Demographic and Health Survey 2006 - Uganda

Abstract
---------------------------

The 2006 Uganda Demographic and Health Survey (UDHS) is a nationally representative survey of 8,531 women age 15-49 and 2,503 men age 15-54. The UDHS is the fourth com­prehensive survey conducted in Uganda as part of the worldwide Demographic and Health Sur­veys (DHS) project. The primary purpose of the UDHS is to furnish policymakers and planners with detailed information on fertility; family planning; infant, child, adult, and maternal mor­tality; maternal and child health; nutrition; and knowledge of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections. In addition, in one in three households selected for the survey, women age 15-49, men age 15-54, and children under age 5 years were weighed and their height was measured. Women, men, and children age 6-59 months in this subset of households were tested for anaemia, and women and children were tested for vitamin A deficiency. The 2006 UDHS is the first DHS survey in Uganda to cover the entire country.

The 2006 Uganda Demographic and Health Survey (UDHS) was designed to provide information on demographic, health, and family planning status and trends in the country. Specifically, the UDHS collected information on fertility levels, marriage, sexual activity, fertility preferences, awareness and use of family planning methods, and breastfeeding practices. In addition, data were collected on the nutritional status of mothers and young children; infant, child, adult, and maternal mortality; maternal and child health; awareness and behaviour regarding HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections; and levels of anaemia and vitamin A deficiency.

The 2006 UDHS is a follow-up to the 1988-1989, 1995, and 2000-2001 UDHS surveys, which were also implemented by the Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS). The specific objectives of the 2006 UDHS are as follows:

- To collect data at the national level that will allow the calculation of demographic rates, particularly the fertility and infant mortality rates
- To analyse the direct and indirect factors that determine the level and trends in fertility and mortality
- To measure the level of contraceptive knowledge and practice of women and men by method, by urban-rural residence, and by region
- To collect data on knowledge and attitudes of women and men about sexually transmitted infections and HIV/AIDS, and to evaluate patterns of recent behaviour regarding condom use
- To assess the nutritional status of children under age five and women by means of anthropometric measurements (weight and height), and to assess child feeding practices
- To collect data on family health, including immunizations, prevalence and treatment of diarrhoea and other diseases among children under five, antenatal visits, assistance at delivery, and breastfeeding
- To measure vitamin A deficiency in women and children, and to measure anaemia in women, men, and children
- To measure key education indicators including school attendance ratios and primary school grade repetition and dropout rates
- To collect information on the extent of disability
- To collect information on the extent of gender-based violence.

MAIN RESULTS

- Fertility : Survey results indicate that the total fertility rate (TFR) for the country is 6.7 births per woman. The TFR in urban areas is much lower than in the rural areas (4.4 and 7.1 children, re­spectively). Kampala, whose TFR is 3.7, has the lowest fertility. Fertility rates in Central 1, Central 2, and Southwest regions are also lower than the national level. Removing four districts from the 2006 data that were not covered in the 2000­2001 UDHS, the 2006 TFR is 6.5 births per woman, compared with 6.9 from the 2000-2001 UDHS. Education and wealth have a marked effect on fertility, with uneducated mothers hav­ing about three more children on average than women with at least some secondary education and women in the lowest wealth quintile having almost twice as many children as women in the highest wealth quintile.

- Family planning : Overall, knowledge of family planning has remained consistently high in Uganda over the past five years, with 97 percent of all women and 98 percent of all men age 15-49 having heard of at least one method of contraception. Pills, injectables, and condoms are the most widely known modern methods among both women and men.

- Maternal health : Ninety-four percent of women who had a live birth in the five years preceding the survey received antenatal care from a skilled health pro­fessional for their last birth. These results are comparable to the 2000-2001 UDHS. Only 47 percent of women make four or more antenatal care visits during their entire pregnancy, an im­provement from 42 percent in the 2000-2001 UDHS. The median duration of pregnancy for the first antenatal visit is 5.5 months, indicating that Ugandan women start antenatal care at a relatively late stage in pregnancy.

- Child health : Forty-six percent of children age 12-23 months have been fully vaccinated. Over nine in ten (91 percent) have received the BCG vaccina­tion, and 68 percent have been vaccinated against measles. The coverage for the first doses of DPT and polio is relatively high (90 percent for each). However, only 64 percent go on to receive the third dose of DPT, and only 59 per­cent receive their third dose of polio vaccine. There are notable improvements in vaccination coverage since the 2000-2001 UDHS. The per­centage of children age 12-23 months fully vac­cinated at the time of the survey increased from 37 percent in 2000-2001 to 44 percent in 2006. The percentage who had received none of the six basic vaccinations decreased from 13 percent in 2000-2001 to 8 percent in 2006.

