2022 Philippine

National Demographic
and Health Survey
(NDHS)

Philippines

2022 Philippine National Demographic

and Health Survey (NDHS)
Key Indicators Report

Philippine Statistics Authority

Quezon City, Philippines

The DHS Program

ICF
Rockville, Maryland, USA

February 2023
The 2022 Philippine National Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) was implemented by the Philippine
Statistics Authority (PSA). Funding for the 2022 NDHS was provided by the Government of the Philippines,
while the provision of handheld tablets for data collection was partially supported by the Commission on
Population and Development (POPCOM). ICF provided technical assistance through The DHS Program, which
is funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and providessupport and
technical assistance in the implementation of population and health surveys in countries worldwide.

Additional information about the 2022 NDHS may be obtained from the Philippine Statistics Authority, PSA
Complex, East Ave., Diliman, Quezon City; telephone: (+632)-8938-5267; fax: (+632)-8376-1995; email:
[email protected]; internet: www.psa.gov.ph.

Information about The DHS Program may be obtained from ICF, 530 Gaither Road, Suite 500, Rockville, MD
20850, USA; telephone: +1-301-407-6500; fax: +1-301-407-6501; email: [email protected]; internet:
www.DHSprogram.com.

The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of the PSA and ICF and do not necessarily reflect the views
of USAID, the United States Government, or other donor agencies.

Recommended citation:

Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) and ICF. 2022. 2022 Philippine National Demographic and Health Survey
(NDHS): Key Indicators Report. Quezon City, Philippines, and Rockville, Maryland, USA: PSA and ICF.
CONTENTS

TABLES AND FIGURES ............................................................................................................................v

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................................vii
FOREWORD ...............................................................................................................................................ix

1 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1 1.1
Survey Objectives................................................................................................................1

2 SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................................................................3 2.1

Sample Design.....................................................................................................................3 2.2
Questionnaires.....................................................................................................................3 2.3
Pretest and Training of Trainers..........................................................................................4 2.4
Training of Field Staff.........................................................................................................5 2.5
Fieldwork.............................................................................................................................5 2.6 Data
Processing ...................................................................................................................5

3 KEY FINDINGS..............................................................................................................................7 3.1

Response Rates....................................................................................................................7 3.2
Drinking Water Sources ......................................................................................................7
Drinking Water Service Ladder...........................................................................................8 3.3
Sanitation.............................................................................................................................9
Sanitation Service Ladder..................................................................................................10 3.4
PhilHealth Coverage..........................................................................................................11 3.5
COVID-19 .........................................................................................................................12 3.5.1
COVID-19 Transmission .....................................................................................12 3.5.2 COVID-
19 Symptoms and Care Seeking ............................................................14 3.5.3 COVID-19
Prevention and Stigma ......................................................................16 3.6 Child
Discipline.................................................................................................................18 3.7
Characteristics of Respondents..........................................................................................21 3.8
Fertility ..............................................................................................................................23 3.9
Teenage Fertility................................................................................................................24 3.10
Fertility Preferences...........................................................................................................25 3.11
Family Planning.................................................................................................................26 3.11.1
Contraceptive Use................................................................................................26 3.11.2 Need and
Demand for Family Planning...............................................................30 3.12 Early Childhood
Mortality.................................................................................................32 3.13 Maternal
Care ....................................................................................................................32 3.13.1 Antenatal
Care .....................................................................................................33 3.13.2 Tetanus
 Toxoid ....................................................................................................33 3.13.3 Delivery
Care.......................................................................................................36 3.13.4 Postnatal Care for
the Mother..............................................................................36 3.14 Vaccination
Coverage........................................................................................................36 3.14.1 Basic Antigen
Coverage ......................................................................................37 3.14.2 Vaccination Coverage
according to National Schedule.......................................37 3.15 Care Seeking and Treatment of
Child Illness....................................................................41 3.16 Infant and Young Child
Feeding .......................................................................................43 3.17 Early Childhood
Development ..........................................................................................44 3.18
HIV....................................................................................................................................46 3.18.1
Prevention Knowledge among Young People .....................................................46 3.18.2 Sexual
Behavior...................................................................................................48 3.18.3 Prior HIV
Testing ................................................................................................49 3.19 Violence Against
Women..................................................................................................51 Intimate Partner Violence
by Background Characteristics................................................51

REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................................................55

iii
TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1 Results of the household and individual interviews ............................................................7 Table

2.1 Household drinking water ...................................................................................................8 Table 2.2
Drinking water service ladder..............................................................................................9 Table 3.1
Household sanitation facilities...........................................................................................10 Table 3.2
Sanitation service ladder....................................................................................................11 Table 4
PhilHealth coverage...........................................................................................................12 Table 5.1
COVID-19 transmission....................................................................................................13 Table 5.2
COVID-19 symptoms experienced....................................................................................14 Table 5.3
Reasons for not seeking COVID-19 consultation or treatment .........................................15 Table 5.4
COVID-19 infection prevention........................................................................................17 Table 5.5
COVID-19 kept secret.......................................................................................................18 Table 6.1 Child
discipline..................................................................................................................20 Table 6.2 Attitudes
toward physical punishment...............................................................................21 Table 7 Background
characteristics of respondents .......................................................................22 Table 8 Current
fertility..................................................................................................................24 Table 9 Teenage
pregnancy............................................................................................................25 Table 10 Fertility
preferences by number of living children ............................................................26 Table 11.1 Current use
of contraception according to background characteristics .............................27 Table 11.2 Current use of
contraception according to region..............................................................28 Table 11.3 Source of modern
contraception methods .........................................................................29 Table 12 Need and demand for
family planning among currently married women and sexually
active unmarried women ...................................................................................................31
Table 13 Early childhood mortality rates .........................................................................................32 Table
14 Maternal care indicators ....................................................................................................34 Table 15.1
Vaccinations according to background characteristics......................................................39 Table 15.2
Vaccinations according to region ......................................................................................40 Table 16
Treatment for acute respiratory infection, fever, and diarrhea according to
background characteristics ................................................................................................42
Table 17 Infant and young child feeding (IYCF) indicators.............................................................43 Table
18 Early Childhood Development Index 2030 .......................................................................45 Table 19
Knowledge about HIV prevention methods among young women...................................47 Table 20
Multiple sexual partners and higher-risk sexual intercourse in the last 12 months...........48 Table 21
Coverage of prior HIV testing ...........................................................................................50 Table 22
Intimate partner violence by background characteristics...................................................52

Figure 1 Trends in fertility by residence ..........................................................................................24 Figure

2 Trends in use of, need for, and demand for family planning.............................................29 Figure 3
Trends in early childhood mortality rates..........................................................................32 Figure 4 Trends
in delivery assistance.............................................................................................36 Figure 5 Trends in
childhood vaccinations......................................................................................38 Figure 6 Trends in
exclusive breastfeeding .....................................................................................44

v
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ANC antenatal care

ARI acute respiratory infection
ART antiretroviral therapy
ASFR age-specific fertility rate

