Login
Login

APHRC Online Microdata Library
  • Home
  • About APHRC
  • Datasets
  • Collections
  • Citations
  • Resources
  • How to use it?
  • Why sharing data?
  • Contact us
    Home / Central Data Catalog / HUMAN_DEVELOPMENT / DD-UGA-APHRC-UEG-III-UG-1.0
Human_Development

ACCESS TO EDUCATION IN URBAN INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS IN UGANDA: A CASE OF KAMPALA AND MUKONO.
Urban Education Research-Uganda

Uganda, 2021
Reference ID
DD-UGA-APHRC-UEG-III-UG-1.0
Producer(s)
Dr. Moses Ngware, Charles Mukasa Lusambu
Collections
Human Development (HD)
Metadata
DDI/XML JSON
Created on
May 30, 2025
Last modified
May 30, 2025
Page views
119970
Downloads
601
  • Study Description
  • Data Dictionary
  • Get Microdata
  • Identification
  • Version
  • Scope
  • Coverage
  • Producers and sponsors
  • Sampling
  • Survey instrument
  • Data collection
  • Data processing
  • Data appraisal
  • Data Access
  • Disclaimer and copyrights
  • Metadata production
  • Identification

    Survey ID number

    DD-UGA-APHRC-UEG-III-UG-1.0

    Title

    ACCESS TO EDUCATION IN URBAN INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS IN UGANDA: A CASE OF KAMPALA AND MUKONO.

    Subtitle

    Urban Education Research-Uganda

    Country
    Name Country code
    UGANDA UGA
    Study type

    Other Household Survey [hh/oth]

    Series Information

    N/A

    Abstract

    The Ugandan Government in 1997 introduced the Universal Primary Education (UPE) policy. The policy
    allowed the abolishment of tuition fees to increase access to education for the most marginalized. Other
    national programs and interventions exist to ensure that all children access quality education without
    any form of discrimination. Additionally, the Government of Uganda is also a signatory to international
    and local treaties that protect the right to education for all. Despite the UPE policy and other programs
    supporting access to quality education, children from marginalized communities still face exclusion from
    education opportunities. Gender, regional disparities, socio-economic status and disabilities are some
    of the key forms of exclusion that children face.
    To understand access to quality education in urban informal settlements in Uganda, the African Population
    and Health Research Center in 2018 brought together state and non-state actors of education working
    in the urban informal settlements through the urban education project. Through this project, the state
    and non-state actors of education formed a Uganda Urban Education Group (UEG). Stakeholders in this
    group engaged in different activities, such as forming and strengthening the UEG group for a collective
    voice in advocating for access to quality education for children living in urban informal settlements.
    Through this engagement and review of existing literature, the stakeholders identified a gap. The gap
    in the evidence was in relation to how children in urban informal areas in Uganda access education and
    where the children access education. It was after several consultations with the UEG members that the
    team sought to carry out a research study in selected urban informal settlements in Uganda.
    The study titled ‘The Urban Education Agenda in Uganda: A Call for Targeted Attention on Education
    for the Urban Poor’ sought to answer the following objectives.