- Malaria : The 2006 UDHS gathered information on the use of mosquito nets, both treated and un­treated. The data show that only 34 percent of households in Uganda own a mosquito net, with 16 percent of households owning an insecticide-treated net (ITN). Only 22 percent of children under five slept under a mosquito net on the night before the interview, while a mere 10 per­cent slept under an ITN.

- Breastfeeding and nutrition : In Uganda, almost all children are breastfed at some point. However, only six in ten children under the age of 6 months are exclusively breast-fed.

- HIV/AIDS AND stis : Knowledge of AIDS is very high and wide­spread in Uganda. In terms of HIV prevention strategies, women and men are most aware that the chances of getting the AIDS virus can be reduced by limiting sex to one uninfected partner who has no other partners (89 percent of women and 95 percent of men) or by abstaining from sexual intercourse (86 percent of women and 93 percent of men). Knowledge of condoms and the role they can play in preventing transmission of the AIDS virus is not quite as high (70 percent of women and 84 percent of men).

- Orphanhood and vulnerability : Almost one in seven children under age 18 is orphaned (15 percent), that is, one or both par­ents are dead. Only 3 percent of children under the age of 18 have lost both biological parents.

- Women's status and gender violence : Data for the 2006 UDHS show that women in Uganda are generally less educated than men. Although the gender gap has narrowed in recent years, 19 percent of women age 15-49 have never been to school, compared with only 5 per­cent of men in the same age group.

- Mortality : At current mortality levels, one in every 13 Ugandan children dies before reaching age one, while one in every seven does not survive to the fifth birthday. After removing districts not cov­ered in the 2000-2001 UDHS from the 2006 data, findings show that infant mortality has de­clined from 89 deaths per 1,000 live births in the 2000-2001 UDHS to 75 in the 2006 UDHS. Un­der-five mortality has declined from 158 deaths per 1,000 live births to 137.

Geographic coverage
---------------------------

The sample of the 2006 UDHS was designed to allow separate estimates at the national level and for urban and rural areas of the country. The sample design also allowed for specific indicators, such as contraceptive use, to be calculated for each of nine sub-national regions. Portions of the northern region were oversampled in order to provide estimates for two special areas of interest: Karamoja and internally displaced persons (IDP) camps. At the time of the survey there were 56 districts. This number later increased to 80. The following shows the 80 districts divided into the regional sampling strata:

- Central 1: Kalangala, Masaka, Mpigi, Rakai, Lyantonde, Sembabule, and Wakiso
- Central 2: Kayunga, Kiboga, Luwero, Nakaseke, Mubende, Mityana, Mukono, and Nakasongola
- Kampala: Kampala
- East Central: Bugiri, Busia, Iganga, Namutumba, Jinja, Kamuli, Kaliro, and Mayuge
- Eastern: Kaberamaido, Kapchorwa, Bukwa, Katakwi, Amuria, Kumi, Bukedea, Mbale, Bududa, Manafwa, Pallisa, Budaka, Sironko, Soroti, Tororo, and Butaleja
- North: Apac, Oyam, Gulu, Amuru, Kitgum, Lira, Amolatar, Dokolo, Pader, Kotido, Abim, Kaabong, Moroto, and Nakapiripirit (Estimates for this region include both settled and IDP populations.) Karamoja area: Kotido, Abim, Kaabong, Moroto, and Nakapiripirit IDP: IDP camps in Apac, Oyam, Gulu, Amuru, Kitgum, Lira, Amolatar, Dokolo and Pader districts
- West Nile: Adjumani, Arua, Koboko, Nyadri, Nebbi, and Yumbe
- Western: Bundibugyo, Hoima, Kabarole, Kamwenge, Kasese, Kibaale, Kyenjojo, Masindi, and Buliisa
- Southwest: Bushenyi, Kabale, Kanungu, Kisoro, Mbarara, Ibanda, Isingiro, Kiruhura, Ntungamo, and Rukungiri

Analysis unit
---------------------------

- Household
- Women age 15-49
- Men age 15-54
- Children under five

Universe
---------------------------

The population covered by the 2006 UDHS is defined as the universe of alll women age 15-49 who were either permanent residents of the households in the 2006 UDHS sample or visitors present in the household on the night before the survey were eligible to be interviewed. In addition, in a sub-sample of one-third of all the households selected for the survey, all men age 15-54 were eligible to be interviewed if they were either permanent residents or visitors present in the household on the night before the survey.