BCG bacillus Calmette-Guérin

BHW Barangay health worker

CAPI computer-assisted personal interviewing

CBR crude birth rate
CSPro Census and Survey Processing

DHS Demographic and Health Survey

DHSD Demographic and Health Statistics Division
DOH Department of Health
DPT diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus vaccine

GFR general fertility rate

HepB hepatitis B
Hib Haemophilus influenzae type b
HIV human immunodeficiency virus
HUCs highly urbanized cities

IPV inactivated poliomyelitis vaccine

IT information technology
IUD intrauterine contraceptive device
IYCF infant and young child feeding

JMP Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene LAM

lactational amenorrhea method

MICS Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey

MMR measles, mumps, rubella
MSF Master Sample Frame

NDHS Philippine National Demographic and Health Survey

OPV oral polio vaccine

ORS oral rehydration salts

PAPI paper and pencil personal interviewing

PCV pneumococcal conjugate vaccine
PCW Philippine Commission on Women
PNC postnatal care
POPCOM Commission on Population and Development
PSA Philippine Statistics Authority
PSOs Provincial Statistical Offices
PSU primary sampling unit

vii
RSSOs Regional Statistical Services Offices

SDG Sustainable Development Goal

SDM standard days method

TFR total fertility rate

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

UPPI University of the Philippines Population Institute USAID
United States Agency for International Development

VIP ventilated improved pit

WHO World Health Organization

 viii
FOREWORD

The 2022 Philippine National Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) was implemented by the
Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA). The survey and this Key Indicators Report provide information on
fertility, fertility preferences, family planning practices, childhood mortality, maternal and child health,
nutrition, knowledge and attitudes regarding HIV/AIDS, violence against women, child discipline, early
childhood development, and other health issues. These indicators are crucial in policymaking, program
planning, and monitoring and evaluation of population and health programs, including those related to
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The 2022 NDHS is the seventh Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) conducted in the Philippines in
collaboration with The DHS Program and the 12th in a series of national DHS surveys conducted every 5
years since 1968. Fieldwork for the survey was carried out from May 2 to June 22, 2022, covering a
national sample of over 30,000 households and nearly 28,000 women age 15 to 49.

Funding for the 2022 NDHS was provided by the Government of the Philippines, while the provision of
tablet computers for data collection was supported by the Commission on Population and Development
(POPCOM). The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) provided technical
assistance through ICF under The DHS Program.

The PSA would like to express its deepest gratitude to the Department of Health (DOH), the Philippine
Commission on Women (PCW), the University of the Philippines Population Institute (UPPI), and the
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) for their invaluable contributions during the preparatory and
training phases of the survey.

Great appreciation is also extended to the PSA survey team for their hard work and dedication: the staff of
the Demographic and Health Statistics Division of the Social Sector Statistics Service who worked
tirelessly throughout all stages of the survey; selected staff of the National Censuses Service and the
Information Technology and Dissemination Service for their support during the training; the staff of the
Finance and Administrative Service for their administrative assistance; the staff of the Regional Statistical
Services Offices (RSSOs) and Provincial Statistical Offices (PSOs) for overseeing the data collection
activities; and the 110interviewing teams composed of team supervisors and field interviewers. Finally, the
PSA is grateful to the survey respondents who patiently shared their time and information.

DENNIS S. MAPA, Ph.D.

Undersecretary
National Statistician and Civil Registrar General
Philippine Statistics Authority

Quezon City, Philippines

November 2022

ix
1 INTRODUCTION

The 2022 Philippine National Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) is the seventh Demographic and
Health Survey (DHS) conducted in the Philippines in collaboration with the worldwide Demographic and
Health Surveys Program and the 12th in a series of national DHS surveys conducted every 5 years since
1968. The 2022 NDHS was implemented by the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA). Data collection
took place from May 2 to June 22, 2022. ICF provided technical assistance through The DHS Program,
which is funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and offers financial
support and technical assistance for population and health surveys in countries worldwide.

Funding for the 2022 NDHS was provided by the Government of the Philippines, while the provision of
tablet computers for data collection was supported by the Commission on Population and Development
(POPCOM). Other agencies and organizations that facilitated the successful implementation of the survey
through technical support were the Department of Health (DOH), the Philippine Commission on Women
(PCW), the University of the Philippines Population Institute (UPPI), and the United Nations Children’s
Fund (UNICEF).

This Key Indicators Report presents a first look at selected findings from the 2022 NDHS. A
comprehensive analysis of the data will be presented in a final report in 2023.

1.1 SURVEY OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of the 2022 NDHS is to provide up-to-date estimates of basic demographic and
health indicators. Specifically, the NDHS collected information on fertility, fertility preferences, family
planning practices, childhood mortality, maternal and child health, nutrition, knowledge and attitudes
regarding HIV/AIDS, violence against women, child discipline, early childhood development, and other
health issues.

The information collected through the NDHS is intended to assist policymakers and program managers in
designing and evaluating programs and strategies for improving the health of the Philippine’s population.
The 2022 NDHS also provides indicators anchored to the attainment of the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) and the new Philippine Development Plan for 2023 to 2028.

1
2 SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION

2.1 SAMPLE DESIGN

The Philippines has 17 administrative regions, namely the National Capital Region (NCR), the Cordillera
Administrative Region (CAR), Region I (Ilocos), Region II (Cagayan Valley), Region III (Central Luzon),
Region IV-A (CALABARZON), Region IV-B (MIMAROPA), Region V (Bicol Region), Region VI
(Western Visayas), Region VII (Central Visayas), Region VIII (Eastern Visayas), Region IX (Zamboanga
Peninsula), Region X (Northern Mindanao), Region XI (Davao Region), Region XII (SOCCSKSARGEN),
the Caraga Region, and the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM). Each
region is composed of provinces, highly urbanized cities (HUCs), which are subdivided into
cities/municipalities and barangays. The barangays are the smallest local government unit. National
government offices are usually (but not always) concentrated in the regional centers, and the seat of the
provincial government is situated in each of the respective provinces. The country has 81 provinces, 33
HUCs, and 42,036 barangays.

The sampling scheme provides data representative of the country as a whole, for urban and rural areas
separately, and for each of the country’s administrative regions. The sample selection methodology for the
2022 NDHS was based on a two-stage stratified sample design using the Master Sample Frame (MSF)
designed and compiled by the PSA. The MSF was constructed based on the listing of households from the
2010 Census of Population and Housing and updated based on the listing of households from the 2015
Census of Population. The first stage involved a systematic selection of 1,247 primary sampling units
(PSUs) distributed by province or HUC. A PSU can be a barangay, a portion of a large barangay, or two or
more adjacent small barangays.