    1. What are the schooling patterns among children living in urban poor households in Uganda –
      including those with Special needs?
    2. What explains the observed schooling patterns in small and large urban centers?
    3. How do poor urban communities perceive and understand education as a right in the context of
      urbanization in Uganda?
    4. What available education opportunities exist for children with special needs and living in poor
      households in Uganda?
    5. What survival and educational mechanisms/initiatives did people in urban poor settlements adopt
      during the COVID-19 pandemic?
      7
      Urban Education Research Report - Uganda
      Data collection was carried out in two phases. The main data collection took place in October 2020,
      while the school survey and the rapid household survey both took place in March 2021. The study was
      conducted in 42 villages selected in seven parishes in Kampala and Mukono. Five of these parishes
      were from Kampala, and two from Mukono Municipality. In selecting the study site, the research team
      ensured that each of the study sites was classified as an urban informal settlement by the Uganda
      Bureau of Statistics (UBOS). Additionally, the Urban Education steering committee from the Ministry
      of Education and Sports (MoES) and Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA) were also consulted in
      deciding on the areas of study.
      A total of five quantitative instruments were used. These included household amenities and schedule,
      individual schooling history, parental and perception, rapid household and institutional tools, and 1,102
      households with 2,581 children aged 3-19 years were interviewed. Descriptive and inferential statistics
      were used to conduct the analysis. Tables and graphs have been used to present the findings.
      Qualitative tools were also used for this study. The following methods were used: Key Informant
      Interviews (KIIs) with national policy actors, In-depth Interviews (IDIs) with local administration and Focus
      Group Discussions (FGD) with parents. In analyzing the qualitative data, codes were developed and the
      deductive method was mainly used.
      8
      Urban Education Research Report - Uganda
      Key Findings
      Household Characteristics
    6. 65.3 % of households in Uganda’s urban informal settlements have more than five members who live
      in the poorest wealth quintile.
    7. More than half (53.9%) of the female-headed households were in the poorest wealth quintile
      compared to their male counterparts.
    8. Across the three wealth index levels (poorest, middle, wealthiest),more than half of the household
      heads had attained a lower secondary or above in regard to education.
    9. There were more girls (54%) in the selected households compared to boys (46%) that had school
      going children aged 3-19 years.
    10. Across the three wealth index levels more children were attending the primary level (67%), followed
      by the secondary level (19%) and lastly, the pre-primary level 14%.
      School Attendance
    11. Before the closure of schools due to COVID-19, 99.6% of the children aged 4 to 17 years had ever
      been to school.
    12. Before the closure of schools due to COVID-19, 2.1 % of children were out of school, but after full
      school re-opening, this increased to 9 %.
    13. By gender, before school closure, more boys (2.4%) were out of school compared to girls (2.1%),
      but after full re-opening, more female learners (9.2%) were not enrolled compared to (8.6%) boys.
    14. At all the primary and secondary levels, there were more learners enrolled in private schools compared
      to government schools during school closures due to COVID-19 and after full school re-opening. At
      the primary level before COVID-19, enrollment stood at 68.1%, but after full re-opening, this went
      down to 63.8 %. At the secondary level, it was 71.7% before the school’s closure, and surprisingly,
      this remained the same after full school re-opening.
    15. After full school re-opening, the findings show an increase in the learners from the poorest wealth
      index level at the primary level moving to government schools from 33.9% to 43.9%.
    16. About 42.3% of parents transferred their children after full school reopening due to the affordability
      of school fees.
    17. More children from the urban informal settlements for the period 2015-2022 have predominantly
      utilized private schools compared to government schools.
    18. Overall, 8.2% of children had repeated a grade, with more boys (9.3%) repeating than girls (7.3%).
    19. About 28.4 % of learners did not progress to the next grade after full school re-opening.
      Pupil-Teacher Ratio
    20. The PTR at the primary school level was high (1:55) in government schools compared to 1:19 in
      private schools.
      9
      Urban Education Research Report - Uganda
      Perceptions on Quality of Education
    21. Slightly more than half (51.9%) of parents from the urban informal settlements felt that the quality
      of education had improved since the introduction of the Universal Free Primary Education policy.
      Stakeholders’ Understanding of the Right to Education
    22. Notably, the concept of the Right to Education was well understood by all the stakeholders, including
      the parents. The parents highlighted several ways in which they uphold the right to education,
      which included providing uniforms and food for their children while going to school. Additionally,
      they encouraged each other to enroll their children in schools while acknowledging the role the
      community plays.
    23. The mechanisms used to report violations of the Right to Education were better understood by
      the policy actors and local administration as compared to the parents. Parents indicated using
      more community-level-based methods, such as the village local council meetings compared to the
      structures set up by the Ministry of Education and Sports and others.
      Opportunities for Continued Learning During COVID-19
    24. Overall, the poorest households (15%) accessed the least and paid (54%) more for these opportunities
      compared to those households that were in the middle and wealthiest wealth index levels.
    25. The main challenges in accessing learning opportunities included a lack of
      resources to purchase learning materials, competing responsibilities at home
      that limited the time available for study and a lack of study spaces at home.
      10
      Urban Education Research Report - Uganda
      Conclusion
      The urban informal areas in our towns and cities continue growing rapidly. This trend comes with an
      increase in the population and, consequently, a growing demand for public services such as education.
      In Uganda’s urban informal settlements, more children are utilizing private schools than government
      public schools to access education. This pattern is associated with distance to school and hence the
      reason for parents choosing private schools over government schools, which are already crowded.
      Despite the UPE policy, there was an indication that children from urban poor informal settlements
      largely do not benefit from the UPE policy, enhancing education inequalities and continuously denying
      opportunities to the most marginalized children.
      It was also evident that children from urban poor informal settlements were more likely to not access
      learning opportunities during school disruptions such as that of COVID-19. Therefore, calling on the
      government to develop measures and programs to cushion learners from such settings when such
      instances occur. Moreover, girls are more likely to be affected by disruptions such as COVID-19 in
      different ways. This includes being prone to teenage pregnancies and taking up responsibilities to take
      care of younger siblings compared to boys.
      The community plays a critical role in upholding the right to education and the community members
      including parents trust the structures that are at the community level in addressing some of the challenges
      they face in ensuring children from the urban informal communities access quality education.
      Recommendations
    26. The government should strengthen the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) mechanism that already
      exists, despite the PPP being a model to ensure that the government increases access to quality
      education for all. Some schools have been left out and hence the need to explore ways in which
      private schools within the urban informal settlements could benefit from it. Additionally, there are
      other PPP models that the government can explore, such as working with the private sector.
    27. The government should build more public schools in informal urban settlement areas to accommodate
      all learners. With Uganda increasing the number of cities, more people will continue moving into
      these cities, and there is an opportunity for the government to plan and build more schools in the
      urban informal settlements.
    28. There is a need for sensitization among all education stakeholders on government policies that
      encourage re-enrolment of pregnant teenagers to school.
    29. The government and stakeholders in education should create awareness to reduce gender inequities
      for girls and boys.
    30. Develop and strengthen community structures in and within the communities.
    Unit of Analysis