Kind of data
---------------------------

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure
---------------------------

The sample of the 2006 UDHS was designed to allow separate estimates at the national level and for urban and rural areas of the country. The sample design also allowed for specific indicators, such as contraceptive use, to be calculated for each of nine sub-national regions. Portions of the northern region were oversampled in order to provide estimates for two special areas of interest: Karamoja and internally displaced persons (IDP) camps. At the time of the survey there were 56 districts. This number later increased to 80. The following shows the 80 districts divided into the regional sampling strata:

- Central 1: Kalangala, Masaka, Mpigi, Rakai, Lyantonde, Sembabule, and Wakiso
- Central 2: Kayunga, Kiboga, Luwero, Nakaseke, Mubende, Mityana, Mukono, and Nakasongola
- Kampala: Kampala
- East Central: Bugiri, Busia, Iganga, Namutumba, Jinja, Kamuli, Kaliro, and Mayuge
- Eastern: Kaberamaido, Kapchorwa, Bukwa, Katakwi, Amuria, Kumi, Bukedea, Mbale, Bududa, Manafwa, Pallisa, Budaka, Sironko, Soroti, Tororo, and Butaleja
- North: Apac, Oyam, Gulu, Amuru, Kitgum, Lira, Amolatar, Dokolo, Pader, Kotido, Abim, Kaabong, Moroto, and Nakapiripirit (Estimates for this region include both settled and IDP populations.) Karamoja area: Kotido, Abim, Kaabong, Moroto, and Nakapiripirit IDP: IDP camps in Apac, Oyam, Gulu, Amuru, Kitgum, Lira, Amolatar, Dokolo and Pader districts
- West Nile: Adjumani, Arua, Koboko, Nyadri, Nebbi, and Yumbe
- Western: Bundibugyo, Hoima, Kabarole, Kamwenge, Kasese, Kibaale, Kyenjojo, Masindi, and Buliisa
- Southwest: Bushenyi, Kabale, Kanungu, Kisoro, Mbarara, Ibanda, Isingiro, Kiruhura, Ntungamo, and Rukungiri

A representative probability sample of 9,864 households was selected for the 2006 UDHS survey. The sample was selected in two stages. In the first stage, 321 clusters were selected from among a list of clusters sampled in the 2005-2006 Uganda National Household Survey (UBOS, 2006c). This matching of samples was conducted in order to allow for linking of 2006 UDHS health indicators to poverty data from the 2005-2006 UNHS. The clusters from the Uganda National Household Survey were in turn selected from the 2002 Census sample frame. For the UDHS 2006, an additional 17 clusters were selected from the 2002 Census frame in Karamoja in order to increase the sample size to allow for reporting of Karamoja­specific estimates in the UDHS. Finally, 30 IDP camps were selected from a list of camps compiled by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Human Affairs (UN OCHA) as of July 2005, completing a total of 368 primary sampling units. Figure 1.1 shows the geographical distribution of the 368 clusters visited in the 2006 UDHS.

In the second stage, households in each cluster were selected based on a complete listing of households. In the 321 clusters that were included in the UNHS sample, the lists of households used were those generated during the UNHS listing operations April-August 2005. The UNHS sampled ten households per cluster. All ten were purposively included in the UDHS sample. An additional 15 to 20 households were randomly selected in each cluster. The 17 additional clusters in Karamoja were listed, and 27 households were selected in each cluster. The selected IDP camps were divided into segments because of their large size, and one segment selected in each camp. Then a listing operation was carried out in the selected segment, and 30 households were selected in each camp from the segment of the map that was listed. All women age 15-49 who were either permanent residents of the households in the 2006 UDHS sample or visitors present in the household on the night before the survey were eligible to be interviewed. In addition, in a sub-sample of one-third of all the households selected for the survey, all men age 15-54 were eligible to be interviewed if they were either permanent residents or visitors present in the household on the night before the survey. Indicators such as total fertility rate, childhood mortality rates, and the maternal mortality ratio require a larger sample size than other indicators. These indicators are all calculated from the data provided by female respondents only. For this reason, the number of male respondents required in the sample to obtain acceptable precision in estimates of desired indicators is lower than the number of female respondents.

Biomarkers collected in the UDHS included height and weight measurements for children under 6 years, women age 15-49, and men age 15-54; anaemia testing in children age 6 to 59 months old, women age 15-49, and men age 15-54; and dried blood spot collection for vitamin A testing in children age 6 to 59 months old and women age 15 to 49 years. All of these biomarkers were measured only in those households selected for the male interview-that is, one in three households.

COMPARABILITY OF THE 2006 UDHS SAMPLE WITH SAMPLES FROM PREVIOUS UDHS SURVEYS

The 2006 UDHS is the first UDHS to include the entire country in the sample. In previous surveys, it was necessary to exclude groups of districts because of security problems. In the 2000-2001 UDHS, areas making up the current districts of Amuru, Bundibugyo, Gulu, Kasese, Kitgum, and Pader were excluded from the sample. According to the 2002 Census, these areas comprise around 7 percent of the population of Uganda (UBOS 2006a). The 1995 UDHS excluded Kitgum and Pader, while the 1988­1989 UDHS excluded most of the Northern region.