In the second stage, an equal take of either 22 or 29 sample housing units were selected from each sampled
PSU using systematic random sampling. In situations where a housing unit contained one to three
households, all households were interviewed. In the rare situation where a housing unit contained more
than three households, no more than three households were interviewed. The survey interviewers were
instructed to interview only the pre-selected housing units. No replacements and no changes of the pre
selected housing units were allowed in the implementing stage in order to prevent bias. Survey weights
were calculated, added to the data file, and applied so that weighted results are representative estimates of
indicators at the regional and national levels.

All women age 15–49 who were either usual residents of the selected households or visitors who stayed in
the households the night before the survey were eligible to be interviewed. Among women eligible for an
individual interview, one woman per household was selected for a module on women’s safety.

2.2 QUESTIONNAIRES

Two questionnaires were used for the 2022 NDHS: the Household Questionnaire and the Woman’s
Questionnaire. The questionnaires, based on The DHS Program’s model questionnaires, were adapted to
reflect the population and health issues relevant to the Philippines. Input was solicited from various
stakeholders representing government agencies, academe, and international agencies. The survey protocol
was reviewed by the ICF Institutional Review Board.

After all questionnaires were finalized in English, they were translated into six major languages: Tagalog,
Cebuano, Ilocano, Bikol, Hiligaynon, and Waray. The Household and Woman’s Questionnaires were
programmed into tablet computers to allow for computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) for data
collection purposes, with the capability to choose any of the languages for each questionnaire.

The Household Questionnaire was used to list all usual residents of and visitors to the selected households.
Basic demographic information was collected for each person listed, including sex, age, marital status,

3
education, and relationship to the head of the household. The data on age and sex were used to identify
women who were eligible for individual interviews. The Household Questionnaire also collected
information on health insurance coverage for each household member and characteristics of the
household’s housing unit, such as source of drinking water, type of toilet facility, materials used for the
flooring of the housing unit, and ownership of various durable goods. In addition, survey-specific sections
were included that collected information on health facility utilization by household members and
knowledge of local health programs, noncommunicable diseases, infectious diseases, and COVID-19.
Lastly, the Household Questionnaire included the UNICEF Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS)
child discipline module.

The Woman’s Questionnaire was used to collect information on the following topics:
▪ Sociodemographic characteristics

▪ Reproduction

▪ Family planning

▪ Maternal and newborn health care

▪ Vaccination and health of children

▪ Children’s nutrition

▪ Woman’s dietary diversity

▪ Marriage and sexual activity

▪ Fertility preferences

▪ Husbands’ background characteristics and women’s employment activity

▪ HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections

▪ Women’s safety (including measures of physical, sexual, and emotional violence)

▪ Early Childhood Development Index

▪ Other health issues such as alcohol consumption and use of tobacco

In addition, a self-administered Fieldworker Questionnaire collected information about the survey’s

fieldworkers. Its purpose was to collect basic background information on the people who were collecting
data in the field, including the team supervisors and interviewers.

As was done in the 2017 NDHS, tablet computers were used for data collection by the enumerators. The
tablet computers were equipped with Bluetooth® technology to enable remote electronic transfer of files,
such as assignments from the team supervisor to the interviewers, individual questionnaires to survey team
members, and completed questionnaires from interviewers to team supervisors. The CAPI data collection
system employed in the 2022 NDHS was developed by The DHS Program with the mobile version of
CSPro. The CSPro software was developed jointly by the U.S. Census Bureau, Serpro S.A., and The DHS
Program.

2.3 PRETEST AND TRAINING OF TRAINERS

Prior to finalizing the design of survey materials, a pretest briefing was held from September 29 to October
1, 2021, at which the concepts used in the survey, field enumeration, and supervision procedures were
discussed and specific instructions for completing the questionnaires were provided.

The pretest exercise using paper and pencil personal interviewing (PAPI) was conducted by the PSA from
October 6 to 9, 2021, in the municipality of Sagada, Mt. Province, Cordillera Administrative Region. It
aimed to test the flow and clarity of the questions, the output rate per day, the sustainability of the
respondent’s attitude and motivation in answering the questions, and other issues that may arise during
data collection. A pretest debriefing was held on October 11, 2021, to discuss experiences in the
administration of the questionnaires, including problems encountered and recommendations for their
resolution.

4
In preparation for the series of trainings of field staff, the PSA also led a training of trainers from March 7
to 10, 2022, in Quezon City, Metro Manila. The training focused on discussions of the questionnaires, the
interviewer’s manual, and field operations guidelines.

2.4 TRAINING OF FIELD STAFF

Training of the field staff was conducted on two levels. The first was the training of the Task Force, and
the second was the training of the interviewing teams in the Task Force trainers’ respective regions. The
Task Force training was conducted from March 14 to April 1, 2022, in Quezon City, Metro Manila. The
training focused on how to properly carry out the interviews and fill out the questionnaires, on
understanding concepts and definitions, and on the CAPI system training. This training included 2 days of
field practice in two clusters in Quezon City. Trainees were PSA staff from Regional Statistical Services
Offices (RSSOs) who served as regional focal persons and information technology (IT) specialists.
Selected PSA staff from the Demographic and Health Statistics Division (DHSD) of the Social Sector
Statistics Service and representatives from ICF acted as trainers. There were also resource speakers from
the DOH, PCW, and UPPI for certain topics.

The second level of training took place from April 4 to 26, 2022, in 17 training centers selected by the
RSSOs. Trainers in the second-level training were participants in the Task Force training. The instructors
for the second-level training were the 17 regional supervisors and 17 regional IT specialists from each of
the 17 regions who were trained during the Task Force training. A total of 305 field interviewers and 110
team supervisors were recruited from each of the respective regions to take part in the second-level
training, and trainers from the PSA Central Office and ICF representatives provided additional supervision
and assistance during these trainings.

2.5 FIELDWORK

Survey data collection was carried out from May 2 to June 22, 2022, by the 110 field teams. Each team
consisted of a team supervisor and two to three field interviewers, all of whom were female. Fieldwork
monitoring was an integral part of the 2022 NDHS. Regional and team supervisors were engaged to
supervise their teams on a full-time basis. Just after data collection was launched, staff from the PSA
Central Office conducted a 3-day field supervision from May 4 to 6, 2022, to closely observe the teams
and ensure that any errors or issues were immediately corrected. Field check tables based on data from
completed questionnaires were also generated regularly by the PSA Central Office and used to monitor
progress and provide regular feedback to the field teams. GPS points were also collected during the survey.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, guidelines were developed to mitigate potential risk of infection of field
teams and survey respondents. These guidelines were followed throughout field data collection,
monitoring, and supervision.