    Households: The study examines household characteristics, wealth, and how they influence children's access to education.
    Individuals (Children): The study focuses on children aged 3-19, looking at their schooling patterns, attendance, enrollment, and progression.
    Schools: The study includes a school survey, analyzing school facilities, teacher ratios, and overall learning environments.
    Communities: The study considers the role of community leaders and the community in protecting the right to education.

    Version

    Version Date

    2021-10-07

    Version Notes

    This survey data was collected 2021 and is the first version.

    Scope

    Notes

    The scope of this survey includes,

    HOUSEHOLD HEAD / MEMBERS : This included household heads, thier age, gender , level of educatuion, members in the houshold, access to serices and secondary wants in the household, whether any member in the household has undergone any event of suffering from predefined options, highest level of education within the houshold, access to facilities like toilets, type of schools, whether they receive any help and donations, wealthnscores of the household and general welfare of the household .

    CHILDREN AND THEIR SCHOOLING HISTORY : this looked into whether the child named in a household attended school, the levels they reached, reasons if they did not attend school, their physical wellbeing and if they have any disabilities, his/her schooling before covid 19, thier grades, access to learning materials and platforms, and challenges faced during studying in the midst of covid 19. This information was got from parent/guardians /caregivers. However, Caregivers responded for children aged below 12 years while there was an option for those between 12- 19 years to be respondents.

    PARENT/GUARDIANS / CAREGIVERS : this loked into the relationship betwwen the corespondent and the child in the household, why they sent the child to the schools they did, how they rate that school, how the child receives and does homework, the materials their child had during covid 19, if they can afford fees, whether they know about education rights in uganda, and how they supported their child during covid 19.

