Discrepancies between UN models and DHS survey estimates of maternal orphan prevalence: insights from analyses of survey data from Zimbabwe
Identifieur interne : 000401 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000400; suivant : 000402Discrepancies between UN models and DHS survey estimates of maternal orphan prevalence: insights from analyses of survey data from Zimbabwe
Auteurs : L. Robertson ; S. Gregson ; C. Madanhire ; N. Walker ; P. Mushati ; G. Garnett ; C. NyamukapaSource :
- Sexually Transmitted Infections [ 1368-4973 ] ; 2008-08.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Adoption effect, Adult deaths, Adult mortality, Agricultural estates, Biomedical research, Birth certificate, Birth certificates, Cohort, Commercial centres, Correction factor, Correction factors, Data analysis, Deceased fathers, Deceased mothers, Direct estimates, Double orphans, Eastern zimbabwe, Estimate adult mortality, First round, Health survey, Health surveys, Household census reports, Household surveys, Inconsistency, Individual questionnaire, Informant interviews, International population conference, Macro, Manicaland, Manicaland censuses, Manicaland cohort study, Manicaland data, Manicaland study, Manicaland survey, Maternal, Maternal orphanhood, Maternal orphans, Maternal survival, Mathematical models, Nations population division, Natural children, Natural parents, Older children, Open cohort study, Orphan, Orphan data, Orphan estimates, Orphan numbers, Orphan status, Orphanhood, Orphanhood data, Parental, Parental survival, Parental survival data, Parental survival questions, Parental survival status, Paternal, Paternal orphanhood, Paternal orphans, Paternal survival, Paternal survival status, Popul stud, Possible reasons, Prevalence, Prospective household census, Qualitative findings, Rural areas, Same situation, Spectrum estimates, Successive rounds, Survey data, Survival status, Systematic bias, Timaeus, Time points, Transm, Unaids, World population prospects, Younger children, Zimbabwe.
- Teeft :
- Adoption effect, Adult deaths, Adult mortality, Agricultural estates, Biomedical research, Birth certificate, Birth certificates, Cohort, Commercial centres, Correction factor, Correction factors, Data analysis, Deceased fathers, Deceased mothers, Direct estimates, Double orphans, Eastern zimbabwe, Estimate adult mortality, First round, Health survey, Health surveys, Household census reports, Household surveys, Inconsistency, Individual questionnaire, Informant interviews, International population conference, Macro, Manicaland, Manicaland censuses, Manicaland cohort study, Manicaland data, Manicaland study, Manicaland survey, Maternal, Maternal orphanhood, Maternal orphans, Maternal survival, Mathematical models, Nations population division, Natural children, Natural parents, Older children, Open cohort study, Orphan, Orphan data, Orphan estimates, Orphan numbers, Orphan status, Orphanhood, Orphanhood data, Parental, Parental survival, Parental survival data, Parental survival questions, Parental survival status, Paternal, Paternal orphanhood, Paternal orphans, Paternal survival, Paternal survival status, Popul stud, Possible reasons, Prevalence, Prospective household census, Qualitative findings, Rural areas, Same situation, Spectrum estimates, Successive rounds, Survey data, Survival status, Systematic bias, Timaeus, Time points, Transm, Unaids, World population prospects, Younger children, Zimbabwe.
Abstract
Objectives: Model-based estimates of maternal (but not paternal) orphanhood are higher than those based on data from demographic and health surveys (DHS). We investigate the consistency of reporting of parental survival status in data from Manicaland, Zimbabwe. Methods: We compared estimates of paternal and maternal orphan prevalence in three rounds of a prospective household census in Manicaland (1998–2005) with estimates from DHS surveys and UNAIDS model projections. We investigated the consistency of reporting of parental survival status across the three rounds and compared estimates of adult mortality from the orphan data with direct estimates from concurrent follow-up of a general population cohort. Qualitative data were collected on possible reasons for misreporting. Results: Paternal and maternal orphan prevalence is increasing in Zimbabwe. Mothers reported as deceased in round 1 of the Manicaland survey were more likely than fathers to be reported as alive in rounds 2 or 3 (33.3% vs 13.4%). This pattern was most apparent among younger children. The qualitative findings suggest that foster parents sometimes claim adopted children as their natural children. Conclusions: These results are consistent with misreporting of foster parents as natural parents. This appears to be particularly common among foster mothers and could partly explain the discrepancy between mathematical model and DHS estimates of maternal orphanhood.