To show trends using comparable data, the 2006 UDHS data were run without the districts that were excluded in previous surveys. For some key indicators, the report presents two estimates from the 2006 data: one covering the entire country, and a second covering the geographic area surveyed in the 2000-2001 UDHS. Differences between these two estimates are small, seldom exceeding one or two percentage points.

Because it was not possible to run every indicator twice, the report includes many comparisons between the 2000-2001 and 2006 surveys in which the 2006 data have not been adjusted. The report states explicitly when the 2006 data presented are adjusted; otherwise, the data are unadjusted. Comparisons that include unadjusted 2006 data should be interpreted with caution.

Mode of data collection
---------------------------

Face-to-face

Research instrument
---------------------------

Three questionnaires were used for the 2006 UDHS, namely, the Household Questionnaire, the Women's Questionnaire, and the Men's Questionnaire. The contents of these questionnaires were based on the model questionnaires for the MEASURE DHS program. In consultation with technical institutions and local organizations, UBOS adapted these questionnaires to reflect population and health issues relevant in Uganda. The revized questionnaires were translated from English into six local languages, namely, Ateso/Karamojong, Luganda, Lugbara, Luo, Runyankole/Rukiga, and Runyoro/Rutoro. The questionnaires were pretested prior to their finalization in January and February of 2006.

a) The Household Questionnaire was used to list all the usual members and visitors in the selected households. The main purpose of the Household Questionnaire was to identify women and men who were eligible for the individual interview. Some basic information was collected on the characteristics of each person listed, including age, sex, education, and relationship to the head of the household. For children under age 18, survival status of the parents was determined. The Household Questionnaire also collected information on characteristics of the household's dwelling unit, such as the source of water, type of toilet facilities, materials used for the floor of the house, ownership of various durable goods, and ownership and use of mosquito nets. Care and support services received by orphans and other vulnerable children and disability status of household members were also collected in the Household Questionnaires. Finally, the Household Questionnaire was used to document the respondents' decision as to whether to volunteer to give blood samples for vitamin A deficiency (VAD) testing as well as to record the height, weight, and haemoglobin measurements of women age 15-49 years, men age 15-54 years, and children age 6-59 months in those households selected for these measurements.

b) The Women's Questionnaire was used to collect information from all women age 15-49. These women were asked questions on the following topics:
- Background characteristics (education, residential history, media exposure, etc.)
- Birth history and childhood mortality
- Knowledge and use of family planning methods
- Fertility preferences
- Antenatal and childbirth care
- Breastfeeding and infant feeding practices
- Vaccinations and childhood illnesses
- Marriage and sexual activity
- Woman's work and husband's background characteristics
- Awareness and behavior regarding AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs)
- Maternal mortality
- Domestic violence.

c) The Men's Questionnaire was administered to all men age 15-54 living in every third household in the 2006 UDHS sample. The Men's Questionnaire collected much of the same information found in the Women's Questionnaire, but was shorter because it did not contain a detailed reproductive history or questions on maternal and child health or nutrition, or maternal mortality.

Cleaning operations
---------------------------

The processing of the 2006 UDHS data began soon after the start of fieldwork. Completed questionnaires were returned periodically from the field to the UBOS data processing center, first in Entebbe and later in Kampala, where they were entered and edited by 15 data processing personnel who were specially trained for this task. The data processing personnel included a supervisor, a questionnaire administrator (who kept track of the questionnaires received from each cluster), an office editor, data entry operators, and a secondary editor. The concurrent processing of the data was an advantage since field check tables monitored various data quality parameters. As a result, the teams got specific feedback to improve performance. The data entry and editing phase of the survey was completed in mid-October 2006.

Sampling error estimates
---------------------------

Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be evaluated statistically. The sample of respondents selected in the 2006 UDHS 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 2006 UDHS 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 2006 UDHS is the ISSA Sampling Error Module. This module used the Taylor linearization method of variance estimation for survey estimates that are means or proportions. The Jackknife repeated replication method is used for the square root of the variance.

The Jackknife repeated replication method derives estimates of complex rates from each of several replications of the parent sample, and calculates standard errors for these estimates using simple formulae. Each replication considers all but one clusters in the calculation of the estimates. Pseudo-independent replications are thus created. In the 2006 UDHS, there were 368 non-empty clusters. Hence, 368 replications were created.

In addition to the standard error, ISSA computes the design effect (DEFT) for each estimate, which is defined as the ratio between the standard error using the given sample design and the standard error that would result if a simple random sample had been used. A DEFT value of 1.0 indicates that the sample design is as efficient as a simple random sample, while a value greater than indicates the increase in the sampling error due to the use of a more complex and less statistically efficient design. ISSA also computes the relative error and confidence limits for the estimates.

