Data Sources and Methodology for FP2020 Core Indicators: 2014-15 Report

Data sources and methodology for estimating values for the FP2020 Core Indicators, for the most recent (2014-15) FP2020 Global report, are described below. Instructions on how to calculate Core Indicator estimates for your country, with accompanying Excel worksheets where applicable, are available on the Track20 website, in the Resources section.

The FP2020 Core Indicator list has changed in the following ways since the last FP2020 Annual Report was published:

  • The numbering of all indicators has changed
  • Indicators 10 and 11 are new.
  • The 'old' Indicator 15 (percent informed of permanence of sterilization) has been removed.

To learn more about the indicators and their definitions, view the FP2020 Core Indicator Table.

Incorporating the newest data to re-estimate trends

Each year, when data for the annual report are prepared, newly released country data (data from surveys, new population estimates et cetera) are used in our models to produce new estimates, not just for the current year, but for previous years as well. Continuously incorporating new data allows us to report the best possible estimates at any given point in time. Therefore, Indicators 1-8, which are modeled, are reported for 2012 onwards in each annual FP2020 report, and may have a different values in the current report than in previous reports. For more information, see the Track20 technical brief "Rolling baseline for tracking FP2020 progress" at http://www.track20.org/pages/resources/all-resources/track20_materials

Please note that in the data viewer, estimates for Core Indicators 9, 12, 13 from previous FP2020 global reports are also included, for comparison to the 2014-15 reported values. For all other indicators, estimates from the current (2014-15) report are the only estimates provided.

Data Sources and Methodology, by Indicator

Indicator 1: Number of Additional Users of Modern Methods of Contraception

Indicator 1: Number of Additional Users of Modern Methods of Contraception

The number of additional women (or their partners) of reproductive age currently using a modern contraceptive method compared to 2012.

The number of additional users is calculated by taking the difference between the baseline (2012) number of users and the estimated number of users for the year being reported.  In order to calculate this indicator on an annual basis for the duration of the FP2020 initiative, it was necessary to establish a "zero baseline" for the starting point, the year 2012. This allows for a direct way to calculate additional users by simply subtracting the number of users in 2012 from the number of users in the year being reported.

Calculation:  Values for Indicator 2, mCPR (all women) and 2013/14/15 mCPR (all women) were multiplied by the population of women of reproductive age for the respective year, obtained from the UNPD World Population Prospects 2012 Revision. This calculation yields the number of modern contraceptive users in each year. The difference between the 2012 baseline value and the value for each subsequent year is reported as the number of additional users.

Download the calculator for this indicator at:
http://www.track20.org/pages/resources/all-resources/track20_tools

Note: In the cases of Burundi, Cote d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Indonesia and Mozambique, countries chose to use population projections produced by their country governments. All other countries used UNPD WPP 2012 population estimates.

Indicator 2: Contraceptive prevalence rate, modern methods (mCPR, all women)

The percentage of women of reproductive age who are using (or whose partner is using) a modern contraceptive method at a particular point in time. 

Calculation: mCPR is calculated using Track20's FPET tool, which includes a country's historic and recent DHS, MICS, PMA2020 and other national survey data (mCPR and unmet need).  Based on this data, FPET produces estimates for mCPR among married women; these values are then converted to values that apply to all women of reproductive age (WRA). Track20 is in the process of updating FPET so that it produces estimates for all women, so that this conversion will not be necessary in the future.

Conversion from mCPR for married women to mCPR for all women
For countries with a previous DHS or PMA2020 survey, the ratio of mCPR for all and married women from that survey was used to convert the married women mCPR from FPET to a value for all women. In countries with no previous DHS, a regional estimate was used. In some countries, it was assumed that there is no use of modern contraception by unmarried women, and the number of married modern method users was divided by the population of women of reproductive age to produce an mCPR estimate for all women.