    INSTITUTIONS HEADS/ HEAD TEACHERS/ DEPUTIES : this looked into the institutions this childfren were schooling, the school head or staff, how long they ahve been in that school, more details on the language they used in the school, highets clss/grade in the school, how the school is equiped to cater to different needs, number of textbooks in the school, size of land used by the school, availability of amenities like electricity, availability of toiletes, water, handwashing facilities, school feeding program and how accessible they are, how many boys/girls are in the school, criteria used to admit learners, how many have special needs, how much the school chargers, number of staff and governance of the school.

    Keywords
    APHRC COVID-19 EFA FSE Main survey Rapid Household Survey UBOS UPE RTE LCPS

    Coverage

    Geographic Coverage

    The study focuses on urban, poor informal settlements in Uganda. Specifically, data collection occurred in 42 villages selected in seven parishes within Kampala and Mukono. The geographic coverage is primarily urban areas only, concentrated in specific informal settlements within the Kampala and Mukono municipalities.

    Universe

    The survey covered household members, Household Heads, instituition`s heads/staff in schools, children in a household aged 3-19 years and parents/guardians/caregivers of this children.

    Producers and sponsors

    Primary investigators
    Name Affiliation
    Dr. Moses Ngware APHRC
    Charles Mukasa Lusambu MoES Uganda
    Producers
    Name Affiliation Role
    Charles Mukasa Lusambu Ministry of Education and Sports (MoES) Uganda Co-PI
    International Day of the African Youth/Child APHRC Collaborator
    Nyambura Thiong’o APHRC Co-Investigator
    Francis Kiroro APHRC Co-Investigator
    Maurice Mutisya APHRC Co-Investigator
    Vollan Ochieng APHRC Co-Investigator
    Benta Abuya APHRC Co-Investigator
    Funding Agency/Sponsor
    Name Role
    Wellsprings Philanthropic Fund FUNDER
    Other Identifications/Acknowledgments
    Name Affiliation Role
    International Day of the African Youth/Child ( IDAY ), uganda collaboration and project implementation
    Bonface Butichi Ingumba African Population and Health Research Center Data Governance Officer

    Sampling

    Sampling Procedure

    This was a cross-sectional survey utilizing a mixed-methods approach. The study targeted households with school-going children (aged 3 to 19) in selected villages

    While the data collected was for children aged 3 to 19 years, the analysis was restricted to children aged 4-17 years. We conducted the study in three sequential stages; i) listing of eligible households ii)Sampling for main data collection and household survey after full school re-opening and school survey. During the listing, 3059 households with 8039 individuals aged between 3 and 19 years were selected. In the main data collection, 1102 households with 2581 children aged 3 to 19 years were selected.

    Sampling for the main study: Using the listing as a sampling frame, a sub-sample of 1102 households with 2581 individuals aged 3 to 19 years was drawn for the main study. The sampling of households and individuals took into consideration the study site and age of the individual. The household sample size was estimated using the following key considerations; a primary school level net enrollment rate of 85.05% (Uganda Bureau of Statistics, 2017) which provided an indicator of schooling access a 5% level of significance corresponding to a value of 1.96 from normal distribution curve (or in other words representing the 95% confidence intervals), a margin of error of 5% to ensure that our sample generates precise estimates, a power (1-ß) to reduce the probability of commiting type II error, a design effect of 2.5 and a non-response rate of 20%. Further, we made an assumption that each household on average had two children of school-going age (i.e. 3 to 19 years). Based on the above considerations, the household sample was computed using the formula recommended by Wang and Chow (2007), the household sample was therefore 1200 (rounding up 1199.5) and 2,400 children aged 3 to 19 years The sample was stratified proportionate to the two study sites based on their population and thereafter, randomly sampled the identified households to participate in the study.