Sampling errors for the 2006 UDHS are calculated for selected variables considered to be of primary interest for the women's survey and for the men's survey. The results are presented in an appendix to the Final report for the country as a whole, for urban and rural areas, and for each of the nine sub-domains. For each variable, the type of statistic (mean, proportion, or rate) and the base population are given in Table B.1 of the Final report. Tables B.2 to B.13 present the value of the statistic (R), its standard error (SE), the number of unweighted (N) and weighted (WN) cases, the design effect (DEFT), the relative standard error (SE/R), and the 95 percent confidence limits (R±2SE), for each variable. The DEFT is considered undefined when the standard error for a simple random sample is zero (when the estimate is close to 0 or 1). In the case of the total fertility rate, the number of unweighted cases is not relevant, as there is no known unweighted value for woman-years of exposure to child-bearing.

The confidence interval (e.g., as calculated for children ever born to women age 40-49) can be interpreted as follows: the overall average from the national sample is 7.318 and its standard error is 0.101. Therefore, to obtain the 95 percent confidence limits, one adds and subtracts twice the standard error to the sample estimate, i.e., 7.318 ± 2 × 0.101. There is a high probability (95 percent) that the true average number of children ever born to all women age 40 to 49 is between 7.116 and 7.519.

In general, the relative standard error for most estimates for the country as a whole is small, except for estimates of very small proportions. There are differentials in the relative standard error for the estimates of sub-populations. For example, for the variable contraceptive use for currently married women, the relative standard errors as a percent of the estimated mean for the whole country, for the urban areas and for the rural areas are 3.3 percent, 5.3 percent and 3.9 percent, respectively.

For the total sample, the value of the design effect (DEFT), averaged over all selected variables, is 1.305 which means that, due to multi-stage clustering of the sample, the average standard error is increased by a factor of 1.305 over that in an equivalent simple random sample.

摘要
---------------------------
2006年乌干达人口与健康调查（UDHS）是一项针对全国8,531名15-49岁女性和2,503名15-54岁男性的代表性调查。该调查是乌干达在全球人口与健康调查（DHS）项目框架下进行的第四次全面调查。UDHS的主要目的是为政策制定者和规划者提供关于生育、家庭规划、婴儿、儿童、成年人和孕产妇死亡率、母婴健康、营养以及关于艾滋病和其他性传播感染知识的详细信息。此外，在三分之一被选中的家庭中，15-49岁的女性、15-54岁的男性以及5岁以下的儿童接受了体重和身高测量。在这个子集家庭中，6-59个月的妇女和儿童接受了贫血检测，而妇女和儿童接受了维生素A缺乏检测。2006年UDHS是乌干达首次涵盖全国的调查。

2006年UDHS旨在提供关于该国人口、健康和家庭规划状况和趋势的信息。具体而言，UDHS收集了关于生育水平、婚姻、性行为、生育偏好、对家庭规划方法的了解和使用情况，以及母乳喂养实践的信息。此外，还收集了关于母亲和婴幼儿的营养状况；婴儿、儿童、成年人和孕产妇死亡率；对艾滋病和其他性传播感染的认识和行为；贫血和维生素A缺乏水平的数据。

2006年UDHS是对1988-1989年、1995年和2000-2001年UDHS调查的后续调查，这些调查也由乌干达统计局（UBOS）实施。2006年UDHS的具体目标如下：

- 收集国家级数据，以计算人口统计指标，特别是生育率和婴儿死亡率
- 分析决定生育率和死亡率水平和趋势的直接和间接因素
- 通过方法、居住地（城市-农村）和地区测量妇女和男性的避孕知识与实践水平
- 收集关于妇女和男性对性传播感染和艾滋病认识及态度的数据，并评估关于避孕套使用的近期行为模式
- 通过人体测量学测量（体重和身高）评估5岁以下儿童和妇女的营养状况，并评估儿童喂养实践
- 收集关于家庭健康的数据，包括疫苗接种、5岁以下儿童中腹泻和其他疾病的患病率和治疗情况、产前检查、分娩援助和母乳喂养
- 测量妇女和儿童中的维生素A缺乏程度，并测量妇女、男性和儿童中的贫血
- 测量关键的教育指标，包括学校入学率和小学年级重复率和辍学率
- 收集关于残疾程度的信息
- 收集关于基于性别暴力的程度的信息。