Inclusion of routine data in FPET
Countries producing their own estimates had the option of including country-specific service statistics data in FPET. Incorporating recent routine data from health management information systems into FPET allows the model to produce estimates that better reflect the current situation in the country, particularly when the most recent survey data are out of date. Countries with service statistics data (on contraceptive commodities distributed, or number of visits for contraceptives) of reasonable consistency and quality were able to include this data in their FPET run. Married women values were converted to all women values as described above.

Incorporating service statistics data into FPET requires entry of multiple years of data to calibrate the model. In the FPET model, the trend between the service statistics points (and not the absolute values) inform the mCPR after the last cross-sectional survey data point. It is understood that there is inherent bias in service statistics data, so FPET has been calibrated to correct for this bias.

Download the calculator for this indicator at:
http://www.track20.org/pages/resources/all-resources/track20_tools

Table. Most recent survey included in FPET, inclusion of service statistics, and data source for conversion ratio (from 'married women' mCPR to 'all women' mCPR)

 Country Year of most recent survey included in FPET Type of survey Service statistics included in FPET? Source for AW/MW ratio or % married WRA
Afghanistan 2010-11 MICS   MICS 2010-11
Bangladesh 2014 pDHS/MICS   Regional average
Benin 2014 MICS   DHS 2011-12
Bhutan 2010 MICS   Regional average
Bolivia 2008 DHS   DHS 2008
Burkina Faso 2014 PMA2020 R1   PMA2020 2014
Burundi 2012 PMS Y DHS 2010
Cambodia 2014 pDHS   DHS 2010
Cameroon 2011 DHS   DHS 2011
CAR 2010 MICS   DHS 1994-5
Chad 2010 MICS   DHS 2004
Comoros 2012 DHS   DHS 2012
Congo 2011-12 DHS   DHS 2011-12
Côte d'Ivoire 2011-12 DHS Y DHS 2011-12
Djibouti 2012 PAPFAM   Regional average
DPR Korea 2010 RHS   Regional average
DR Congo 2013-14 DHS   DHS 2013-14
Egypt 2014 DHS   DHS 2008
Eritrea 2002 DHS   DHS 2002
Ethiopia 2014-15 PMA2020 R1R2 pool & 2015 R3   PMA2020 2014 R3
Gambia 2013 DHS   DHS 2013
Ghana 2014 pDHS/PMA2020 R1R2 pool &R3   PMA2020 2014 R3
Guinea 2012 DHS   DHS 2012
Guinea-Bissau 2014 MICS   Regional average
Haiti 2012 DHS   DHS 2012
Honduras 2011-12 DHS   DHS 2011-12
India 2012-13 DLHS/AHLS pooled   DHS 2005-6
Indonesia 2014 Susenas   DHS 2012
Iraq 2011 MICS   MICS 2011
Kenya 2014 pDHS/PMA2020 R2   Consensus mtg average
Kyrgyzstan 2014 MICS   DHS 2012
Lao PDR 2011-12 DHS   Regional average
Lesotho 2014 pDHS   DHS 2009
Liberia 2013 DHS   DHS 2013
Madagascar 2008-9 DHS   DHS 2008-9
Malawi 2013-14 MES   DHS 2010
Mali 2012-13 DHS   DHS 2012-13
Mauritania 2011 MICS   DHS 2000-1
Mongolia 2013 SISS   Regional average
Mozambique 2011 DHS Y DHS 2011
Myanmar 2009-10 MICS   Regional average
Nepal 2014 MICS   DHS 2011
Nicaragua 2011-12 National   RHS 2006-7
Niger 2012 DHS   DHS 2012
Nigeria 2013 DHS Y DHS 2013
Pakistan 2012-13 DHS   DHS 2012-13
Papua New Guinea 2006 National   Regional average
Philippines 2013 DHS   DHS 2013
Rwanda 2010 DHS   DHS 2010
Sao Tome and Principe 2008-9 DHS   DHS 2008-9
Senegal 2014 DHS   DHS 2014
Sierra Leone 2013 DHS   DHS 2013
Solomon Islands 2006-7 DHS   DHS 2007
Somalia 2006 MICS   Regional average
South Africa 2003 DHS Y DHS 2003
South Sudan 2010 MICS   MICS 2010
Sri Lanka 2006-7 DHS   DHS 1987
State of Palestine 2014 MICS   MICS 2000
Sudan 2010 MICS   DHS 1989-90
Tajikistan 2012 DHS   DHS 2012
Tanzania 2010 DHS   DHS 2010
Timor-Leste 2009-10 DHS   DHS 2009-10
Togo 2013-14 DHS   DHS 2013-14
Uganda 2014 PMA2020 R1   PMA2020 2014 R1
Uzbekistan 2006 MICS   DHS 1996
Viet Nam 2013-14 MICS   Regional average
Yemen 2013 pDHS   pDHS 2012-13
Zambia 2013-14 DHS   DHS 2013-14
Zimbabwe 2014 MICS   DHS 2010-11
Indicator 3. Percentage of women with an unmet need for modern methods of contraception