    Additionally, we purposely selected eighty-one participants for focus group discussions (FGDs) that were administered to parents. Four FGDs were conducted with male parents, and another four with female parents. Five (3 females and 2 males) of the FGD participants were parents of children with special learning needs. The study also had twelve (12) in-depth interviews (IDI) with respondents drawn from persons occupying elective and administrative offices within the study sites. Four key informant interviews (KIIs) were also part of the study respondents, and were all drawn from the national decision-making levels at the Ministry of Education and Sports (MoES). For both IDIs and KIIs, gender consideration was not a key inclusion criteria, and instead, the person of the office targeted was the key inclusion criteria.

    Rapid survey after school re-opening: This was a phone-based survey conducted in 2022 to collect data on the schooling status that could not be collected in 2021 due to the prolonged school closures. Moreover, it was prudent to understand school resumption patterns after re-opening. The rapid survey targeted 634 households with 928 children aged 6-19 years that had been included in the main survey, not only to understand resumption of school after re-opening but also movements from one type of school to the other as well as teenage pregnancies. School survey: We identified all the schools (pre-schools, primary and secondary) located within the study sites of interest as well as those in their neighborhood that had enrolled at least 10 individuals. In total, the individuals of school going age were enrolled in over 600 institutions. Only 98 schools were selected for an in-depth school survey. The inclusion criteria included all schools that had been mentioned at least 5 times and were located within the study sites and those at least 20 kilometers outside of the study site that had enrolled at least 10 learners.

    Deviations from the Sample Design

    The study used a cross-sectional mixed-methods approach with a multi-stage sampling procedure. It involved listing eligible households, sampling for the main data collection, a rapid phone-based survey, and a school survey. The sampling considered stratification by study site and age, and purposeful selection for qualitative interviews.

    Response Rate

    Efforts were made to maximize participation. For instance, using a phone-based survey as a follow-up

    Weighting

    stratification proportionate to the two study sites based on their population ensured weight was adjusted for in the sampling process to ensure representativeness

    Survey instrument

    Questionnaires

    The following survey instruments were used for data collection: a) a household schedule and amenities questionnaire; b) an Individual schooling history questionnaire; c) a parental/guardian involvement questionnaire that incorporated questions on perception d) a Focus group discussion with parents and e) an in-depth interview questionnaire with opinion and policymakers.

    A HOUSEHOLD SCHEDULE AND AMENITIES QUESTIONNAIRE: This tool collected data/information about household membership, their characteristics,social-economic characteristics, including food security, household shocks, household poverty, well-being, and household schedule. The household head or someone living in that household and with enough information on the household responded to this tool.The information in this tool was used to generate the wealth quintiles..

    AN INDIVIDUAL SCHOOLING HISTORY QUESTIONNAIRE : This tool collected detailed schooling information about individuals aged between 3 and 19 years . This included (enrolment, type of school enrolled, participation in preschool among others) for the year (2020) before school closures.. Caregivers responded for children aged below 12 years while there was an option for those between 12- 19 years to be respondents. The tool also collected information on opportunities for learning during the school closures.

    PARENTAL/GUARDIAN INVOLVEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE THAT INCORPORATED QUESTIONS ON PERCEPTION : The tool sought information on parental involvement in their children's schooling including homework support , parental perception of student schooling experience, feeding and costs of schooling. The perception tool gathered information on parents' perception of the quality of education in the era of universal education policies, their understanding of education as a right and their support to schools to improve access and quality. This was responded to by the parents of the child (ren) living in the household.

    PARENTAL PERCEPTION SURVEY: this included views of parents on childs school and education and had questions like does the school have enough teachers, enough space for learners, is there physical educvation, is there a school vehicel, views on students with special needs in the school, whether they know education is a right, whether they donate to the school and how often they attend school festivals.:

    INSTITUTIONAL TOOL QUESTIONNAIRE : The tool sought to understand the schools background information, enrollment, teachers qualifications , facilities available in the schools,schooling charge and the school governance.
    this constituted the institutions this childdren were schooling, the school head or staff, how long they ahve been in that school, more details on the language they used in the school, highets clss/grade in the school, how the school is equiped to cater to different needs, number of textbooks in the school, size of land used by the school, availability of amenities like electricity, availability of toiletes, water, handwashing facilities, school feeding program and how accessible they are, how many boys/girls are in the school, criteria used to admit learners, how many have special needs, how much the school chargers, number of staff and governance of the school.

    FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION (FGD) WITH PARENTS: The guide explored parents’ understanding of the right to education and the role they play in ensuring that all learners are accorded or

    RAPID SURVEY AFTER SCHOOL RE-OPENING: This was a phone-based survey conducted in 2022 to collect data on the schooling status that could not be collected in 2021 due to the prolonged school closures. Moreover, it was prudent to understand school resumption patterns after re-opening. The rapid survey targeted 634 households with 928 children aged 6-19 years that had been included in the main survey, not only to understand resumption of school after re-opening but also movements from one type of school to the other as well as teenage pregnancies.

    The questionnaires were in in English language but were translated to ugandan where necessary.The questionaires are also available as external resources

    Data collection

    Dates of Data Collection
    Start End Cycle
    2021-10-07 2021-10-07 UEGIII
    Mode of data collection
    • Face-to-face [f2f]
    Supervision

    The study recruited and trained enumerators, sought ethical approval, and put in place other quality measures, including spot checks during data collection were performed to enhance accuracy and completeness.

    Data processing

    Data Editing

    Data was extracted from Survey CTO, labeled, and cleaned. Stata Version 17.0 was used for data analysis

    Survey CTO had necessary conditional checks and skips to ensure applicable responses and timely submission of collected data ensuring automated data entry controls.

    The follow-up rapid phone survey in 2022 aimed to collect data on the schooling status that could not be collected due to the prolonged school closures.

    Data appraisal

    Estimates of Sampling Error

    a primary school level net enrollment rate of 85.05% (Uganda Bureau of Statistics, 2017) which provided an indicator of schooling access, a 5% level of significance corresponding to a value of 1.96 from normal distribution curve (or in other words representing the 95% confidence intervals), a margin of error of 5% to ensure that our sample generates precise estimates, a power (1-ß) to reduce the probability of commiting type II error, a design effect of 2.5 and a non-response rate of 20%. Further, we made an assumption that each household on average had two children of school-going age (i.e. 3 to 19 years). Based on the above considerations, the household sample was computed using the formula recommended by Wang and Chow (2007), the household sample was therefore 1200 (rounding up 1199.5) and 2,400 children aged 3 to 19 years

    Based on the above considerations, the household sample was computed using the formula recommended by Wang and Chow (2007), the household sample was therefore 1200 (rounding up 1199.5) and 2,400 children aged 3 to 19 years

    The sample was stratified proportionate to the two study sites based on their population and thereafter, randomly sampled the identified households to participate in the study.
    Additionally, we purposely selected eighty-one participants for focus group discussions (FGDs) that were administered to parents. Four FGDs were conducted with male parents, and another four with female parents. Five (3 females and 2 males) of the FGD participants were parents of children with special learning needs. The study also had twelve (12) in-depth interviews (IDI) with respondents drawn from persons occupying elective and administrative offices within the study sites. Four key informant interviews (KIIs) were also part of the study respondents, and were all drawn from the national decision-making levels at the Ministry of Education and Sports (MoES). For both IDIs and KIIs, gender consideration was not a key inclusion criteria, and instead, the person of the office targeted was the key inclusion criteria.

    Data Access

    Access authority
    Name URL Email
    African Population and Health Research Center www.aphrc.org datarequest@aphrc.org
    Access conditions

    APHRC data access condition
    All non-APHRC staff seeking to use data generated at the Center must obtain written approval to use the data from the Director of Research. This form is developed to assess applications for data use and facilitate responsible sharing of data with external partners/ collaborators/researchers. By entering into this agreement, the undersigned agrees to use these data only for the purpose for which they were obtained and to abide by the conditions outlined below:

    1.Data Ownership:
    The data remain the property of APHRC; any unauthorized reproduction and sharing of the data is strictly prohibited. The user will, therefore, not release nor permit others to use or release the data to any other person without the written authorization from the Center.