Url:
DOI: 10.1136/sti.2008.029926
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:0DF660EC83504DA59018E482AA52DA97F9CEFBDELe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Discrepancies between UN models and DHS survey estimates of maternal orphan prevalence: insights from analyses of survey data from Zimbabwe</title><author><name sortKey="Robertson, L" sort="Robertson, L" uniqKey="Robertson L" first="L" last="Robertson">L. Robertson</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College, London, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Gregson, S" sort="Gregson, S" uniqKey="Gregson S" first="S" last="Gregson">S. Gregson</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College, London, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Biomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Madanhire, C" sort="Madanhire, C" uniqKey="Madanhire C" first="C" last="Madanhire">C. Madanhire</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Biomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Walker, N" sort="Walker, N" uniqKey="Walker N" first="N" last="Walker">N. Walker</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Mushati, P" sort="Mushati, P" uniqKey="Mushati P" first="P" last="Mushati">P. Mushati</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Biomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Garnett, G" sort="Garnett, G" uniqKey="Garnett G" first="G" last="Garnett">G. Garnett</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College, London, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Nyamukapa, C" sort="Nyamukapa, C" uniqKey="Nyamukapa C" first="C" last="Nyamukapa">C. Nyamukapa</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Biomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:0DF660EC83504DA59018E482AA52DA97F9CEFBDE</idno><date when="2008" year="2008">2008</date><idno type="doi">10.1136/sti.2008.029926</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/0DF660EC83504DA59018E482AA52DA97F9CEFBDE/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000401</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">000401</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Discrepancies between UN models and DHS survey estimates of maternal orphan prevalence: insights from analyses of survey data from Zimbabwe</title><author><name sortKey="Robertson, L" sort="Robertson, L" uniqKey="Robertson L" first="L" last="Robertson">L. Robertson</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College, London, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Gregson, S" sort="Gregson, S" uniqKey="Gregson S" first="S" last="Gregson">S. Gregson</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College, London, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Biomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Madanhire, C" sort="Madanhire, C" uniqKey="Madanhire C" first="C" last="Madanhire">C. Madanhire</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Biomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Walker, N" sort="Walker, N" uniqKey="Walker N" first="N" last="Walker">N. Walker</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Mushati, P" sort="Mushati, P" uniqKey="Mushati P" first="P" last="Mushati">P. Mushati</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Biomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Garnett, G" sort="Garnett, G" uniqKey="Garnett G" first="G" last="Garnett">G. Garnett</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College, London, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Nyamukapa, C" sort="Nyamukapa, C" uniqKey="Nyamukapa C" first="C" last="Nyamukapa">C. Nyamukapa</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Biomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Sexually Transmitted Infections</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">Sex Transm Infect</title><idno type="ISSN">1368-4973</idno><idno type="eISSN">1472-3263</idno><imprint><publisher>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</publisher><date type="published" when="2008-08">2008-08</date><biblScope unit="volume">84</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">Suppl 1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="57">i57</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">1368-4973</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1368-4973</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Adoption effect</term><term>Adult deaths</term><term>Adult mortality</term><term>Agricultural estates</term><term>Biomedical research</term><term>Birth certificate</term><term>Birth certificates</term><term>Cohort</term><term>Commercial centres</term><term>Correction factor</term><term>Correction factors</term><term>Data analysis</term><term>Deceased fathers</term><term>Deceased mothers</term><term>Direct estimates</term><term>Double orphans</term><term>Eastern zimbabwe</term><term>Estimate adult mortality</term><term>First round</term><term>Health survey</term><term>Health surveys</term><term>Household census reports</term><term>Household surveys</term><term>Inconsistency</term><term>Individual questionnaire</term><term>Informant interviews</term><term>International population conference</term><term>Macro</term><term>Manicaland</term><term>Manicaland censuses</term><term>Manicaland cohort study</term><term>Manicaland data</term><term>Manicaland study</term><term>Manicaland survey</term><term>Maternal</term><term>Maternal orphanhood</term><term>Maternal orphans</term><term>Maternal survival</term><term>Mathematical models</term><term>Nations population division</term><term>Natural children</term><term>Natural parents</term><term>Older children</term><term>Open cohort study</term><term>Orphan</term><term>Orphan data</term><term>Orphan estimates</term><term>Orphan numbers</term><term>Orphan