The percentage of fecund women of reproductive age who want no more children or to postpone having the next child, but are not using a contraceptive method, plus women who are currently using a traditional method of family planning. Women using a traditional method are assumed to have an unmet need for modern contraception.

Women with an unmet need for family planning are defined as the total number of women who are in need of family planning -- those who are of reproductive age and do not currently desire to become pregnant but are not using a modern method of contraception. Unmet can be a good indicator for measuring the total potential demand for family planning, since women with unmet need have expressed a desire to space or limit births. Traditionally, and for this indicator, unmet need is calculated for women who are married/in union. Furthermore, FP2020 has decided to focus on unmet need for a modern method, which differs from the traditional definition in that it includes traditional method users as part of the unmet need. This is based on the assumption that women using traditional methods have an unmet need for a more highly effective method. 

Calculation:  FPET, as described for Indicator 2, is used to estimate unmet need for a modern method. Note that this estimate is for women who are married/in union, and not all women.

Sources for the estimation of unmet need are the same as for Indicator 2.

Download the calculator for this indicator at:
http://www.track20.org/pages/resources/all-resources/track20_tools

Indicator 4: Percentage of women whose demand is satisfied with a modern method of contraception

The percentage of women (or their partners) who desire either to have no additional children or to postpone the next child and who are currently using a modern contraceptive method. Women using a traditional method are assumed to have an unmet need for modern contraception.

The indicator assumes that all couples currently using modern contraception want to avoid a pregnancy and that if they did not have access to modern contraception they would be at risk of an unintended pregnancy. Women using traditional methods are assumed to not have their demand for contraception satisfied.

Calculation: Values for the percentage of women whose demand is satisfied with a modern method were calculated using mCPR and percentage of women with an unmet need for modern methods, both produced by FPET, for married/in union women. In order to calculate the percentage of women whose demand is satisfied by a modern method, one simply divides the mCPR by the total demand (total demand = mCPR + unmet need for modern methods). Note that this estimate is for women who are married/in union.

Download the calculator for this indicator at:
http://www.track20.org/pages/resources/all-resources/track20_tools

Indicator 5: Number of unintended pregnancies

The number of pregnancies that occurred at a time when women (and their partners) either did not want additional children or wanted to delay the next birth.  Usually measured with regard to last or recent pregnancies, including current pregnancies.

Calculation: This indicator is calculated in two steps.  First, the number unintended births is calculated by multiplying the total number of live births (usually from the UNPD) by the % of births for which the pregnancy is reported as wanted later or not at all (see table below- usually from DHS or a regional average).

Next, miscarriages and abortions are added to this number to get to the total number of unintended pregnancies that occurred.  For abortions, an estimate from the Guttmacher Institute of the % of unintended pregnancies terminated by abortion is used, and, for miscarriages a global estimate of 13% is used.