主要结果

- 生育率：调查结果表明，该国的总生育率（TFR）为每名女性6.7个出生。城市地区的生育率远低于农村地区（分别为4.4和7.1个孩子）。坎帕拉的总生育率最低，为3.7。中部1、中部2和西南地区的生育率也低于全国平均水平。从2000-2001年UDHS未涵盖的四个区划中剔除四个区划后，2006年的TFR为每名女性6.5个出生，而2000-2001年UDHS为6.9。教育和财富对生育率有显著影响，未受过教育的母亲平均比受过至少一些中等教育的女性多三个孩子，而最低财富五分位数中的女性几乎是有最高财富五分位数女性孩子数量的两倍。

- 家庭规划：总体而言，乌干达过去五年中家庭规划知识的普及率一直很高，97%的所有女性和98%的所有15-49岁男性都知道至少一种避孕方法。避孕药丸、注射剂和避孕套是女性和男性中最广为人知的现代方法。

- 孕产妇健康：在调查前五年内生育的94%的女性接受了有技能的健康专业人员提供的最后生育的产前护理。这些结果与2000-2001年UDHS的结果相似。只有47%的女性在整个怀孕期间进行了四次或更多的产前护理，比2000-2001年UDHS的42%有所改善。第一次产前检查的平均孕期为5.5个月，表明乌干达女性在怀孕晚期才开始接受产前护理。

- 儿童健康：46%的12-23个月大的儿童已完全接种疫苗。超过十分之九（91%）已接种BCG疫苗，68%已接种麻疹疫苗。DPT和脊髓灰质炎疫苗第一剂次的接种率相对较高（每项均为90%）。然而，只有64%的儿童接种了DPT的第三剂，只有59%的儿童接种了脊髓灰质炎疫苗的第三剂。自2000-2001年UDHS以来，疫苗接种覆盖率有了显著提高。在调查时，12-23个月大的完全接种疫苗的儿童比例从2000-2001年的37%增加到2006年的44%。未接种疫苗的儿童比例从2000-2001年的13%下降到2006年的8%。

- 疟疾：2006年UDHS收集了关于使用蚊帐的信息，包括处理过的和非处理过的。数据显示，只有34%的家庭拥有蚊帐，其中16%的家庭拥有处理过的蚊帐（ITN）。只有22%的5岁以下儿童在采访前一晚睡在蚊帐下，而只有10%的儿童睡在ITN下。

- 哺乳和营养：在乌干达，几乎所有儿童都曾哺乳。然而，只有六成6个月以下的儿童是完全母乳喂养的。

- 艾滋病/艾滋病和性传播感染：对艾滋病的认识在乌干达非常高且广泛传播。在艾滋病预防策略方面，女性和男性最清楚，通过限制性伴侣为未感染且没有其他性伴侣的人（89%的女性和95%的男性）或通过禁欲（86%的女性和93%的男性）可以降低感染艾滋病病毒的机会。对避孕套及其在预防艾滋病病毒传播中能发挥的作用的认识并不那么高（70%的女性和84%的男性）。

- 孤儿和脆弱性：几乎每七个18岁以下的儿童是孤儿（15%），即一个或两个父母已经去世。只有3%的18岁以下儿童失去了双亲。

- 妇女地位和性别暴力：2006年UDHS的数据显示，乌干达的女性通常受教育程度低于男性。尽管近年来性别差距有所缩小，但19%的15-49岁女性从未上过学，而同一年龄组的男性只有5%。

- 死亡率：在当前的死亡率水平下，每13个乌干达儿童在达到一岁之前就会死亡，而每7个儿童在五岁之前不会存活。从2000-2001年UDHS的每1,000名活产89个死亡下降到2006年的每1,000名活产75个死亡，排除了2000-2001年UDHS未涵盖的区划后，2006年的婴儿死亡率有所下降。

地理覆盖范围
---------------------------
2006年UDHS的样本设计允许在国家级别以及城市和农村地区分别进行估计。样本设计还允许为每个九个次国家级地区计算特定的指标，如避孕药使用情况。为了提供对两个特别关注区域的估计，对北部地区进行了超样本调查：卡拉莫贾和国内流离失所者（IDP）营地。在调查时，有56个区。后来这个数字增加到了80。以下列出了分为区域抽样层级的80个区：