2.6 DATA PROCESSING

Processing the 2022 NDHS data began almost as soon as fieldwork started. As data collection was
completed in each PSU or cluster, all electronic data files were transferred via SyncCloud to the PSA
Central Office in Quezon City. These data files were registered and checked for inconsistencies,
incompleteness, and outliers. The field teams were alerted to any inconsistencies and errors while still in
the area of assignment. A team of secondary editors in the PSA Central Office carried out secondary
editing, which involved resolving inconsistencies and the recoding of “other” responses; the former was
conducted during data collection, and the latter was conducted following the completion of the fieldwork.
Data editing was performed using the CSPro software package. Timely generation of field check tables
allowed for more effective monitoring. The secondary editing of the data was completed in August 2022.
The final cleaning of the data set was carried out by data processing specialists from The DHS Program in
September 2022.

5
Throughout this report, the numbers in the tables reflect weighted numbers. Percentages based on fewer
than 25 unweighted cases are suppressed and replaced with an asterisk; percentages based on 25 to 49
unweighted cases are shown in parentheses to caution readers when interpreting data that a percentage
based on fewer than 50 cases may not be statistically reliable.
 6
3 KEY FINDINGS

3.1 RESPONSE RATES

Table 1 shows the results of the household and individual interviews, and response rates, according to
residence, for the 2022 NDHS. A total of 35,470 households were selected for the 2022 NDHS sample, of
which 30,621 were found to be occupied. Of the occupied households, 30,372 were successfully
interviewed, yielding a response rate of 99%. In the interviewed households, 28,379 women age 15–49
were identified as eligible for individual interviews. Interviews were completed with 27,821 women,
yielding a response rate of 98%.

Table 1 Results of the household and individual interviews

Number of households, number of interviews, and response rates, by residence (unweighted),
Philippines NDHS 2022
Residence
Result Urban Rural Total
Household interviews
Households selected 13,488 21,982 35,470
Households occupied 11,701 18,920 30,621
Households interviewed 11,573 18,799 30,372
Household response rate1 98.9 99.4 99.2
Interviews with women age 15–49
Number of eligible women 11,566 16,813 28,379
Number of eligible women interviewed 11,334 16,487 27,821
Eligible women response rate2 98.0 98.1 98.0

1
Households interviewed/households occupied
2
Respondents interviewed/eligible respondents

3.2 DRINKING WATER SOURCES

Improved sources of drinking water

Include piped water, public taps, standpipes, tube wells, boreholes, protected
dug wells and springs, rainwater, water delivered via a tanker truck or a cart
with a small tank, and bottled water/refilling stations.
Sample: Households and de jure population

Table 2.1 shows the percent distribution of households and de jure population by source of drinking water
and by time to obtain drinking water, according to residence. Improved sources of water protect against
outside contamination so that the water is more likely to be safe to drink.

▪ In the Philippines, 98% of households use an improved source of drinking water.

▪ Fifty-nine percent of households drink bottled water or water from a refilling station. Nineteen percent
of households drink water that is piped into their dwelling, yard, or plot.

▪ Overall, 87% of Filipino households have water on the premises. Twelve percent of households travel
30 minutes or less to fetch water, and 1% travel more than 30 minutes.

7
Table 2.1 Household drinking water
Percent distribution of households and de jure population by source of drinking water and by time to obtain drinking water, according to
residence, Philippines NDHS 2022
Households Population
Characteristic Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total
Source of drinking water
Improved source 99.5 96.2 98.0 99.5 96.1 97.9 Piped into dwelling/yard/plot 21.2 16.0 18.8 21.2 16.4 19.0 Piped to neighbor 2.5 2.9 2.7
2.7 2.8 2.7 Public tap/standpipe 1.0 3.4 2.2 1.0 3.7 2.3 Tube well or borehole 2.6 12.4 7.2 2.8 12.5 7.4 Protected dug well 1.1 6.1 3.4
1.2 6.0 3.5 Protected spring 0.8 8.4 4.3 0.9 8.5 4.5 Rainwater 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.3 Tanker truck/cart with small tank 0.1 0.8 0.4 0.1
1.0 0.5 Bottled water/refilling station 70.0 45.6 58.7 69.4 44.7 57.7
Unimproved source 0.5 3.5 1.9 0.5 3.6 2.0 Unprotected dug well 0.1 2.0 1.0 0.1 2.1 1.1 Unprotected spring 0.1 1.5 0.8 0.1 1.5 0.8
Other 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1
Surface water 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Time to obtain drinking water
(round trip)
Water on premises1 95.8 77.5 87.3 95.7 76.9 86.8 30 minutes or less 4.0 20.6 11.7 4.1 21.0 12.1 More than 30 minutes 0.2 1.9 1.0 0.2
2.0 1.0 Don’t know 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of households/population 16,265 14,107 30,372 67,072 60,063 127,135

1
Includes water piped to a neighbor and those reporting a round-trip collection time of zero minutes

Drinking Water Service Ladder

Drinking water service ladder

Safely managed
Drinking water from an improved water source that is located on the premises,
available when needed and free from fecal and priority chemical
contamination.
Basic
Drinking water from an improved source, provided either water is on the
premises or round-trip collection time is 30 minutes or less.
Limited
Drinking water from an improved source, and round-trip collection time is more
than 30 minutes.
Unimproved
Drinking water from an unprotected dug well or unprotected spring.
Surface water
Drinking water directly from a river, dam, lake, pond, stream, canal, or
irrigation canal.
Sample: De jure population

Building off the classification of drinking water sources as improved or unimproved, the Joint Monitoring
Programme for Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene (JMP) has devised a five-rung drinking water
service ladder to benchmark and compare progress towards achieving SDG targets (WHO and UNICEF
2018). The NDHS captured information on four out of the five rungs; because the survey did not include
testing drinking water for fecal or chemical contamination, safely managed and basic drinking water
services cannot be distinguished and are grouped together in Table 2.2 as “at least basic service.”

8
▪ Overall, 97% of the household population has at least basic drinking water service.

▪ By region, the percentage of the household population with at least basic drinking water service ranges
from a low of 80% in BARMM to a high of nearly 100% in Ilocos.

▪ Use of at least basic service drinking water increases with increasing household wealth; 89% of the
household population in the lowest wealth quintile has at least basic service, as compared with over
99% in the highest wealth quintile.