Download the calculator for this indicator at:
http://www.track20.org/pages/resources/all-resources/track20_tools

Table. Source for data on percent of births where the pregnancy was wanted 'later' or 'no more'

 Country

Source

Afghanistan

South Asia Regional Average

Bangladesh

2011 DHS

Benin

2011-12 DHS

Bhutan

South Asia Regional Average

Bolivia

2008 DHS

Burkina Faso

2010 DHS

Burundi

2010 DHS

Cambodia

2010 DHS

Cameroon

2011 DHS

CAR

1994-95 DHS

Chad

2004 DHS

Comoros

2012 DHS

Congo

2011-12 DHS

Côte d'Ivoire

2011-12 DHS

Djibouti

Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Average

DPR Korea

Eastern and Central Asia Regional Average

DR Congo

2013-14 DHS

Egypt

2008 DHS

Eritrea

2002 DHS

Ethiopia

PMA2020 2014 R2

Gambia

Western Africa (Anglophone) Regional Average

Ghana

2008 DHS

Guinea

2012 DHS

Guinea-Bissau

Western Africa (Francophone) Regional Average

Haiti

2012 DHS

Honduras

2011-12 DHS

India

2005-06 DHS

Indonesia

2012 DHS

Iraq

Northern Africa and Western Asia Regional Average

Kenya

2008-09 DHS

Kyrgyzstan

2012 DHS

Lao PDR

South Asia Regional Average

Lesotho

2009 DHS

Liberia

2013 DHS

Madagascar

2008-09 DHS

Malawi

2010 DHS

Mali

2012-13 DHS

Mauritania

2000-01 DHS

Mongolia

Eastern and Central Asia Regional Average

Mozambique

2011 DHS

Myanmar

South Asia Regional Average

Nepal

2011 DHS

Nicaragua

2006-07 RHS

Niger

2012 DHS

Nigeria

2013 DHS

Pakistan

2012-13 DHS

Papua New Guinea

Southeast Asia and Oceania Regional Average

Philippines

2013 DHS

Rwanda

2010 DHS

Sao Tome and Principe

2008-09 DHS

Senegal

2010-11 DHS

Sierra Leone

2013 DHS

Solomon Islands

Southeast Asia and Oceania Regional Average

Somalia

Northern Africa and Western Asia Regional Average

South Africa

1998 DHS

South Sudan

Northern Africa and Western Asia Regional Average

Sri Lanka

South Asia Regional Average

State of Palestine

Northern Africa and Western Asia Regional Average

Sudan

Northern Africa and Western Asia Regional Average

Tajikistan

2012 DHS

Tanzania

2010 DHS

Timor-Leste

2009-10 DHS

Togo

2013-14 DHS

Uganda

2011 DHS

Uzbekistan

1996 DHS

Viet Nam

2002 DHS

Western Sahara

Western Africa (Anglophone) Regional Average

Yemen

1997 DHS

Zambia

2013-14 DHS

Zimbabwe

2010-11 DHS

Indicator 6: Number of unintended pregnancies averted due to modern contraceptive use

The number of unintended pregnancies that did not occur during a specified reference period as a result of the protection provided by modern contraceptive use during the reference period. 

The indicator assumes that all couples currently using contraception want to avoid a pregnancy and that if they did not have access to modern contraception they would be at risk of an unintended pregnancy. This indicator contextualizes the value of accessible family planning services, by showing how many couples are avoiding unintended pregnancy by using family planning.  Unintended pregnancies that result doe to method failure are subtracted from this calculation- so in places where more effective contraceptive methods are used, a relatively larger number of pregnancies will be averted.

Calculation: This indicator is calculated based on the total number of modern contraceptive users in each country, which is calculated by multiplying the mCPR by the total number of women of reproductive age (WRA) in each year. 

From here, two additional calculations are needed. First, it is necessary to estimate the number of pregnancies that would have occurred if those currently using modern contraception had not been using contraception. To get this number, the number of women using modern contraception is multiplied by 32%, which is the globally estimated annual pregnancy rate of women who are not actively trying to get pregnant and are not using contraception.  Second, it is necessary to subtract from this the number of pregnancies that occurred due to method failure (these pregnancies are assumed to be unintended). To get the number of pregnancies occurring due to method failure, you multiply the method-specific failure rates by the number of women using each method (based on the most recent method mix data available), and then add up the resulting unintended pregnancies from each method.