- 中部1：卡兰加拉、玛萨卡、姆皮吉、拉卡伊、利扬东、塞马布卢、瓦基索
- 中部2：卡尤加、基博加、卢韦罗、纳卡塞克、姆班代、米泰纳、穆科诺、纳卡松戈拉
- 坎帕拉：坎帕拉
- 东中部：布吉里、布斯亚、伊加纳、纳木图马、金贾、卡穆利、卡利罗、马尤盖
- 东方：卡贝拉马伊多、卡波乔瓦、布克瓦、卡塔基、阿穆里亚、库米、布克迪亚、姆巴莱、布杜达、马纳法、帕利萨、布达卡、西罗科、索托里、托罗罗、布塔莱贾
- 北方：阿帕克、奥亚姆、古卢、阿穆鲁、基图姆、利拉、阿莫拉塔、多科洛、帕德、科蒂多、阿比姆、卡阿博、莫罗托、纳卡皮里皮里特（该地区的估计包括定居和IDP人口。）卡拉莫贾地区：科蒂多、阿比姆、卡阿博、莫罗托、纳卡皮里皮里特IDP：阿帕克、奥亚姆、古卢、阿穆鲁、基图姆、利拉、阿莫拉塔、多科洛和帕德区的IDP营地
- 西尼罗：阿朱马尼、阿鲁阿、科博科、纳德里、内比、尤姆贝
- 西部：邦迪布戈、胡伊马、卡巴罗莱、卡姆韦恩吉、卡塞塞、基巴莱、基恩乔乔、马西迪、布利伊萨
- 西南：布申伊、卡巴莱、卡努卢、基索罗、基索罗、伊班达、伊辛戈罗、基鲁胡拉、恩图阿莫、鲁孔吉里

分析单元
---------------------------
- 家庭
- 15-49岁的女性
- 15-54岁的男性
- 5岁以下的儿童

总体
---------------------------
2006年UDHS的调查对象定义为所有15-49岁的女性，她们要么是2006年UDHS样本中的家庭永久居民，要么是调查前夜在家庭中的访客。此外，在三分之一被选中的家庭中，所有15-54岁的男性如果他们是家庭的永久居民或调查前夜在家庭中的访客，就有资格接受采访。

数据类型
---------------------------
样本调查数据

抽样程序
---------------------------
2006年UDHS的样本设计允许在国家级别以及城市和农村地区分别进行估计。样本设计还允许为每个九个次国家级地区计算特定的指标，如避孕药使用情况。为了提供对两个特别关注区域的估计，对北部地区进行了超样本调查：卡拉莫贾和国内流离失所者（IDP）营地。在调查时，有56个区。后来这个数字增加到了80。以下列出了分为区域抽样层级的80个区：

- 中央1：卡兰加拉、玛萨卡、姆皮吉、拉卡伊、利扬东、塞马布卢、瓦基索
- 中央2：卡尤加、基博加、卢韦罗、纳卡塞克、姆班代、米泰纳、穆科诺、纳卡松戈拉
- 坎帕拉：坎帕拉
- 东中部：布吉里、布斯亚、伊加纳、纳木图马、金贾、卡穆利、卡利罗、马尤盖
- 东方：卡贝拉马伊多、卡波乔瓦、布克瓦、卡塔基、阿穆里亚、库米、布克迪亚、姆巴莱、布杜达、马纳法、帕利萨、布达卡、西罗科、索托里、托罗罗、布塔莱贾
- 北方：阿帕克、奥亚姆、古卢、阿穆鲁、基图姆、利拉、阿莫拉塔、多科洛、帕德、科蒂多、阿比姆、卡阿博、莫罗托、纳卡皮里皮里特（该地区的估计包括定居和IDP人口。）卡拉莫贾地区：科蒂多、阿比姆、卡阿博、莫罗托、纳卡皮里皮里特IDP：阿帕克、奥亚姆、古卢、阿穆鲁、基图姆、利拉、阿莫拉塔、多科洛和帕德区的IDP营地
- 西尼罗：阿朱马尼、阿鲁阿、科博科、纳德里、内比、尤姆贝
- 西部：邦迪布戈、胡伊马、卡巴罗莱、卡姆韦恩吉、卡塞塞、基巴莱、基恩乔乔、马西迪、布利伊萨
- 西南：布申伊、卡巴莱、卡努卢、基索罗、基索罗、伊班达、伊辛戈罗、基鲁胡拉、恩图阿莫、鲁孔吉里

在第一阶段，从2005-2006年乌干达国家家庭调查（UBOS，2006c）中抽取的抽样单元列表中选择了321个抽样单元。这种样本匹配是为了允许将2006年UDHS健康指标与2005-2006年UNHS的贫困数据联系起来。来自乌干达国家家庭调查的抽样单元随后从2002年人口普查样本框架中选取。对于UDHS 2006，从2002年人口普查框架中在卡拉莫贾选择了额外的17个抽样单元，以增加样本量，以便在UDHS中报告卡拉莫贾特定的估计。最后，从联合国人道事务协调办公室（UN OCHA）截至2005年7月编制的营地列表中选择了30个IDP营地，完成了总共368个一级抽样单元。图1.1显示了2006年UDHS访问的368个抽样单元的地理分布。