    2.Purpose:
    The provided data must be used for the purpose specified in the Data Request Form; any other use not specified in the form must receive additional or separate authorization.

    3.Respondent Identifiers:
    The Center is committed to protecting the identity of the respondents who provide information in its research. All analytical data sets (both qualitative and quantitative) released by the Data Unit MUST are stripped of respondent identifiers to protect the identity of the respondents. By accepting to use APHRC data, the user is pledging that he/she will not, under any circumstance, regenerate the identifiers or permit others to use the data to learn the identity of any individual, household or community included in any data set.

    4.Confidentiality pledge:
    The user will not use nor permit others to use the data to report any information in the data sets that could identify, directly or by inference, individuals or households.

    5.Reporting of errors or inconsistencies:
    The user will promptly notify the Head of the Statistics and Survey Unit any errors discovered in the data as soon as the errors are discovered.

    6.Publications resulting from APHRC data:
    The Center requires external collaborators to work with APHRC staff on all publications resulting from its data. In order to facilitate this, lead authors should send a detailed concept note of the paper (including the background, rationale, data, analytical methods, and preliminary findings) to the Principle Investigator (or Theme Leader) for the project (with a copy to the Director of Research), who will circulate the abstract to concerned researchers for possible expression of interest in participating in the publication as co-authors. Any exception to the involvement of APHRC staff should be approved by the Director of Research, APHRC.

    7.Security:
    The user will take responsibility for the security of the data by ensuring that the data are used and stored in a secure environment where access is password protected. This will ensure that non-authorized people should not have access to the data.

    8.Loss of privilege to use data:
    In the event that APHRC determines that the data user is in violation of the conditions for using the data, or if the user wishes to cancel this agreement, the user will destroy the data files provided to him/her. APHRC retains the right to revoke this agreement or informs publishers to withhold publication of any work based wholly or in part on its data if the conditions for using the data are violated.

    9.Acknowledgement:
    Any work/reports from this data must acknowledge APHRC as the source of these data. For example, the suggested acknowledgement for NUHDSS data is: "This research uses livelihoods data collected under the longitudinal Nairobi Urban Health and Demographic Surveillance System (NUHDSS) since 2006. The NUHDSS is carried out by the African Population and Health Research Center in two slums settlements (Korogocho and Viwandani) in Nairobi City."Additionally all funders, the study communities that provided the data, and staff who collected and analyzed or processed the data should be acknowledged.

    10.Deposit of Reports/Papers:
    The user should submit electronic and paper copies of all publications generated using APHRC data to the Policy Engagement and Communications Department, with copies to the Director of Research.

    11.Change of contact details:
    The user will promptly inform the Director of Research of any change in your personal details as contained on this data request form.

    Citation requirements

    Use of the dataset must be acknowledged using a citation which would include:

    • the Identification of the Primary Investigator
    • the title of the survey (including country, acronym and year of implementation)
    • the survey reference number
    • the source and date of download

    Disclaimer and copyrights

    Disclaimer

    The user of the data acknowledges that the original collector of the data, the authorized distributor of the data, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.

    Copyright

    Copyright © APHRC 2024

    Metadata production

    DDI Document ID

    DD-UGA-APHRC-UEG-III-UG-1.0

    Producers
    Name Abbreviation Affiliation Role
    AFRICAN POPULATION AND HEALTH RESEARCH CENTRE (APHRC) APHRC Project implementation
    International Day of the African Youth/Child, Uganda, IDAY APHRC collaborator
    Date of Metadata Production

    2024-06-02

    Metadata version

    DDI Document version

    Version 1.0.

    Back to Catalog
    APHRC Microdata Portal

    © APHRC Microdata Portal, All Rights Reserved. Slot Online