Download the calculator for this indicator at:
http://www.track20.org/pages/resources/all-resources/track20_tools

Indicator 7: Number of unsafe abortions averted due to modern contraceptive use

The number of unsafe abortions that did not occur during a specified reference period as a result of the protection provided by modern contraceptive use during the reference period. 

Calculation:  This indicator is calculated in two steps. First, the number of unintended pregnancies averted due to contraceptive use, calculated above for indicator 8, is multiplied by the percent of unintended pregnancies that end in an induced abortion.  The data for this is usually a regional figure published by the Guttmacher Institute (% of unintended pregnancies terminated by abortion).  Second, the value from step one is multiplied by the percentage of abortions that are unsafe.

Download the calculator for this indicator at:
http://www.track20.org/pages/resources/all-resources/track20_tools

Indicator 8: Number of maternal deaths averted due to modern contraceptive use

The number of maternal deaths that did not occur during a specified reference period as a result of the protection provided by modern contraceptive use during the reference period

Calculation: This indicator is calculated in two steps. First, all of the different outcomes of unintended pregnancies averted (Indicator 6) are calculated: unintended births averted, abortions averted (split into safe and unsafe) as described for Indicator 7, and miscarriages averted. The number of unintended births averted is equal to the number of pregnancies averted (estimated above for indicator 6) minus abortions averted (estimated above for Indicator 7), and minus miscarriages averted. The number of miscarriages averted is based on a global miscarriage rate of 13%. 

Next, maternal deaths averted are calculated from each of these unintended pregnancy outcomes. The number of live births averted is multiplied by the live-birth only Maternal Mortality Ratio (MMR) to estimate the number of maternal deaths averted from averting live births.  The live-birth MMR is calculated from the published MMR, adjusting for the mortality due to other pregnancy outcomes.  Unsafe abortions averted are multiplied by an unsafe abortion mortality ratio, which is calculated as the country MMR x regional ratio of unsafe abortion mortality to MMR to estimate maternal deaths averted from averting unsafe abortions.  This calculates a country specific unsafe abortion estimate that is relative the overall MMR in each country.  The number of safe abortions averted is multiplied by a global safe abortion mortality ratio (2 deaths per 100,000 safe abortions).  Finally, miscarriages averted are multiplied by the full MMR to estimate the number of maternal deaths resulting from miscarriages.

Download the calculator for this indicator at:
http://www.track20.org/pages/resources/all-resources/track20_tools

Indicator 9: Percentage distribution of users by modern method of contraception

The percentage of total family planning users using each modern method of family planning.

Calculation: Method mix is calculated by dividing the method specific prevalence rate by the total modern contraceptive prevalence rate.  Method mix data for each country were obtained from the most recent DHS, MICS, PMA2020 or national cross-sectional survey report.

Modern methods of contraception include pill, injectables, IUD, implants, male and female condoms, LAM, female and male sterilization, and the Standard Days Method. Other modern methods, including diaphragm/foam/jelly, were grouped into an 'other' category. Traditional methods are not included.

Download the calculator for this indicator at:
http://www.track20.org/pages/resources/all-resources/track20_tools