status</term><term>Orphanhood</term><term>Orphanhood data</term><term>Parental</term><term>Parental survival</term><term>Parental survival data</term><term>Parental survival questions</term><term>Parental survival status</term><term>Paternal</term><term>Paternal orphanhood</term><term>Paternal orphans</term><term>Paternal survival</term><term>Paternal survival status</term><term>Popul stud</term><term>Possible reasons</term><term>Prevalence</term><term>Prospective household census</term><term>Qualitative findings</term><term>Rural areas</term><term>Same situation</term><term>Spectrum estimates</term><term>Successive rounds</term><term>Survey data</term><term>Survival status</term><term>Systematic bias</term><term>Timaeus</term><term>Time points</term><term>Transm</term><term>Unaids</term><term>World population prospects</term><term>Younger children</term><term>Zimbabwe</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Adoption effect</term><term>Adult deaths</term><term>Adult mortality</term><term>Agricultural estates</term><term>Biomedical research</term><term>Birth certificate</term><term>Birth certificates</term><term>Cohort</term><term>Commercial centres</term><term>Correction factor</term><term>Correction factors</term><term>Data analysis</term><term>Deceased fathers</term><term>Deceased mothers</term><term>Direct estimates</term><term>Double orphans</term><term>Eastern zimbabwe</term><term>Estimate adult mortality</term><term>First round</term><term>Health survey</term><term>Health surveys</term><term>Household census reports</term><term>Household surveys</term><term>Inconsistency</term><term>Individual questionnaire</term><term>Informant interviews</term><term>International population conference</term><term>Macro</term><term>Manicaland</term><term>Manicaland censuses</term><term>Manicaland cohort study</term><term>Manicaland data</term><term>Manicaland study</term><term>Manicaland survey</term><term>Maternal</term><term>Maternal orphanhood</term><term>Maternal orphans</term><term>Maternal survival</term><term>Mathematical models</term><term>Nations population division</term><term>Natural children</term><term>Natural parents</term><term>Older children</term><term>Open cohort study</term><term>Orphan</term><term>Orphan data</term><term>Orphan estimates</term><term>Orphan numbers</term><term>Orphan status</term><term>Orphanhood</term><term>Orphanhood data</term><term>Parental</term><term>Parental survival</term><term>Parental survival data</term><term>Parental survival questions</term><term>Parental survival status</term><term>Paternal</term><term>Paternal orphanhood</term><term>Paternal orphans</term><term>Paternal survival</term><term>Paternal survival status</term><term>Popul stud</term><term>Possible reasons</term><term>Prevalence</term><term>Prospective household census</term><term>Qualitative findings</term><term>Rural areas</term><term>Same situation</term><term>Spectrum estimates</term><term>Successive rounds</term><term>Survey data</term><term>Survival status</term><term>Systematic bias</term><term>Timaeus</term><term>Time points</term><term>Transm</term><term>Unaids</term><term>World population prospects</term><term>Younger children</term><term>Zimbabwe</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Objectives: Model-based estimates of maternal (but not paternal) orphanhood are higher than those based on data from demographic and health surveys (DHS). We investigate the consistency of reporting of parental survival status in data from Manicaland, Zimbabwe. Methods: We compared estimates of paternal and maternal orphan prevalence in three rounds of a prospective household census in Manicaland (1998–2005) with estimates from DHS surveys and UNAIDS model projections. We investigated the consistency of reporting of parental survival status across the three rounds and compared estimates of adult mortality from the orphan data with direct estimates from concurrent follow-up of a general population cohort. Qualitative data were collected on possible reasons for misreporting. Results: Paternal and maternal orphan prevalence is increasing in Zimbabwe. Mothers reported as deceased in round 1 of the Manicaland survey were more likely than fathers to be reported as alive in rounds 2 or 3 (33.3% vs 13.4%). This pattern was most apparent among younger children. The qualitative findings suggest that foster parents sometimes claim adopted children as their natural children. Conclusions: These results are consistent with misreporting of foster parents as natural parents. This appears to be particularly common among foster mothers and could partly explain the discrepancy between mathematical model and DHS estimates of maternal orphanhood.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>bmj</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>manicaland</json:string><json:string>paternal</json:string><json:string>orphan</json:string><json:string>zimbabwe</json:string><json:string>orphanhood</json:string><json:string>adult mortality</json:string><json:string>cohort</json:string><json:string>maternal orphans</json:string><json:string>paternal orphans</json:string><json:string>orphan status</json:string><json:string>survival status</json:string><json:string>unaids</json:string><json:string>macro</json:string><json:string>timaeus</json:string><json:string>household surveys</json:string><json:string>transm</json:string><json:string>inconsistency</json:string><json:string>health surveys</json:string><json:string>natural parents</json:string><json:string>birth certificate</json:string><json:string>maternal orphanhood</json:string><json:string>eastern zimbabwe</json:string><json:string>paternal orphanhood</json:string><json:string>double orphans</json:string><json:string>birth certificates</json:string><json:string>manicaland