ArticlePloS one2025
Towards Cohesive National Surveys in Pakistan: A Comparative Study of DHS and PSLM.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionEffective policymaking relies on high-quality data to understand social contexts, identify target populations, and evaluate interventions. In low and middle-income countries (LMICs), household surveys often fill data gaps, providing insights into social dynamics and policy impacts. In Pakistan, the Pakistan Demographic Health Survey (PDHS) and Pakistan Social and Living Standards Measurement (PSLM) are crucial sources of information. While both surveys cover health and socioeconomic indicators, their methodologies and questionnaires vary, leading to potential discrepancies in data.
methodsThis paper compares PDHS 2017-18, PSLM 2018-19 (provincial level) and PSLM 2019-20 (district level) using family planning and child immunization modules as examples. Similar indicators under each section are examined for differences using weighted proportion t-test. For family planning, we analyzed PDHS 2017-18 and PSLM 2018-19 because PSLM 2019-20, doesn't have family planning section. For immunization, we analyzed PDHS 2017-18, PSLM 2018-19 and PSLM 2019-20.
resultsAnalysis reveals high concordance in family planning indicators with differences of within two percent. Differences in the rates of BCG which is given at birth are under one percent and for the first dose of pentavalent vaccine are near one percent. However, the differences start diverging thereafter and are near nine percent for dose 3 of the pentavalent vaccine. There is high level of concordance between the results of the provincial and district PSLM surveys conducted one year apart.
conclusionWe describe the differences and relative similarities of the PSLM and PDHS surveys, as means to better incorporate their evidence in policy decisions. Both PSLM and PDHS serve a slightly different niche in that PDHS provides more in depth understanding of family planning whereas PSLM connects many health and social indicators with economic measures and gives granularity at the district level. However, to enhance the confidence of policymakers in both the surveys, we describe their concordance and differences and how they may be used in policy decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.