sterilization DIARRHEA

Wealth Index High-risk fertility BREASTFEEDING

MARITAL STATUS Women of Reproductive Health

vaccination

Delivery assistance Reasons for Not Using FP Method

Respondents MATERNAL MORTALITY

INFANT AND CHILD MORTALITY

condoms

ANTENATAL CARE

15-49 years old FERTILITY FAMILY PLANNING pills Birth delivery Post-natal care HILOT
Household

occupation

unmet need EDUCATION

Content of Presentation
Survey background Objectives Sampling design and sample size Content of questionnaire Fertility Total Fertility Rate Age-specific fertility rate Birth intervals Adolescent fertility

Content of Presentation (contd)

Current use of family planning Contraceptive prevalence rate Method mix Current use of family planning by: Region Place of residence Level of education Socio-economic status Trends in family planning use Reasons for not practicing family planning Unmet need for FP

Survey Background

The 2011 Family Health Survey (FHS) provides information on maternal and child

health, family planning and other health-related concerns updates findings from the series of FPS and various rounds of the National Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS)
Funding support primarily came from United

States Agency for International Development (USAID).

Sampling Design

2011 FHS was designed to provide data representative

of the country and each of the 17 administrative regions

It used the 2003 Master Sample (MS) designed for

household-based surveys of the NSO

It used a stratified, three-stage sampling design

Sampling Design

First stage - primary sampling units (PSUs) were

selected with probability proportional to the number of households from the 2000 Census of Population and Housing. PSUs consisted of one barangay or a group of contiguous barangays.

Sampling Design

Second stage - enumeration areas (EAs) were selected

within sampled PSUs with probability proportional to size. An EA is defined as an area with discernible boundaries within barangays consisting of about 300 contiguous households.
Third stage - 16 housing units were selected within

sampled EAs, using systematic sampling.

Sampling Design

All households in a sampled housing unit were

interviewed, except for a housing unit with more than three households. In such sample housing unit, only three households were randomly selected and interviewed.

Survey Methodology

Covered 3,178 enumeration areas Sampled 53,162 households (HH) 49,374 HH were eligible for 2011 FHS 48,586 (98.4%) HH were interviewed using the HH Questionnaire 53,154 women 15-49 years old in the sample HH 52,769 (99.3%) women were interviewed using the IW Questionnaire

Survey Questionnaires

FHS Form 1: Household Questionnaire

FHS Form 2: Individual Womans Questionnaire

Household membership Membership in health insurance Health status and health facilities utilization Treatment of members with symptoms of tuberculosis Socio-economic status

Background characteristics Pregnancy history Family planning Prenatal care, pregnancy and breastfeeding Child immunization Maternal mortality

Fertility in the Philippines

Total Fertility Rate, Philippines** (1991-2009)

*3.6-3.9

*3.4-3.7

*3.1-3.2

*3.1-3.4

*3.0-3.2

*95% Confidence Interval **Rates reflect 3-year averages centering on the middle of the 3-year period

Total Fertility Rates, by Region: FPS 2006 vs. FHS 2011

4.1 4.1 3.2 3.1 2.6 2.5 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.2 2.8 3.1 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.9 4.1 4.0

I.Ilocos

III.Central Luzon

2006 FPS

2011 FHS

IV-A. CALABARZON

IV-B.MIMAROPA

Philippines

II.Cagayan Valley

V. Bicol

NCR

CAR

Total Fertility Rates, by Region: FPS 2006 vs. FHS 2011 (cont.)
3.2 3.1 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.9 3.9 3.7 3.4 3.4 3.7 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.7 3.8 3.1 2.9

IX.Zamboanga Peninsula

2006 FPS

2011 FHS

XII.SOCCSKSARGEN

VI.Western Visayas

VIII.Eastern Visayas

VII.Central Visayas

X.Northern Mindanao

XIII.Caraga

Philippines

XI.Davao

ARMM

Total Fertility Rate, by Place of Residence: FPS 2006 vs. FHS 2011

*3.5-3.7 *3.5-3.7 *3.1-3.2 *3.0-3.2 *2.7-2.9 *2.6-2.8

*95% Confidence Interval

Age group 15-19

2006 FPS 39 149 171 137 93 37 6 3.2

2011 FHS 54 159 161 131 80 35 5 3.1

Age-Specific Fertility Rates

(Live Births per 1,000 Women)

20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 TFR

FPS 2006 vs. FHS 2011

Age-Specific Fertility Rates

(Live Births per 1,000 Women)

by Place of Residence: FPS 2006 vs. FHS 2011

Age Group
15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 TFR

2006 FPS Urban

34 126 158 126 78 29 4 2.8

2011 FHS Urban

46 134 141 120 70 28 3 2.7

Rural
43 181 187 149 109 44 8 3.6

Rural
64 190 185 143 90 42 7 3.6

Distribution of Non-First Births in Five Years Preceding the Survey, by Birth Interval in Months, by Region: FHS 2011 Luzon

Distribution of Non-First Births in Five Years Preceding the Survey, by Birth Interval in Months, by Region: FHS 2011 Visayas

Distribution of Non-First Births in Five Years Preceding the Survey, by Birth Interval in Months, by Region: FHS 2011 Mindanao

Median Birth Interval in Months for Non-First Births, by Region: FHS 2011
39.7 36.8 34.1 34.9 37.4 40.7 35.4 32.3 32.5 33.4 33.3 31.4 33.3 33.5 32.6 35.1 31.4 27.3