survey</json:string><json:string>orphan data</json:string><json:string>manicaland cohort study</json:string><json:string>parental survival status</json:string><json:string>first round</json:string><json:string>maternal</json:string><json:string>parental</json:string><json:string>older children</json:string><json:string>survey data</json:string><json:string>popul stud</json:string><json:string>adoption effect</json:string><json:string>manicaland censuses</json:string><json:string>health survey</json:string><json:string>deceased mothers</json:string><json:string>deceased fathers</json:string><json:string>manicaland study</json:string><json:string>successive rounds</json:string><json:string>direct estimates</json:string><json:string>younger children</json:string><json:string>prevalence</json:string><json:string>paternal survival status</json:string><json:string>possible reasons</json:string><json:string>commercial centres</json:string><json:string>parental survival questions</json:string><json:string>household census reports</json:string><json:string>parental survival</json:string><json:string>correction factors</json:string><json:string>agricultural estates</json:string><json:string>individual questionnaire</json:string><json:string>informant interviews</json:string><json:string>estimate adult mortality</json:string><json:string>manicaland data</json:string><json:string>spectrum estimates</json:string><json:string>maternal survival</json:string><json:string>correction factor</json:string><json:string>time points</json:string><json:string>prospective household census</json:string><json:string>qualitative findings</json:string><json:string>natural children</json:string><json:string>same situation</json:string><json:string>parental survival data</json:string><json:string>adult deaths</json:string><json:string>paternal survival</json:string><json:string>orphan numbers</json:string><json:string>orphanhood data</json:string><json:string>rural areas</json:string><json:string>orphan estimates</json:string><json:string>data analysis</json:string><json:string>biomedical research</json:string><json:string>nations population division</json:string><json:string>world population prospects</json:string><json:string>open cohort study</json:string><json:string>international population conference</json:string><json:string>mathematical models</json:string><json:string>systematic bias</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>L Robertson</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College, London, UK</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>S Gregson</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College, London, UK</json:string><json:string>Biomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>C Madanhire</name><affiliations><json:string>Biomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>N Walker</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>P Mushati</name><affiliations><json:string>Biomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>G Garnett</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College, London, UK</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>C Nyamukapa</name><affiliations><json:string>Biomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><articleId><json:string>st29926</json:string></articleId><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>research-article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Objectives: Model-based estimates of maternal (but not paternal) orphanhood are higher than those based on data from demographic and health surveys (DHS). We investigate the consistency of reporting of parental survival status in data from Manicaland, Zimbabwe. Methods: We compared estimates of paternal and maternal orphan prevalence in three rounds of a prospective household census in Manicaland (1998–2005) with estimates from DHS surveys and UNAIDS model projections. We investigated the consistency of reporting of parental survival status across the three rounds and compared estimates of adult mortality from the orphan data with direct estimates from concurrent follow-up of a general population cohort. Qualitative data were collected on possible reasons for misreporting. Results: Paternal and maternal orphan prevalence is increasing in Zimbabwe. Mothers reported as deceased in round 1 of the Manicaland survey were more likely than fathers to be reported as alive in rounds 2 or 3 (33.3% vs 13.4%). This pattern was most apparent among younger children. The qualitative findings suggest that foster parents sometimes claim adopted children as their natural children. Conclusions: These results are consistent with misreporting of foster parents as natural parents. This appears to be particularly common among foster mothers and could partly explain the discrepancy between mathematical model and DHS estimates of maternal orphanhood.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>7.201</score><pdfVersion>1.2</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>595.276 x 793.701 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>false</refBibsNative><keywordCount>0</keywordCount><abstractCharCount>1449</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>4681</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>30827</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>6</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>210</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Discrepancies between UN models and DHS survey estimates of maternal orphan prevalence: insights from analyses of survey data from Zimbabwe</title><pmid><json:string>18647868</json:string></pmid><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><host><title>Sexually Transmitted