SAHR 2007 - Health Systems Trust

a StatsSA Mid-year Estimates. Growth rates are for 1996-2002.
b StatsSA Mid-year Estimates. For 2006-2007. 2007 mid-year estimates.
c Census 1996. Identical figures are reported for provincial areas in
Census 2001.
d Demarcation Board. Downloaded July 2007. Area % calculated from
source.
e Census 1996.
f Census 2001.
g IFR Projections 1999. Estimated for 1996-2001. Low population projections:
The impact of HIV/AIDS epidemic is incorporated from 1996
onwards; fertility rates are similar to those of the medium projections;
and a low degree of in-migration (100 000 per annum) is assumed.
h StatsSA Causes of death 2004 and 2005.
2003: Calculated from valid causes of death reports (552 825) per
1 000 estimated population.
‘Adjusted’ value takes into account that estimated data completeness is
88.5%.
2004: Calculated from valid causes of death reports (572 350) per
1 000 estimated population.
‘Adjusted’ value takes into account that estimated data completeness is
85.5%.
2005: Calculated from valid causes of death reports (591 213) per
1 000 estimated population. Estimated data completeness is 89%.
i StatsSA Mid-year Estimates.
j Census 2001. Independent demographic analyses of this report suggest
that the final figures probably reflect: * an underestimate of children
under the age of 5 * an overestimate of children aged between 10 and
19 * an underestimate of men relative to women * an underestimate of
the white population.
k StatsSA Mid-year Estimates. Calculated from 2007 mid-year estimates
and provincial areas from Municipal Demarcation Board 2006.
l Fiscal Review 2001. Calculated using provincial medical schemes
coverage (quoting October Household Survey 1999) and StatsSA
Census 2001 population.
m StatsSA GHS 2004 and 2005.
n Medical Schemes 2002-3 and 2004-5. Calculated from total number of
beneficiaries subtracted from total population.
o Urban and Rural definition. Note that there are some differences
between Census 2001 and Census 1996 regarding the classification
of the country into urban and rural areas. This report identifies these
differences and then gives some suggestions on objective means of
measurement, as well as reclassifying EAs for purpose of comparison
between the Censuses. With the reclassification of the 1996 Census
figures the national rural percentage is given as 44.9% (compared to
46.3% originally).
p SADHS 1998. The 1998 national TFR is considered to be an underestimate.
The real figure is considered to be about 3.2 (see Udjo EO,
Lestrade-Jefferis J. Fertility and mortality in South Africa. (on request from
StatsSA)) Differences between subgroups show that fertility rates are
correlated with education level, urban / rural residence, province and
population group. [SAHR 2000 Ch 4].
q CARe Fertility.
r SADHS 2003 (Preliminary). This survey shows a rapid decline in TFR – and
it is necessary to explore how much is real – and how much is due to
under-reporting of births. When the very low value for KZN is omitted the
national TFR rises to 2.4.
222