| Title |
Testing for fertility stalls in demographic and health surveys
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Population Health Metrics, December 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1478-7954-9-59 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michel L Garenne |
| Abstract |
This study compares two methods for testing fertility trends and fertility stalls using Demographic and Health Surveys data. The first method is based on linear regression and uses the equivalence of period and cohort estimates with the same cumulative fertility at age 40, the same number of births, and the same distribution of women by parity. The second method is based on logistic regression. It assumes that the age pattern of fertility is constant over short periods of time. Both methods were applied to fertility trends in several African countries (Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, and Zambia). The two methods were found to predict similar values of cumulative fertility, to produce consistent slopes, to document fertility trends the same way, and to characterize fertility stalls with similar statistical evidence. They can also be used to refute apparent fertility stalls obtained when comparing two point estimates from two successive surveys. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 6% |
| Rwanda | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 32 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 20% |
| Researcher | 7 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 23% |
| Unknown | 5 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 13 | 37% |
| Arts and Humanities | 5 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 11% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 December 2015.
All research outputs
#14,142,788
of 22,662,201 outputs
Outputs from Population Health Metrics
#279
of 391 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,371
of 240,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Population Health Metrics
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,662,201 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 391 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 240,850 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.