Infections</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><issn><json:string>1368-4973</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1472-3263</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>sti</json:string></publisherId><volume>84</volume><issue>Suppl 1</issue><pages><first>i57</first></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><categories><wos><json:string>science</json:string><json:string>infectious diseases</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>health sciences</json:string><json:string>public health & health services</json:string><json:string>public health</json:string></scienceMetrix><inist><json:string>sciences humaines et sociales</json:string></inist></categories><publicationDate>2008</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2008</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1136/sti.2008.029926</json:string></doi><id>0DF660EC83504DA59018E482AA52DA97F9CEFBDE</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/0DF660EC83504DA59018E482AA52DA97F9CEFBDE/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/0DF660EC83504DA59018E482AA52DA97F9CEFBDE/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/0DF660EC83504DA59018E482AA52DA97F9CEFBDE/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Discrepancies between UN models and DHS survey estimates of maternal orphan prevalence: insights from analyses of survey data from Zimbabwe</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher scheme="https://publisher-list.data.istex.fr">BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</publisher><availability><licence><p>2008 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</p></licence><p scheme="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-7M42M2QJ-2">bmj</p></availability><date>2008-07-22</date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="research-article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-1JC4F85T-7">research-article</note><note type="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Discrepancies between UN models and DHS survey estimates of maternal orphan prevalence: insights from analyses of survey data from Zimbabwe</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">L</forename><surname>Robertson</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College, London, UK</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">S</forename><surname>Gregson</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College, London, UK</affiliation><affiliation>Biomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">C</forename><surname>Madanhire</surname></persName><affiliation>Biomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">N</forename><surname>Walker</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0004"><persName><forename type="first">P</forename><surname>Mushati</surname></persName><affiliation>Biomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0005"><persName><forename type="first">G</forename><surname>Garnett</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College, London, UK</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0006"><persName><forename type="first">C</forename><surname>Nyamukapa</surname></persName><affiliation>Biomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe</affiliation></author><idno type="istex">0DF660EC83504DA59018E482AA52DA97F9CEFBDE</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/NVC-CWB67QZ1-F</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1136/sti.2008.029926</idno><idno type="href">sextrans-84-i57.pdf</idno><idno type="article-id">st29926</idno><idno type="PMID">18647868</idno><idno type="local">sextrans;84/Suppl_1/i57</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Sexually Transmitted Infections</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">Sex Transm Infect</title><idno type="pISSN">1368-4973</idno><idno type="eISSN">1472-3263</idno><idno type="publisher-id">sti</idno><idno type="PublisherID-hwp">sextrans</idno><idno type="PublisherID-nlm-ta">Sex Transm Infect</idno><imprint><publisher>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</publisher><date type="published" when="2008-08"></date><biblScope unit="volume">84</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">Suppl 1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="57">i57</biblScope></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2008-07-22</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract><p>Objectives: Model-based estimates of maternal (but not paternal) orphanhood are higher than those based on data from demographic and health surveys (DHS). We investigate the consistency of reporting of parental survival status in data from Manicaland, Zimbabwe. Methods: We compared estimates of paternal and maternal orphan prevalence in three rounds of a prospective household census in Manicaland (1998–2005) with estimates from DHS surveys and UNAIDS model projections. We investigated the consistency of reporting of parental survival status across the three rounds and compared estimates of adult mortality from the orphan data with direct estimates from concurrent follow-up of a general population cohort. Qualitative data were collected on possible reasons for misreporting. Results: Paternal and maternal orphan prevalence is increasing in Zimbabwe. Mothers reported as deceased in round 1 of the Manicaland survey were more likely than fathers to be reported as alive in rounds 2 or 3 (33.3% vs 13.4%). This pattern was most apparent among younger children. The qualitative findings suggest that foster parents sometimes claim adopted children as their natural children. Conclusions: These results are consistent with misreporting of foster parents as natural parents. This appears to be particularly common among foster mothers and could partly explain the discrepancy between mathematical model and DHS estimates of maternal orphanhood.