在第二阶段，根据每个抽样单元的家庭完整名单选择家庭。在包括在UNHS样本中的321个抽样单元中，使用的家庭名单是在2005年4月至8月进行的UNHS名单操作期间生成的。UNHS在每个抽样单元中抽取10个家庭。这十个家庭都故意包括在UDHS样本中。在每个抽样单元中，还随机选择了15到20个家庭。在卡拉莫贾的额外17个抽样单元中，列出了名单，每个抽样单元中选择了27个家庭。从每个营地中选择IDP营地，由于营地规模较大，每个营地选择一个部分。然后在选定的部分中进行名单操作，并在列出的地图部分中从该部分中选择了30个家庭。所有15-49岁的女性，无论是2006年UDHS样本中的家庭永久居民还是调查前夜在家庭中的访客，都有资格接受采访。此外，在三分之一被选中的家庭中，所有15-54岁的男性如果他们是家庭的永久居民或调查前夜在家庭中的访客，就有资格接受采访。

生物标志物收集
---------------------------
在UDHS中收集的生物标志物包括6岁以下儿童、15-49岁妇女和15-54岁男性的身高和体重测量；6至59个月大的儿童、15-49岁妇女和15-54岁男性的贫血检测；以及6至59个月大的儿童和15至49岁妇女的维生素A检测的干血斑收集。所有这些生物标志物只测量在男性采访中选定的家庭中，即三分之一的家庭。

与以前UDHS调查样本的可比性
---------------------------
2006年UDHS是首次包括整个国家样本的UDHS。在以前的调查中，由于安全问题，必须排除一些区划。在2000-2001年UDHS中，构成当前阿穆鲁、邦迪布戈、古卢、卡塞塞、基图姆和帕德区划的地区被排除在样本之外。根据2002年人口普查，这些地区约占乌干达人口的7%（UBOS 2006a）。1995年UDHS排除了基图姆和帕德，而1988-1989年UDHS排除了北部地区的大部分地区。

为了使用可比数据显示趋势，2006年UDHS数据在没有排除以前调查中排除的区划的情况下进行处理。对于一些关键指标，报告提供了2006年数据的两个估计值：一个覆盖整个国家，另一个覆盖2000-2001年UDHS调查的地理区域。这两个估计值之间的差异很小，很少超过一个或两个百分点。

由于无法对每个指标都进行两次计算，报告包括了许多2000-2001年和2006年调查的比较，其中2006年的数据未经调整。报告明确指出何时提供了2006年的数据；否则，数据未经调整。包括未经调整的2006年数据的比较应谨慎解释。

数据收集方式
---------------------------
面对面

研究工具
---------------------------
2006年UDHS使用了三个问卷，即家庭问卷、妇女问卷和男性问卷。这些问卷的内容基于MEASURE DHS项目的模型问卷。与技术机构和当地组织协商，UBOS对这些问卷进行了调整，以反映乌干达相关的人口和健康问题。修订后的问卷被翻译成六种地方语言，即阿特索/卡拉莫琼、卢加达、卢加巴、鲁奥、鲁恩扬科勒/鲁基加，以及鲁约罗/鲁托罗。在2006年1月和2月最终确定之前，对这些问卷进行了预测试。

a) 家庭问卷用于列出所选家庭的所有常驻成员和访客。家庭问卷的主要目的是确定有资格接受个人采访的妇女和男性。收集了有关名单上每个人的基本特征信息，包括年龄、性别、教育程度和与户主的关系。对于18岁以下的儿童，确定了父母的生存状态。家庭问卷还收集了关于家庭住房单位特征的信息，例如水源、厕所设施类型、房屋地板的材料、各种耐用商品的所有权和使用蚊帐的所有权和使用权。家庭问卷还收集了孤儿和其他脆弱儿童收到的照顾和支持服务以及家庭成员的残疾状况。最后，家庭问卷用于记录受访者是否自愿为维生素A缺乏（VAD）测试提供血样的决定，以及记录15-49岁妇女、15-54岁男性和6-59个月大儿童的身高、体重和血红蛋白测量值。

b) 妇女问卷用于收集所有15-49岁女性的信息。这些女性被问及以下主题：

- 背景（教育、居住史、媒体接触等）

- 出生史和儿童死亡率

- 对家庭规划方法的了解和使用

- 生育偏好

- 产前和分娩护理

- 哺乳和婴儿喂养实践

- 疫苗接种和儿童疾病

- 婚姻和性行为

- 妇女的工作和丈夫的背景特征

- 对艾滋病和其他性传播感染的认识和行为

- 孕产妇死亡率

- 家庭暴力。

c) 男性问卷用于对2006年UDHS样本中每第三个家庭中的所有15-54岁男性进行采访。男性问卷收集了与妇女问卷中找到的大部分相同的信息，但由于没有详细记录生殖历史或关于孕产妇健康、营养或孕产妇死亡率的提问，因此比妇女问卷简短。

数据清理操作
---------------------------