Table. Source for 2014-15 data on modern contraceptive use by method

Country Population Source
Afghanistan Married MICS 2010-11
Bangladesh Married pDHS  2014
Benin Married MICS 2014
Bhutan Married MICS 2010
Bolivia All DHS 2008
Burkina Faso All PMA2020 2014 R1
Burundi Married PMS 2012
Cambodia Married pDHS 2014
Cameroon All DHS 2011
CAR Married MICS 2010
Chad Married MICS 2010
Comoros All DHS 2012
Congo All DHS 2011-12
Côte d'Ivoire All DHS 2011-12
Djibouti Married PAPFAM 2012
DPR Korea Married RHS 2010
DR Congo All DHS 2013-14
Egypt Married DHS 2014
Eritrea All DHS 2002
Ethiopia All PMA2020 2014 R2
Gambia All DHS 2013
Ghana Married pDHS 2014
Guinea All DHS 2012
Guinea-Bissau Married MICS 2014
Haiti All DHS 2012
Honduras All DHS 2011-12
India Married AHS&DLHS 2012-13
Indonesia Married Susenas 2013
Iraq Married MICS 2011
Kenya Married pDHS 2014
Kyrgyzstan Married MICS 2014
Lao PDR Married MICS/DHS 2011-12
Lesotho Married pDHS 2014
Liberia All DHS 2013
Madagascar All DHS 2008-9
Malawi Married MICS 2014
Mali All DHS 2012-13
Mauritania Married MICS 2007
Mongolia Married SISS 2013
Mozambique All DHS 2011
Myanmar Married MICS 2010
Nepal Married MICS 2014
Nicaragua Married National 2011-12
Niger All DHS 2012
Nigeria All DHS 2013
Pakistan Married DHS 2012-13
Papua New Guinea All National Survey 2006
Philippines All DHS 2013
Rwanda All DHS 2010
Sao Tome and Principe All DHS 2008-9
Senegal All DHS 2014
Sierra Leone All DHS 2013
Solomon Islands All DHS 2006-2007
Somalia Married MICS 2006
South Africa All DHS 2003
South Sudan Married SHHS2 2010
Sri Lanka Married DHS 2006-7
State of Palestine Married MICS 2014
Sudan Married MICS 2006
Tajikistan All DHS 2012
Tanzania All DHS 2010
Timor-Leste All DHS 2010
Togo All DHS 2013-14
Uganda All PMA2020 2014 R1
Uzbekistan Married MICS 2006
Viet Nam Married MICS 2013-14
Yemen Married pDHS 2013
Zambia All DHS 2013-14
Zimbabwe Married MICS 2014
Indicator 10: Percentage of facilities stocked out, by method offered, on the day of assessment

Percentage of facilities stocked out of each type of contraceptive offered, on the day of assessment

Data for this indicator are obtained from PMA2020 survey reports, or from country reports by UNFPA Supplies (formerly GPRHCS). Data can also be obtained from government logistic reports, or from DHS SPA reports.

Table. Source for data for Indicators 10, 11a and 11b

 Country

Survey year

Source

Benin

2014

UNFPA

Burkina Faso

2014

PMA2020 R1

Cameroon

2014

UNFPA

Chad

2014

UNFPA

Côte d'Ivoire

2014

PNSR/PF/ENSEA

Djibouti

2014

UNFPA

DR Congo

2014

UNFPA

Ethiopia

2014

PMA2020 R2

Gambia

2014

UNFPA

Ghana

2014

PMA2020 R3

Haiti

2014

UNFPA

Honduras

2014

UNFPA

Kenya

2014

PMA2020/R2

Lao PDR

2014

UNFPA

Lesotho

2014

UNFPA

Madagascar

2014

UNFPA

Malawi

2013/2014

UNFPA/DHS SPA

Nepal

2014

UNFPA

Niger

2014

UNFPA

Nigeria

2014

UNFPA

Rwanda

2014

UNFPA

Senegal

2014

UNFPA

South Sudan

2014

UNFPA

Sudan

2014

UNFPA

Togo

2014

UNFPA

Uganda

2014

UNFPA

Yemen

2014

UNFPA

Zambia

2014

UNFPA

Indicator 11a: Percentage of primary SDPs that have at least 3 modern methods of contraception available on the day of assessment

The percentage of service delivery points that have at least 3 modern methods of contraception available on the day of the assessment. This indicator considers methods (such as injectables), not products (such as the 3 month or 6 month injectable) or brands (such as Depo-Provera)

Data for this indicator are obtained from PMA2020 survey reports, or from country reports by UNFPA Supplies (formerly GPRHCS). Data can also be obtained from government logistic reports, or from DHS SPA reports. Sources for Indicator 11a are the same as the sources for Indicator 10.