</p></abstract></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2008-07-22">Created</change><change when="2008-08">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/0DF660EC83504DA59018E482AA52DA97F9CEFBDE/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus bmj" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:docType PUBLIC="-//NLM//DTD Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v2.3 20070202//EN" URI="archivearticle.dtd" name="istex:docType"></istex:docType><istex:document><article article-type="research-article" xml:lang="EN"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="hwp">sextrans</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="nlm-ta">Sex Transm Infect</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">sti</journal-id><journal-title>Sexually Transmitted Infections</journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">Sex Transm Infect</abbrev-journal-title><issn pub-type="ppub">1368-4973</issn><issn pub-type="epub">1472-3263</issn><publisher><publisher-name>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">st29926</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1136/sti.2008.029926</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="other">sextrans;84/Suppl_1/i57</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="pmid">18647868</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="other">i57</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="other">sti.2008.029926</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Supplement</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Discrepancies between UN models and DHS survey estimates of maternal orphan prevalence: insights from analyses of survey data from Zimbabwe</article-title><alt-title alt-title-type="running-head">Supplement</alt-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Robertson</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gregson</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Madanhire</surname><given-names>C</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Walker</surname><given-names>N</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3">3</xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Mushati</surname><given-names>P</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Garnett</surname><given-names>G</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Nyamukapa</surname><given-names>C</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><addr-line>Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College, London, UK</addr-line> </aff><aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><addr-line>Biomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe</addr-line> </aff><aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><addr-line>Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA</addr-line> </aff><author-notes><corresp>Dr Laura Robertson, St Mary’s Campus, Norfolk Place, London W2 1PG, UK; <email xlink:type="simple">l.robertson06@imperial.ac.uk</email></corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="ppub"><month>8</month><year>2008</year></pub-date><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>22</day><month>7</month><year>2008</year></pub-date><volume>84</volume><volume-id pub-id-type="other">84</volume-id><volume-id pub-id-type="other">84</volume-id><issue>Suppl 1</issue><issue-id pub-id-type="other">sextrans;84/Suppl_1</issue-id><issue-id pub-id-type="other" content-type="supplement">Suppl_1</issue-id><issue-id pub-id-type="other">84/Suppl_1</issue-id><issue-title>Improved data, methods and tools for the 2007 HIV and AIDS estimates and projections</issue-title><fpage>i57</fpage><history><date date-type="accepted"><day>5</day><month>4</month><year>2008</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>2008 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2008</copyright-year><license license-type="open-access" xlink:type="simple"><p></p></license></permissions><self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:role="full-text" xlink:href="sextrans-84-i57.pdf"></self-uri><abstract><sec><title>Objectives:</title><p>Model-based estimates of maternal (but not paternal) orphanhood are higher than those based on data from demographic and health surveys (DHS). We investigate the consistency of reporting of parental survival status in data from Manicaland, Zimbabwe.</p></sec><sec><title>Methods:</title><p>We compared estimates of paternal and maternal orphan prevalence in three rounds of a prospective household census in Manicaland (1998–2005) with estimates from DHS surveys and UNAIDS model projections. We investigated the consistency of reporting of parental survival status across the three rounds and compared estimates of adult mortality from the orphan data with direct estimates from concurrent follow-up of a general population cohort. Qualitative data were collected on possible reasons for misreporting.</p></sec><sec><title>Results:</title><p>Paternal and maternal orphan prevalence is increasing in Zimbabwe. Mothers reported as deceased in round 1 of the Manicaland survey were more likely than fathers to be reported as alive in rounds 2 or 3 (33.3% vs 13.4%). This pattern was most apparent among younger children. The qualitative findings suggest that foster parents sometimes claim adopted children as their natural children.</p></sec><sec><title>Conclusions:</title><p>These results are consistent with misreporting of foster parents as natural parents. This appears to be particularly common among foster mothers and could partly explain the discrepancy between mathematical model and DHS estimates of maternal orphanhood.