Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Meekers, D.
Right arrow Articles by Ogada, E. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Meekers, D.
Right arrow Articles by Ogada, E. A.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Health Policy and Planning; 16(2): 137-143
© Oxford University Press 2001

Explaining discrepancies in reproductive health indicators from population-based surveys and exit surveys: a case from Rwanda

Dominique Meekers1,2 and Edna Adhiambo Ogada3

1 Population Services International, Washington, DC,
2 School of Hygiene and Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD and
3 Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA

Objectives: Reproductive health programmes often need exit surveys and population-based surveys for monitoring and evaluation. This study investigates why such studies produce discrepant estimates of condom use, sexual behaviour and condom brand knowledge, and discusses the implications for future use of exit surveys for programme monitoring.

Methods: Logistic regression is used to explain differences between a household survey of 1295 persons and an exit survey among a random sample of 2550 consumers at retail outlets in Rwanda.

Results: Discrepancies in ever use of condoms and risky sexual behaviours are due to differences in socioeconomic status of the two samples. After controls, exit surveys at most outlet types have the same results as the household survey. Only exit surveys at bars, nightclubs and hotels yield significantly different estimates. However, the above-average knowledge of Prudence Plus condoms in the exit interviews is not attributable to socioeconomic or demographic variables, most likely because respondents have seen the product at the outlets.

Conclusions: Information about condom use and sexual behaviour obtained from exit surveys appears as accurate as that obtained through household surveys. Nevertheless, exit surveys must be used cautiously. Because exit surveys may include wealthier and better-educated respondents, they are not representative of the general population. The composition of exit survey samples should be validated through existing household surveys. Comparisons across survey types are generally unadvisable, unless they control for sample differences. When generalizing to the population at large is not needed (e.g. for studies aimed at identifying the characteristics and behaviour of users of particular products or services), exit surveys can provide an appropriate alternative to household surveys.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.