Note: Since the UNFPA reports present data on percentage of primary SDPs that offer at least 3 modern methods of contraception (and not on the percentage that have 3 methods available on the day of assessment), the data presented for this year do not match the indicator definition. In subsequent years, UNFPA reports will present data according to the FP2020 Core Indicator definition.

Indicator 11b: Percentage of secondary/tertiary SDPs that have at least 5 modern methods of contraception available on the day of assessment

The percentage of secondary and tertiary service delivery points that have at least 5 modern methods of contraception available on the day of the assessment. This indicator considers methods (such as injectables), not products (such as the 3 month or 6 month injectable) or brands (such as Depo-Provera). The determination of which health facilities are defined as “secondary” or “tertiary” will be made at the country level, based on existing classifications.

Data for this indicator are obtained from PMA2020 survey reports, or from country reports by UNFPA Supplies (formerly GPRHCS). Data can also be obtained from government logistic reports, or from DHS SPA reports. Sources for Indicator 11b are the same as the sources for Indicator 10.

Note: Since the UNFPA reports present data on percentage of secondary/tertiary SDPs that offer at least 5 modern methods of contraception (and not on the percentage that have 5 methods available on the day of assessment), the data for this year do not match the indicator definition. In subsequent years, UNFPA reports will present data according to the FP2020 Core Indicator definition.

Indicator 12: Annual expenditure on family planning from government domestic budget

Total annual public sector recurrent expenditures on family planning.  This includes expenditures by all levels of government.

Data for this indicator are obtained either directly from a country's government or from the World Health Organization's System of Health accounts country reports.

Table. Source for 2014-15 government expenditure data

 Country

Source

India

MOH/Consensus Workshop

Benin

WHO/SHA

Burkina Faso

WHO/SHA

DR Congo

WHO/SHA

Liberia

WHO/SHA

Myanmar

Ministry of Health

Tanzania

WHO/SHA

Uganda

Ministry of Health

Indicator 13: Couple-years of protection (CYP)

The estimated protection provided by family planning services during a one year period, based upon the volume of all contraceptives sold or distributed free of charge to clients during that period. The CYP is calculated by multiplying the quantity of each method distributed to clients by a conversion factor, which yields an estimate of the duration of contraceptive protection provided per unit of that method.

Countries reporting CYP used standard USAID conversion factors and commodity distribution data from their health/logistic management information systems. Sources for reporting countries are listed below.

Download the calculator for this indicator at:<
http://www.track20.org/pages/resources/all-resources/track20_tools

Table. Source for 2014-15 service statistics data used to calculate CYP

 Country

Source

Benin

HMIS

Burundi

Système d'information sanitaire de routine (statistiques de services)

Côte d'Ivoire

HMIS

Ethiopia

HMIS

India

HMIS

Indonesia

BKKBN

Kenya

HMIS

Malawi

LMIS/JSI-Deliver

Mozambique

Ministry of Health (MISAU)

Myanmar

Ministry of Health

Nigeria

Ministry of Health

Pakistan

BOS and LMIS

South Africa

Ministry of Health

Tanzania

DHIS2

Togo

HMIS

Uganda

Ministry of Health

Zambia

DHIS2

Zimbabwe

HMIS


Indicator 14: Method Information Index

An index measuring the extent to which women were given specific information when they received family planning services.

The indicator provides a summary measure of the adequacy of information being provided to women by service providers at the time when they chose the method currently being used.  It is used as a measure of the extent to which sufficient information is being provided in order to for women to make informed choices.

Calculation: The indicator is calculated by looking at the three questions:

  1. Were you ever told by a health or family planning worker about other methods of family planning that you could use
  2. Were you ever told by a health or family planning worker about side effects or problems you might have with the method?
  3. Were you told what to do if you experienced side effects or problems?

These questions are asked during DHS and PMA2020 surveys (specific source provided below), of all women who are using select modern methods.

Numerator: the number of women responding “yes” to each of the three questions forming the index (see above)

Denominator: the number of women of reproductive age currently using a contraceptive method responding with a valid answer to each of the three questions forming the index.