</p></sec></abstract></article-meta></front></article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Discrepancies between UN models and DHS survey estimates of maternal orphan prevalence: insights from analyses of survey data from Zimbabwe</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" lang="en" contentType="CDATA"><title>Discrepancies between UN models and DHS survey estimates of maternal orphan prevalence: insights from analyses of survey data from Zimbabwe</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">L</namePart><namePart type="family">Robertson</namePart><affiliation>Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College, London, UK</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">S</namePart><namePart type="family">Gregson</namePart><affiliation>Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College, London, UK</affiliation><affiliation>Biomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">C</namePart><namePart type="family">Madanhire</namePart><affiliation>Biomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">N</namePart><namePart type="family">Walker</namePart><affiliation>Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">P</namePart><namePart type="family">Mushati</namePart><affiliation>Biomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">G</namePart><namePart type="family">Garnett</namePart><affiliation>Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College, London, UK</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">C</namePart><namePart type="family">Nyamukapa</namePart><affiliation>Biomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article" displayLabel="research-article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-1JC4F85T-7">research-article</genre><originInfo><publisher>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</publisher><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2008-08</dateIssued><dateCreated encoding="w3cdtf">2008-07-22</dateCreated><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2008</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm></language><abstract>Objectives: Model-based estimates of maternal (but not paternal) orphanhood are higher than those based on data from demographic and health surveys (DHS). We investigate the consistency of reporting of parental survival status in data from Manicaland, Zimbabwe. Methods: We compared estimates of paternal and maternal orphan prevalence in three rounds of a prospective household census in Manicaland (1998–2005) with estimates from DHS surveys and UNAIDS model projections. We investigated the consistency of reporting of parental survival status across the three rounds and compared estimates of adult mortality from the orphan data with direct estimates from concurrent follow-up of a general population cohort. Qualitative data were collected on possible reasons for misreporting. Results: Paternal and maternal orphan prevalence is increasing in Zimbabwe. Mothers reported as deceased in round 1 of the Manicaland survey were more likely than fathers to be reported as alive in rounds 2 or 3 (33.3% vs 13.4%). This pattern was most apparent among younger children. The qualitative findings suggest that foster parents sometimes claim adopted children as their natural children. Conclusions: These results are consistent with misreporting of foster parents as natural parents. This appears to be particularly common among foster mothers and could partly explain the discrepancy between mathematical model and DHS estimates of maternal orphanhood.</abstract><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Sexually Transmitted Infections</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>Sex Transm Infect</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">1368-4973</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1472-3263</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">sti</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID-hwp">sextrans</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID-nlm-ta">Sex Transm Infect</identifier><part><date>2008</date><detail type="title"><title>Improved data, methods and tools for the 2007 HIV and AIDS estimates and projections</title></detail><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>84</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>Suppl 1</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>i57</start></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">0DF660EC83504DA59018E482AA52DA97F9CEFBDE</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/NVC-CWB67QZ1-F</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1136/sti.2008.029926</identifier><identifier type="href">sextrans-84-i57.pdf</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">st29926</identifier><identifier type="PMID">18647868</identifier><identifier type="local">sextrans;84/Suppl_1/i57</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">2008 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-7M42M2QJ-2">bmj</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>2008 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/0DF660EC83504DA59018E482AA52DA97F9CEFBDE/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><annexes><json:item><extension>jpeg</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>image/jpeg</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/0DF660EC83504DA59018E482AA52DA97F9CEFBDE/annexes/jpeg</uri></json:item></annexes><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Sante/explor/SidaSubSaharaV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000401 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000401 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Sante
|area= SidaSubSaharaV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:0DF660EC83504DA59018E482AA52DA97F9CEFBDE
|texte= Discrepancies between UN models and DHS survey estimates of maternal orphan prevalence: insights from analyses of survey data from Zimbabwe
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |