Article Sidebar
Article Details
Issue
Section
Articles
A. AFRICAN HEALTH SCIENCES OPEN ACCESS POLICY
While African Health Sciences has been freely accessible online there have been questions on whether it is Open Access or not. We wish to clearly state that indeed African Health Sciences is Open Access. There are key issues regarding Open Access needing clarification for avoidance of doubt:
- 1. Henceforth, papers in African Health Sciences will be published under the CC BY (Creative Commons Attribution License) 4.0 International. See details on https://creativecomons.org/)
- 2. The copyright owners or the authors grant the 3rd party (perpetually and in advance) the right to disseminate, reproduce, or use the research papers in part or in full, format/medium as long as:
- No substantive errors are introduced in the process
- Attribution of authorship and correct citation details are given
- The referencing details are not changed.
Should the papers be reproduced in part, this must be clearly stated.
- 3. The papers will be freely and universally accessible online in an easily readable format such as XML in at least one widely recognized open access repository such as PUBMED CENTRAL.
B. ABRIDGED LICENCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN AUTHORS AND African Health Sciences
I submitted my manuscript to African Health Sciences and would like to affirm that:
1.0 I am authorized by my co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
2.0 I guarantee, on behalf of self and co-authors:
- That the paper is original, and has not been published in any other peer-reviewed journal; nor is it under consideration by other journal (s). It does not infringe existing copyright or any other person’s rights
- That we are/I am the sole author(s) of the paper and with authority to enter into this agreement. My granting rights to African Health Sciences is not in breach of any other obligation
- That the paper contains nothing unlawful, or libelous. Nor anything that would constitute a breach of contract, confidence or commitment given to secrecy, if published
- That I/we have taken care to ensure the integrity of the article.
3.0 I and all co-authors, agree that the paper, if accepted for publication, shall be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0. (see https://creativecommons.org/)
Main Article Content
Under-reporting of gravidity in a rural Malawian population
Abstract
Background: Mis-reporting of data by study participants in a questionnaire-based study is an important source of bias in studies.
Objective: To determine the prevalence and factors influencing mis-reporting of gravidity among rural women in Malawi.
Materials and Methods: Data from cross sectional study conducted in 2004 were analysed using logistic regression analysis and the logit modeling.
Results: 7118 women were in the reproductive age group, 2387(33.5%) had ever attended school, 4556 (64.0%) had never and results for 175 (2.5%) were missing. Of those who attended school, 94.9% (2297) had attained a maximum primary level, 5.04% (122) secondary level and 0.08% (2) tertiary level. 81.6% of the women were aged between 12 and 36 years of age, mean was 26.1 years (SD 10.05 years). The remaining 18.4% were aged between 37 and 49 years of age. The mean number of pregnancies attained was 4.0 (SD 3.4), live births was 3.0 (SD 3.2), mean number of stillbirths was almost zero (SD 0.9) and the mean number of children alive was 2.0 (SD 2.3). The prevalence of mis-reporting of gravidity was 7.9%. Factors influencing the risk of under-reporting gravidity were: previous experience of a still-birth, young age, not being married and having ever attended some level of education.
Conclusions: We suggest that women who perceived that the community expected them, or they expected themselves to have fewer or no pregnancy at all, censured themselves in reporting low number of pregancies. Researchers using questionnaires should keep in mind possibility of mis-reporting of number of pregnancies among women as this may introduce error in research results. Incorporating multiple questions asking the same thing but in a different way has potential to identify biases as these other questions serve as consistency checks.
African Health Sciences Vol. 5 (4) 2005: pp. 335-337