Table. Source for data for Indicators 14, 15 and 16

 Country Source Population (for 14, 15) – all or married women
Burkina Faso 2014 PMA2020 R1 AW
Comoros 2012 DHS AW
DR Congo 2013/14 DHS AW
Egypt 2014 DHS MW
Ethiopia 2014 PMA2020 R2 AW
Gambia 2013 DHS AW
Ghana 2014 PMA2020 R3 AW
Guinea 2012 DHS AW
Haiti 2012 DHS AW
Indonesia 2012 DHS AW
Kenya 2014 PMA2020 R2 AW
Kyrgyzstan 2012 DHS AW
Liberia 2013 DHS AW
Mali 2012.5 DHS AW
Niger 2012 DHS AW
Nigeria 2013 DHS AW
Pakistan 2012.5 DHS MW
Philippines 2013 DHS AW
Senegal 2014 DHS AW
Sierra Leone 2013 DHS AW
Tajikistan 2012 DHS AW
Togo 2013/14 DHS AW
Uganda 2014 PMA2020 R1 AW
Zambia 2013/14 DHS AW
Indicator 15. Percentage of women who were provided with information on family planning during their last contact with a health service provider

The percent of women who were provided information on FP in some form at the time of their last contact with a health service provider.  The contact could occur in either a clinic or community setting.  Information could have been provided via a number of mechanisms, including counseling, IEC materials or talks/conversations about FP.

Calculation: The percent of women provided with FP info during last provider visit is a composite of two different questions:

  1. In the last 12 months, were you visited by a fieldworker who talked to you about family planning?
  2. Did any staff member at the health facility speak to you about family planning methods? (Among women who said they  visited a health facility for care for themselves or their children)

These questions are asked during DHS and PMA2020 surveys. If a respondent said “yes” to either of those questions, she was considered to have been provided with FP info during last provider visit. Sources for this indicator are the same as for Indicator 14.

Numerator: the number of women who were provided with FP info during a visit from an FP worker or during a visit to a health facility.

Denominator: Women who either 1) were visited by a family planning worker and/or 2) visited a health facility for any reason.

Indicator 16: Percentage of women who decided to use family planning alone or jointly with their husbands/partners

The percentage of women currently using family planning whose decision to use was made mostly alone or jointly with their husband/partner.

Calculation: This indicator is calculated from the responses to the question:

Would you say that using contraception is mainly your decision, mainly your (husband's/partner's) decision, or did you both decide together?

This question is asked during DHS and PMA2020 surveys. Sources for this indicator are the same as for Indicator 14.

Numerator: the number of women who report making decisions on contraceptive matters either by themselves or based upon consensus joint decision-making with their husband/partner/provider.

Denominator: the number of women of reproductive age currently married or in union responding with a valid answer to a survey question on FP decision-making.

Indicator 17: Adolescent birth rate

The number of births to adolescent females (ages 15-19) occurring during a given reference period per 1,000 adolescent females.  The indicator is analogous to the age-specific fertility rate (ASFR), a component of the total fertility rate (TFR), for 15-19 year olds.

Calculation: Values for this indicator are obtained from the DHS or PMA2020 survey report. The value is taken from the table displaying age-specific fertility rates. Specifically, the value for respondents 15-19 is used.

Table. Sources for data for Indicator 17

Country Source
Bangladesh pDHS 2014
Cambodia pDHS 2014
Comoros DHS 2012
DR Congo DHS 2013
Egypt DHS 2014
Ethiopia PMA2020 2014 (pooled)
Gambia DHS 2013
Ghana pDHS 2014
Guinea DHS 2012
Haiti DHS 2012
Indonesia DHS 2012
Kenya pDHS 2014
Kyrgyzstan DHS 2012
Lesotho pDHS 2014
Liberia DHS 2013
Mali DHS 2012-13
Niger DHS 2012
Nigeria DHS 2013
Pakistan DHS 2012-13
Philippines DHS 2013
Senegal DHS 2014
Sierra Leone DHS 2013
Tajikistan DHS 2012
Togo DHS 2013-14
Zambia DHS 2013-14