Table 2.2 Drinking water service ladder

Percent distribution of de jure population by drinking water service ladder, according to background characteristics, Philippines NDHS 2022
Background characteristic Residence Limited Surface Number of persons
At least basic service1 service2 Unimproved3 water Total

Urban 99.3 0.2 0.5 0.0 100.0 67,072 Rural 94.4 1.8 3.6 0.2 100.0 60,063
Region
National Capital Region 99.1 0.1 0.8 0.0 100.0 17,073 Cordillera Admin. Region 94.1 0.6 5.3 0.0 100.0 2,192 I - Ilocos 99.8 0.1 0.1 0.0
100.0 7,008 II - Cagayan Valley 98.9 0.4 0.8 0.0 100.0 4,172 III - Central Luzon 99.6 0.3 0.1 0.0 100.0 13,931 IVA - CALABARZON 99.3
0.1 0.5 0.0 100.0 18,069 MIMAROPA 95.8 2.1 2.1 0.0 100.0 3,345 V - Bicol 92.6 2.0 5.4 0.0 100.0 6,871 VI - Western Visayas 98.4 0.3
1.3 0.0 100.0 9,160 VII - Central Visayas 97.9 0.9 1.1 0.0 100.0 9,493 VIII - Eastern Visayas 95.9 1.0 3.1 0.0 100.0 4,970 IX - Zamboanga
Peninsula 89.0 2.3 8.7 0.0 100.0 4,563 X - Northern Mindanao 98.9 0.2 0.9 0.0 100.0 5,028 XI - Davao 97.3 0.5 2.1 0.1 100.0 6,965 XII -
SOCCSKSARGEN 96.1 1.5 2.2 0.2 100.0 5,777 XIII - CARAGA 97.1 0.4 2.5 0.0 100.0 3,066 BARMM 80.2 8.7 9.0 2.1 100.0 5,450
Wealth quintile
Lowest 88.9 3.2 7.3 0.5 100.0 25,413 Second 97.5 1.1 1.4 0.0 100.0 25,441 Middle 99.2 0.3 0.5 0.0 100.0 25,435 Fourth 99.5 0.1 0.4 0.0
100.0 25,421 Highest 99.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 100.0 25,424
Total 97.0 0.9 2.0 0.1 100.0 127,135

Note: Service ladder concept/definitions are based on the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene
(JMP).
1
Defined as drinking water from an improved source, provided either water is on the premises or round-trip collection time is 30 minutes or less.
Includes safely managed drinking water, which is not shown separately.
2
Drinking water from an improved source, and round-trip collection time is more than 30 minutes or is unknown.
3
Drinking water from an unprotected dug well or unprotected spring

3.3 SANITATION

Improved sanitation facility

Includes flush/pour flush toilets that flush water and waste to a piped sewer
system, septic tank, pit latrine, or unknown destination; ventilated improved pit
(VIP) latrines; pit latrines with slabs; and composting toilets.
Sample: Households and de jure population

Table 3.1 shows the percent distribution of households and de jure population by type of toilet/latrine
facilities and the percent distribution of households and de jure population with a toilet/latrine facility by
location of the facility, according to residence.

▪ Ninety-five percent of Filipino households use improved toilet facilities.

▪ Two percent of households use unimproved toilet facilities, while 3% of households do not use any
toilet facilities.

9
Table 3.1 Household sanitation facilities
Percent distribution of households and de jure population by type of toilet/latrine facilities, and percent distribution of households and de jure
population with a toilet/latrine facility by location of the facility, according to residence, Philippines NDHS 2022

Type and location of toilet/latrine facility Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total
Households Population
Improved sanitation facility 97.3 93.3 95.4 97.0 93.3 95.2 Flush/pour flush to piped sewer
system 4.8 1.1 3.1 4.6 1.1 3.0 Flush/pour flush to septic tank 89.9 83.6 86.9 89.6 83.1 86.5 Flush/pour flush to pit latrine 2.1 7.4 4.6 2.4
7.6 4.8 Flush/pour flush, don’t know where 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrine 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 Pit latrine
with slab 0.3 1.0 0.6 0.4 1.1 0.7 Composting toilet 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1
Unimproved sanitation facility 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.7 Flush/pour flush not to sewer/septic
tank/pit latrine 1.0 0.3 0.7 1.1 0.4 0.8 Pit latrine without slab/open pit 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 Bucket 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hanging
toilet/hanging latrine 0.3 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.9 0.6 Other 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Open defecation (no facility/
bush/field) 1.2 5.0 3.0 1.2 5.0 3.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of households/population 16,265 14,107 30,372 67,072 60,063 127,135
Location of toilet facility
In own dwelling 82.9 61.0 72.9 82.9 60.0 72.3 In own yard/plot 15.8 36.1 25.0 15.9 37.3 25.8 Elsewhere 1.3 2.9 2.0 1.2 2.8 1.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of households/population with
a toilet/latrine facility 16,070 13,396 29,466 66,239 57,065 123,304

Sanitation Service Ladder

Sanitation service ladder

Safely managed
Use of improved facilities that are not shared with other households and where
excreta are safely disposed of in situ or transported and treated offsite.
 Basic
Use of improved facilities that are not shared with other households.
Limited
Use of improved facilities shared by two or more households.
Unimproved
Use of pit latrines without a slab or platform, hanging latrines, or bucket
latrines.
Open defecation
Disposal of human feces in fields, forests, bushes, open bodies of water,
beaches, or other open spaces or with solid waste
Sample: De jure population

The JMP has also devised a five-rung sanitation service ladder to benchmark and compare progress
towards achieving SDG targets related to sanitation. The NDHS captured information about all five rungs.
However, for those households whose excreta were taken offsite, it is not possible to know if they were
treated appropriately, and therefore safely managed and basic sanitation services are grouped together in
Table 3.2 as “at least basic service.”

10
▪ Overall, 83% of the household population has at least basic sanitation service.

▪ By region, only 55% of the household population in BARMM has at least basic sanitation service, as
compared with 92% of the household population in CALABARZON.

▪ The percentage of the household population with at least basic sanitation service ranges from 58% in
the lowest wealth quintile to 98% in the highest quintile; 14% of the household population in the
lowest wealth quintile engages in open defecation.

Table 3.2 Sanitation service ladder

Percent distribution of de jure population by type of sanitation service, according to background characteristics, Philippines NDHS 2022
Background characteristic Residence Limited Open Number of persons
At least basic service1 service2 Unimproved3 defecation Total

Urban 84.0 13.0 1.7 1.2 100.0 67,072 Rural 80.7 12.5 1.8 5.0 100.0 60,063
Region
National Capital Region 81.6 15.8 2.5 0.1 100.0 17,073 Cordillera Admin. Region 81.6 16.2 1.6 0.6 100.0 2,192 I - Ilocos 81.7 17.8 0.1
0.3 100.0 7,008 II - Cagayan Valley 81.1 18.2 0.5 0.3 100.0 4,172 III - Central Luzon 88.9 10.0 0.7 0.5 100.0 13,931 IVA - CALABARZON
91.9 6.7 0.6 0.7 100.0 18,069 MIMAROPA 79.3 12.3 2.3 6.0 100.0 3,345 V - Bicol 78.7 13.7 0.2 7.3 100.0 6,871 VI - Western Visayas
84.7 8.4 2.2 4.7 100.0 9,160 VII - Central Visayas 80.3 16.0 0.3 3.4 100.0 9,493 VIII - Eastern Visayas 82.3 9.1 1.2 7.4 100.0 4,970 IX -
Zamboanga Peninsula 76.5 11.4 5.6 6.5 100.0 4,563 X - Northern Mindanao 85.5 11.9 0.7 1.8 100.0 5,028 XI - Davao 81.3 17.3 0.3 1.0
100.0 6,965 XII - SOCCSKSARGEN 75.1 19.0 1.2 4.7 100.0 5,777 XIII - CARAGA 89.0 8.4 1.8 0.9 100.0 3,066 BARMM 55.3 14.1 12.8
17.8 100.0 5,450
Wealth quintile
Lowest 57.8 23.3 5.2 13.6 100.0 25,413 Second 77.5 19.7 1.6 1.2 100.0 25,441 Middle 85.5 13.0 1.3 0.2 100.0 25,435 Fourth 94.2 5.2
0.5 0.0 100.0 25,421 Highest 97.5 2.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 25,424
Total 82.5 12.8 1.7 3.0 100.0 127,135

Note: Service ladder concept/definitions are based on the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene
(JMP).
1
Defined as use of improved facilities that are not shared with other households. Includes safely managed sanitation service, which is not shown
separately.
2
Defined as use of improved facilities shared by two or more households
3
Use of flush/pour flush toilet not to a sewer, septic tank, or pit latrine; pit latrine without a slab/open pit; hanging toilet/latrine; or bucket

3.4 PHILHEALTH COVERAGE

As part of the household interview, respondents were asked whether each member of the household was
covered by any form of health insurance and, if so, by what type. Table 4 shows the percentage of the de
jure population with specific types of PhilHealth insurance coverage, the percentage with any PhilHealth
 insurance, and the percentage with any other health insurance, according to residence, region, and wealth
quintile.

▪ Seventy percent of the household population is covered by any PhilHealth insurance and 39% by other
types of health insurance.

▪ Only 41% of the household population in BARMM is covered by any PhilHealth insurance, as
compared with 63%–79% of the household population in other regions.

▪ PhilHealth coverage increases with increasing wealth, from 58% in the lowest wealth quintile to 84%
in the highest quintile.

11
Table 4 PhilHealth coverage
Percentage of de jure population with specific types of PhilHealth insurance coverage, percentage with any PhilHealth insurance, and percentage
with any other health insurance, according to background characteristics, Philippines NDHS 2022
PhilHealth insurance by type of coverage

Background Residence Paying Member Dependent of nonpaying member not Any Any other health Number of persons
characteristic Nonpaying paying member Not a applicable Don’t PhilHealth insurance
member Dependent of member/ know insurance

Urban 27.4 13.4 22.3 7.9 28.3 0.7 71.0 50.5 67,072 Rural 14.0 19.5 13.8 20.9 31.3 0.6 68.1 26.7 60,063
Region
National Capital Region 32.0 15.2 23.3 5.6 23.1 0.9 76.1 63.1 17,073 Cordillera Admin. Region 19.3 20.7 20.4 17.4 21.5 0.8 77.7 33.9 2,192
I - Ilocos 19.6 17.1 18.7 11.7 30.7 2.2 67.1 37.8 7,008 II - Cagayan Valley 15.6 18.9 20.3 18.1 26.4 0.7 72.9 26.6 4,172 III - Central Luzon
30.8 12.1 26.0 6.4 24.1 0.7 75.3 54.4 13,931 IVA - CALABARZON 25.6 11.9 23.3 6.0 32.8 0.4 66.8 43.9 18,069 MIMAROPA 11.2 21.1 12.1
24.9 29.5 1.1 69.4 29.1 3,345 V - Bicol 13.9 20.7 12.5 26.7 25.7 0.5 73.7 33.6 6,871 VI - Western Visayas 20.6 16.6 14.9 14.5 32.9 0.6 66.5
34.5 9,160 VII - Central Visayas 20.5 17.4 13.1 11.9 36.7 0.4 62.9 35.5 9,493 VIII - Eastern Visayas 13.2 23.6 12.5 15.8 34.9 0.1 65.0 20.7
4,970 IX - Zamboanga Peninsula 9.1 23.5 7.3 27.7 31.5 1.0 67.5 18.8 4,563 X - Northern Mindanao 14.3 16.2 16.4 21.0 31.6 0.5 67.9 29.9
5,028 XI - Davao 22.7 18.5 19.8 17.7 20.9 0.3 78.8 38.4 6,965 XII - SOCCSKSARGEN 13.8 17.0 18.2 24.4 26.1 0.5 73.5 30.8 5,777 XIII -
CARAGA 15.9 22.5 16.7 23.4 20.7 0.8 78.4 31.7 3,066 BARMM 2.7 8.6 5.1 25.0 58.5 0.1 41.4 8.2 5,450
Wealth quintile
Lowest 4.5 19.9 6.1 27.6 41.5 0.4 58.1 11.0 25,413 Second 11.4 19.6 12.2 20.4 35.8 0.6 63.6 24.5 25,441 Middle 20.5 16.1 19.2 12.3 31.3
0.7 68.0 39.3 25,435 Fourth 30.1 13.7 24.7 6.5 24.2 0.9 74.9 53.8 25,421 Highest 38.8 12.0 29.4 3.4 15.6 0.8 83.6 67.5 25,424
Total 21.1 16.2 18.3 14.0 29.7 0.7 69.7 39.2 127,135

3.5 COVID-19

The Household Questionnaire included several questions assessing the household respondent’s knowledge
of and experience with COVID-19.

3.5.1 COVID-19 Transmission

Table 5.1 shows the percentage of household respondents reporting how COVID-19 is spread from one
person to another.

▪ The most commonly cited means of person-to-person transmission of COVID-19 was through talking
(72%), followed by coughing (66%) and sneezing (53%).

