date of download.
Example,
Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development, Ministry of Health, and United Nations Children's Fund. Myanmar Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) 2009-2010, Ref. MMR_2009_MICS_v01_M. Dataset downloaded from [url] 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.
Contacts
| Name | Affiliation | URL | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Childinfo | UNICEF | childinfo@unicef.org | http://www.childinfo.org/mics4_surveys.html |
Metadata production
DDI_MMR_2009_MICS_v01_M_WB
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Development Data Group | The World Bank | Documentation of the DDI |
2014-01-16
Metadata version
Version 01 (Janurary 2014)