Percentage of Women Age 15-19 Who Have Begun Childbearing, by Region: FPS 2006 and FHS 2011
15.0 12.8 11.2 9.5 8.5
6.3 6.0 3.0 3.8 3.5

12.9 10.0 8.0 8.6 7.5

13.8 13.6

8.2

9.0
7.1

9.8
7.0

7.7
6.5 5.0

8.6 6.0 6.3

8.0 7.2

6.9 6.0
5.2

7.4
4.9

6.5

FPS 2006

FHS 2011

Percentage of Women Age 15-19 Who Have Had a Live Birth, by Region: FPS 2006 and FHS 2011
11.2 9.9 8.6 7.4 6.2
4.8 4.8 3.0 2.1

11.6 10.7

8.9 7.4 7.6 6.2

4.8 5.0

8.0 6.7
4.9 6.0 5.2 6.5

8.0

6.5

6.5
4.6 5.2

6.9
4.3 4.4

5.6
2.9

5.5
3.6

6.0

FPS 2006

FHS 2011

Family Planning

Manila Times: June Aquino, Family Planning

Contraceptive Prevalence Rate Among CMWRA (2000-2011)

*47.6-50.1

*48.3-50.4

*48.6-50.0

*49.9-51.3

*49.4-52.0

*48.1-49.7

*95% Confidence Interval

Percentage of CMWRA Using Modern and Traditional FP Methods (2000-2011)

Percentage of CMWRA Using Modern FP Methods (2003 2011)

35.1
*34.2-36.0

33.4
*32.1-34.6

36
*35.4-36.7

35.9
*35.2-36.5

36.9
*36.1-37.6

2003 2004 FPS 2005 FPS 2006 FPS 2011 FHS NDHS
*95% Confidence Interval

Percentage of CMWRA Using Any FP Method, by Place of Residence: FPS 2006 vs. FHS 2011

*49.9-51.3 *48.1-49.7

*50.1-52.1 *48.4-50.8

*49.2-51.2 *47.1-49.4

*95% Confidence Interval

Percentage of CMWRA Using Any FP Method, by Level of Education: FPS 2006 vs. FHS 2011

*49.9-51.3 *48.1-49.7

*45.5-48.9 *42.8-45.8

*51.2-53.9 *50.5-52.6

*50.5-62.5 *47.9-50.6

*17.3-26.2 *16.2-24.6

*95% Confidence Interval

Percentage of CMWRA Using Any FP Method, by Socio-Economic Status: FPS 2006 vs. FHS 2011

*49.9-51.3

*48.1-49.7

*46.2-48.5

*41.7-44.4

*51.6-53.2

*50.4-52.2

*95% Confidence Interval

Family Planning Method Used Any method Any modern Pill Female sterilization IUD Injectables Male condom Other modern Any traditional Calendar/rhyth m Withdrawal Other traditional

2006 2011 FPS FHS 50.6 48.9 35.9 36.9 16.6 19.8 10.4 4.1 2.8 1.6 0.3 14.8 7.0 7.3 0.5 8.6 3.1 3.4 1.2 0.8 12.0 3.7 8.2 0.1

Family Planning Method Used by CMWRA: FPS 2006 vs. FHS 2011

Percentage of CMWRA Using Contraceptive Pills (2000 2011)

*14.9-16.3 *12.4-14.0

*16.6-17.6

*16.1-17.2

*14.7-16.7

*19.3-20.4

*95% Confidence Interval

Percentage of CMWRA Using Female Sterilization (2003 2011)

*9.8-11.2

*8.9-9.9

*9.0-9.8

*10.0-10.8

*8.5-9.9

*8.2-8.9

*95% Confidence Interval

Reasons for Not Using Family Planning Methods among CMWRA not using FP: FHS 2011

Unmet Need for Family Planning among CMWRA: FHS 2003-2011

*19.5-20.7

*15.2-16.2

*21.4-23.3

*18.8-19.8

*95% Confidence Interval

Percentage of CMWRA with Unmet Need for Family Planning for Spacing and Limiting: 2005-2011

*8.8-9.6

*6.9-7.6

*8.4-9.1

*10.5-11.3

*8.1-8.8

*10.1-10.9

*95% Confidence Interval

Percentage of CMWRA with Unmet Need for Family Planning by Socio-Economic Indicator: 2005-2011

*16.9-18.2 *12.7-13.8

*16.0-17.2

*23.8-25.8

*19.4-21.2

*24.8-26.8

*95% Confidence Interval

Summary Findings
TFR in the Philippines has remained unchanged since 2004; it is about 3 children per woman. TFR is higher in MIMAROPA, Bicol Region, Eastern Visayas, Region 10 and Caraga than in other regions. TFR is lowest in the National Capital Region. TFR is higher among rural women than urban women. One in five births in the Philippines is closely spaced, that is, with a birth interval shorter than 24 months Teenage fertility has increased; the percentage who have begun childbearing increased to 10 percent in 2011 from 6 percent in 2006.

Summary Findings

In the last decade, CPR has remained at around 50 percent. Significant decrease in family planning use is reported among currently MWRA in Zamboanga Peninsula. Compared with previous years, the use of the pill by CMWRA is higher in 2011. Modern family planning use is associated with the level of education of MWRA, and poverty status. Apart from wanting (more) children, poor access to FP methods, and fear of side effects were cited as key reasons for not using any FP methods. Unmet need for family planning is around 20 percent.

National Statistics Office

www.census.gov.ph
43