▪ Only 2% of respondents did not know how the virus spreads from one person to another.
 12
Table 5.1 COVID-19 transmission
Percentage of household respondents who state that COVID-19 is spread from one person to another by various means, according to background
characteristics, Philippines NDHS 2022
Various means by which COVID-19 spreads from one person to another
Number of
Background Sharing household respondents
characteristic Talking Sneezing Coughing Residence utensils Touching Airborne Other Don’t know

Urban 70.8 56.3 68.7 25.2 34.1 1.6 1.0 1.6 16,265 Rural 72.3 48.4 62.3 24.1 38.3 1.3 1.4 2.3 14,107
Region
National Capital Region 69.8 68.8 77.2 25.7 23.1 1.2 0.8 0.6 4,334 Cordillera Admin.
Region 73.1 63.9 79.5 18.8 32.2 0.3 1.7 1.2 571 I - Ilocos 55.4 40.0 57.2 24.5 28.9 7.0 2.6 4.4 1,646 II - Cagayan Valley 82.5 59.6 73.6
26.4 47.1 0.6 1.6 0.5 1,024 III - Central Luzon 80.3 63.7 72.6 28.2 33.2 0.8 0.6 1.7 3,248 IVA - CALABARZON 64.2 39.8 59.3 19.2 36.7 2.8
0.8 1.4 4,394 MIMAROPA 69.7 55.9 59.1 21.6 40.3 2.3 0.9 3.3 833 V - Bicol 68.8 39.8 54.4 14.1 43.9 0.9 1.2 1.8 1,553 VI - Western Visayas
72.7 42.6 61.7 22.3 33.9 1.0 2.7 1.7 2,193 VII - Central Visayas 79.5 49.7 60.6 16.1 42.5 0.3 0.7 1.1 2,291 VIII - Eastern Visayas 67.1 59.4
69.3 32.1 37.4 0.5 0.7 0.3 1,149 IX - Zamboanga
Peninsula 71.0 46.3 59.0 27.0 48.2 1.5 2.1 5.8 990 X - Northern Mindanao 77.1 54.7 72.7 47.4 52.0 0.9 1.4 0.8 1,182 XI - Davao 76.2 45.6
57.8 22.7 46.0 0.3 1.9 2.0 1,842 XII - SOCCSKSARGEN 69.4 45.8 64.6 19.0 33.2 0.8 0.7 5.4 1,368 XIII - CARAGA 74.4 56.7 60.5 20.6 26.3
1.4 1.9 2.8 687 BARMM 72.6 70.8 77.3 53.7 34.7 0.2 0.2 3.7 1,066
Wealth quintile
Lowest 68.8 46.4 61.9 25.0 34.8 0.8 1.2 4.6 6,151 Second 70.8 48.8 63.0 22.9 37.3 1.8 1.1 1.9 6,022 Middle 71.3 52.6 66.4 23.7 34.7 1.8
1.3 1.4 6,209 Fourth 70.8 57.1 67.3 24.8 35.9 1.4 0.8 0.8 6,098 Highest 76.0 58.6 70.1 27.2 37.5 1.6 1.6 0.7 5,892
Age
<20 69.2 52.8 64.7 25.9 43.8 0.8 0.9 0.6 970 20–34 70.1 54.2 68.8 26.8 38.1 1.5 1.2 1.2 6,874 35–49 71.8 53.9 65.1 25.8 37.1 1.7 1.1 1.3
9,765 50–64 74.0 51.9 64.8 22.9 35.7 1.5 1.1 2.0 8,316 65+ 68.8 48.9 64.5 22.2 29.5 1.0 1.7 4.6 4,448
Sex
Male 72.0 50.8 63.7 23.6 35.7 1.6 1.1 2.3 7,654 Female 71.3 53.3 66.4 25.1 36.1 1.4 1.2 1.8 22,718
Total 71.5 52.6 65.7 24.7 36.0 1.5 1.2 1.9 30,372

13
3.5.2 COVID-19 Symptoms and Care Seeking

Table 5.2 shows the percent distribution of household respondents by whether they had experienced
COVID-19 symptoms since January 2020, according to background characteristics.

▪ Sixteen percent of household respondents reported experiencing COVID-19 symptoms since January
2020.

▪ Notably, the percentage of respondents who had experienced COVID-19 symptoms generally
increases with increasing household wealth; 14% of respondents in the lowest wealth quintile have
experienced symptoms, as compared with 23% of respondents in the highest wealth quintile.

Table 5.2 COVID-19 symptoms experienced

 Percent distribution of household respondents who have experienced COVID-19 symptoms since January 2020, according to
background characteristics, Philippines NDHS 2022

Background Number of household Total

Experienced COVID-19 symptoms1 characteristic Yes No Don’t know Residence respondents

Urban 15.2 84.7 0.2 100.0 16,265 Rural 17.4 82.4 0.2 100.0 14,107
Region
National Capital Region 11.2 88.6 0.1 100.0 4,334 Cordillera Admin. Region 21.4 78.6 0.0 100.0 571 I - Ilocos 16.4 83.6 0.0
100.0 1,646 II - Cagayan Valley 22.6 77.4 0.0 100.0 1,024 III - Central Luzon 17.8 82.2 0.0 100.0 3,248 IVA -
CALABARZON 13.4 86.5 0.1 100.0 4,394 MIMAROPA 19.8 80.2 0.0 100.0 833 V - Bicol 13.4 86.5 0.0 100.0 1,553 VI -
Western Visayas 15.4 84.6 0.0 100.0 2,193 VII - Central Visayas 23.3 76.3 0.3 100.0 2,291 VIII - Eastern Visayas 18.7 81.3
0.0 100.0 1,149 IX - Zamboanga Peninsula 21.5 78.2 0.3 100.0 990 X - Northern Mindanao 18.8 81.2 0.0 100.0 1,182 XI -
Davao 19.1 80.9 0.0 100.0 1,842 XII - SOCCSKSARGEN 14.1 85.6 0.2 100.0 1,368 XIII - CARAGA 15.6 84.4 0.0 100.0 687
BARMM 9.0 88.7 2.3 100.0 1,066
Wealth quintile
Lowest 13.8 85.9 0.4 100.0 6,151 Second 15.4 84.5 0.1 100.0 6,022 Middle 13.1 86.9 0.0 100.0 6,209 Fourth 16.1 83.6 0.3
100.0 6,098 Highest 23.0 77.0 0.0 100.0 5,892
Age
<20 16.1 82.8 1.1 100.0 970 20–34 16.7 83.2 0.2 100.0 6,874 35–49 17.1 82.8 0.1 100.0 9,765 50–64 16.4 83.4 0.2 100.0
8,316 65+ 13.1 86.8 0.1 100.0 4,448
Sex
Male 16.9 82.9 0.2 100.0 7,654 Female 16.0 83.9 0.2 100.0 22,718
Total 16.2 83.6 0.2 100.0 30,372

1
Fever, chills, cough, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, fatigue, muscle or body aches, headache, loss of taste or smell, sore
throat, congestion or runny nose, nausea or vomiting, or diarrhea

Table 5.3 shows the percentage of household respondents who sought consultation or treatment for their
COVID-19 symptoms and, among those who did not seek treatment, the reasons why not.

▪ Sixty-five percent of household respondents indicated that they did not seek consultation or treatment
for their COVID-19 symptoms.

▪ The most common reason for not seeking treatment for symptoms was the ability to self-medicate
(84%).

