IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0258304.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using family planning service statistics to inform model-based estimates of modern contraceptive prevalence

Author

Listed:
  • Niamh Cahill
  • Emily Sonneveldt
  • Priya Emmart
  • Jessica Williamson
  • Robinson Mbu
  • Airy Barrière Fodjo Yetgang
  • Isaac Dambula
  • Gizela Azambuja
  • Alda Antonio Mahumane Govo
  • Binod Joshi
  • Sayinzoga Felix
  • Clarisse Makashaka
  • Victor Ndaruhutse
  • Joel Serucaca
  • Bernard Madzima
  • Brighton Muzavazi
  • Leontine Alkema

Abstract

The annual assessment of Family Planning (FP) indicators, such as the modern contraceptive prevalence rate (mCPR), is a key component of monitoring and evaluating goals of global FP programs and initiatives. To that end, the Family Planning Estimation Model (FPEM) was developed with the aim of producing survey-informed estimates and projections of mCPR and other key FP indictors over time. With large-scale surveys being carried out on average every 3–5 years, data gaps since the most recent survey often exceed one year. As a result, survey-based estimates for the current year from FPEM are often based on projections that carry a larger uncertainty than data informed estimates. In order to bridge recent data gaps we consider the use of a measure, termed Estimated Modern Use (EMU), which has been derived from routinely collected family planning service statistics. However, EMU data come with known limitations, namely measurement errors which result in biases and additional variation with respect to survey-based estimates of mCPR. Here we present a data model for the incorporation of EMU data into FPEM, which accounts for these limitations. Based on known biases, we assume that only changes in EMU can inform FPEM estimates, while also taking inherent variation into account. The addition of this EMU data model to FPEM allows us to provide a secondary data source for informing and reducing uncertainty in current estimates of mCPR. We present model validations using a survey-only model as a baseline comparison and we illustrate the impact of including the EMU data model in FPEM. Results show that the inclusion of EMU data can change point-estimates of mCPR by up to 6.7 percentage points compared to using surveys only. Observed reductions in uncertainty were modest, with the width of uncertainty intervals being reduced by up to 2.7 percentage points.

Suggested Citation

  • Niamh Cahill & Emily Sonneveldt & Priya Emmart & Jessica Williamson & Robinson Mbu & Airy Barrière Fodjo Yetgang & Isaac Dambula & Gizela Azambuja & Alda Antonio Mahumane Govo & Binod Joshi & Sayinzog, 2021. "Using family planning service statistics to inform model-based estimates of modern contraceptive prevalence," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(10), pages 1-14, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0258304
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258304
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0258304
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0258304&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0258304?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gneiting, Tilmann & Raftery, Adrian E., 2007. "Strictly Proper Scoring Rules, Prediction, and Estimation," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 102, pages 359-378, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Azar, Pablo D. & Micali, Silvio, 2018. "Computational principal agent problems," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(2), May.
    2. Angelica Gianfreda & Francesco Ravazzolo & Luca Rossini, 2023. "Large Time‐Varying Volatility Models for Hourly Electricity Prices," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 85(3), pages 545-573, June.
    3. Davide Pettenuzzo & Francesco Ravazzolo, 2016. "Optimal Portfolio Choice Under Decision‐Based Model Combinations," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(7), pages 1312-1332, November.
    4. Rubio, F.J. & Steel, M.F.J., 2011. "Inference for grouped data with a truncated skew-Laplace distribution," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 55(12), pages 3218-3231, December.
    5. Hwang, Eunju, 2022. "Prediction intervals of the COVID-19 cases by HAR models with growth rates and vaccination rates in top eight affected countries: Bootstrap improvement," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    6. R de Fondeville & A C Davison, 2018. "High-dimensional peaks-over-threshold inference," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 105(3), pages 575-592.
    7. Armantier, Olivier & Treich, Nicolas, 2013. "Eliciting beliefs: Proper scoring rules, incentives, stakes and hedging," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 17-40.
    8. Domenico Piccolo & Rosaria Simone, 2019. "The class of cub models: statistical foundations, inferential issues and empirical evidence," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 28(3), pages 389-435, September.
    9. Finn Lindgren, 2015. "Comments on: Comparing and selecting spatial predictors using local criteria," TEST: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 24(1), pages 35-44, March.
    10. Laura Liu & Hyungsik Roger Moon & Frank Schorfheide, 2023. "Forecasting with a panel Tobit model," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(1), pages 117-159, January.
    11. Warne, Anders, 2023. "DSGE model forecasting: rational expectations vs. adaptive learning," Working Paper Series 2768, European Central Bank.
    12. James Mitchell & Aubrey Poon & Dan Zhu, 2022. "Constructing Density Forecasts from Quantile Regressions: Multimodality in Macro-Financial Dynamics," Working Papers 22-12R, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, revised 11 Apr 2023.
    13. Rafael Frongillo, 2022. "Quantum Information Elicitation," Papers 2203.07469, arXiv.org.
    14. Karimi, Majid & Zaerpour, Nima, 2022. "Put your money where your forecast is: Supply chain collaborative forecasting with cost-function-based prediction markets," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 300(3), pages 1035-1049.
    15. Peysakhovich, Alexander & Plagborg-Møller, Mikkel, 2012. "A note on proper scoring rules and risk aversion," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(1), pages 357-361.
    16. Ranadeep Daw & Christopher K. Wikle, 2023. "REDS: Random ensemble deep spatial prediction," Environmetrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(1), February.
    17. Merkle, Edgar C. & Steyvers, Mark & Mellers, Barbara & Tetlock, Philip E., 2017. "A neglected dimension of good forecasting judgment: The questions we choose also matter," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 817-832.
    18. Remy Elbez & Jeff Folz & Alan McLean & Hernan Roca & Joseph M Labuz & Kenneth J Pienta & Shuichi Takayama & Raoul Kopelman, 2021. "Cell-morphodynamic phenotype classification with application to cancer metastasis using cell magnetorotation and machine-learning," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-14, November.
    19. Angelica Gianfreda & Francesco Ravazzolo & Luca Rossini, 2020. "Large Time-Varying Volatility Models for Electricity Prices," Working Papers No 05/2020, Centre for Applied Macro- and Petroleum economics (CAMP), BI Norwegian Business School.
    20. Yuanchao Emily Bo & David V. Budescu & Charles Lewis & Philip E. Tetlock & Barbara Mellers, 2017. "An IRT forecasting model: linking proper scoring rules to item response theory," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(2), pages 90-103, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0258304. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.