14
Table 5.3 Reasons for not seeking COVID-19 consultation or treatment
Percent distribution of household respondents with COVID-19 symptoms by whether they sought consultation or treatment, and among those who did not seek consultation or
treatment for symptoms, and reasons specified for not seeking treatment, according to background characteristics, Philippines NDHS 2022
Sought consultation or
treatment for symptoms

Number of
household
Reasons respondent did not seek treatment for symptoms Fear of going

Number of household respondents with COVID 19 symptoms who did not

Background
characteristic Yes No Residence
Total
respondents with COVID 19 symptoms
Symptoms
harmless Cost Distance Embarrassed
Self
medication
to health
facility due to COVID-19
No available doctors/
health facility
Other/
don’t know
seek
consultation or treatment

Urban 41.2 58.8 100.0 2,468 15.2 3.9 1.3 0.8 83.5 31.3 0.5 0.0 1,452 Rural 29.4 70.6 100.0 2,452 13.1 3.6 1.2 1.1 83.9 38.4 0.2 0.2 1,731
Region
National Capital Region 53.5 46.5 100.0 486 20.6 4.8 0.0 0.0 83.1 23.1 0.0 0.3 226 Cordillera Admin. Region 54.1 45.9 100.0 122 18.8 3.6 3.2 0.1 83.9 36.7 0.2 0.1 56 I - Ilocos 33.8
66.2 100.0 270 4.5 1.7 3.2 0.4 85.1 50.2 0.0 0.0 179 II - Cagayan Valley 43.0 57.0 100.0 231 8.9 3.0 0.0 1.5 83.6 63.1 0.3 0.8 132 III - Central Luzon 41.1 58.9 100.0 579 21.5 4.3 2.2
2.0 80.7 25.2 0.4 0.0 341 IVA - CALABARZON 46.6 53.4 100.0 589 16.9 5.0 0.0 0.4 86.0 20.7 0.2 0.0 314 MIMAROPA 28.3 71.7 100.0 165 13.1 2.7 4.5 0.3 79.0 41.2 0.2 0.7 118 V -
Bicol 30.3 69.7 100.0 209 11.8 1.5 0.7 2.6 83.8 30.9 0.0 0.3 146 VI - Western Visayas 31.3 68.7 100.0 338 15.3 2.9 0.0 0.1 79.9 39.3 0.0 0.4 233 VII - Central Visayas 21.5 78.5 100.0
534 9.6 3.1 2.1 1.9 85.8 31.3 0.5 0.0 420 VIII - Eastern Visayas 28.7 71.3 100.0 215 15.8 2.2 0.4 0.6 88.1 29.6 0.0 0.2 153 IX - Zamboanga
Peninsula 16.0 84.0 100.0 212 8.7 0.7 1.2 0.0 75.2 53.9 0.1 0.0 178 X - Northern Mindanao 26.4 73.6 100.0 222 5.6 16.8 1.0 1.1 90.6 40.6 0.9 0.0 163 XI - Davao 26.2 73.8 100.0 351
12.1 0.6 0.4 0.5 94.8 35.0 0.0 0.0 259 XII - SOCCSKSARGEN 34.9 65.1 100.0 193 15.7 4.8 2.6 0.6 67.5 48.0 0.4 0.0 126 XIII - CARAGA 34.5 65.5 100.0 107 5.0 3.5 2.0 1.9 79.8 35.9
1.9 0.5 70 BARMM 26.9 73.1 100.0 96 47.0 2.0 0.5 1.6 81.1 31.9 1.1 0.0 70
Wealth quintile
Lowest 20.9 79.1 100.0 847 11.2 6.4 1.8 1.9 80.2 44.3 0.1 0.4 671 Second 23.3 76.7 100.0 928 12.0 3.5 2.6 0.7 83.4 36.5 0.5 0.0 711 Middle 31.7 68.3 100.0 813 16.0 3.4 0.9 0.6
85.8 35.0 0.6 0.1 556 Fourth 40.2 59.8 100.0 979 17.5 4.4 0.2 0.3 81.9 31.4 0.0 0.3 585 Highest 51.2 48.8 100.0 1,353 14.6 0.9 0.7 1.0 87.3 27.9 0.3 0.0 661
Age
<20 23.5 76.5 100.0 156 14.6 1.6 0.6 1.8 77.2 43.8 0.0 0.0 120 20–34 36.9 63.1 100.0 1,145 15.0 3.9 1.0 0.3 81.6 34.5 0.5 0.0 722 35–49 32.9 67.1 100.0 1,671 15.0 3.9 0.6 1.1 82.4
34.7 0.3 0.2 1,121 50–64 35.6 64.4 100.0 1,366 13.7 3.0 2.0 1.4 86.8 34.4 0.2 0.1 880 65+ 41.4 58.6 100.0 582 9.7 5.2 2.5 0.2 86.6 37.2 0.2 0.4 341
Sex
Male 40.2 59.8 100.0 1,295 13.8 4.6 2.2 0.4 83.9 30.7 0.1 0.2 774 Female 33.5 66.5 100.0 3,626 14.2 3.5 1.0 1.1 83.6 36.6 0.3 0.1 2,410
Total 35.3 64.7 100.0 4,920 14.1 3.7 1.3 0.9 83.7 35.2 0.3 0.2 3,183

15
3.5.3 COVID-19 Prevention and Stigma

A vast majority of respondents knew that COVID-19 infections can be prevented (93%). Table 5.4 shows
the percentage of household respondents who indicate that COVID-19 infection can be prevented through
various means.

▪ Wearing of a face mask was the most commonly cited measure to prevent COVID-19 infection (84%),
followed by social distancing (76%) and frequent and proper handwashing (65%).
 16
Table 5.4 COVID-19 infection prevention
Percent distribution of household respondents by whether they know COVID-19 can be prevented, and among those who know COVID-19 can be prevented, the various means
indicated by which COVID-19 can be prevented, according to background characteristics, Philippines NDHS 2022
Number of
COVID-19 infection can be prevented
Various means COVID-19 can be prevented
household respondents

Background
characteristic Yes No Residence
Don’t know
Total
Number of household respondents
Frequent and proper hand
washing
Use of
alcohol
based hand sanitizer
Proper cough etiquette
Social
distancing1
Wearing of face mask
Getting
vaccinated against
COVID-19
Eating well balanced diet/well
cooked food
Avoiding
contact with farm or wild animals2
Other/
don’t know
who know COVID-19 can be
prevented

Urban 93.8 5.2 1.0 100.0 16,265 66.6 60.3 20.2 75.1 83.8 50.6 17.1 1.4 1.2 15,258 Rural 91.7 6.7 1.6 100.0 14,107 62.3 55.9 15.5 76.5 83.4 43.7 14.2 1.7 1.5 12,929
Region
National Capital Region 96.3 3.7 0.1 100.0 4,334 77.4 69.1 24.1 73.0 89.0 66.5 17.0 1.1 0.3 4,174 Cordillera Admin.
Region 96.4 2.5 1.1 100.0 571 61.5 54.3 34.5 73.5 84.9 50.5 16.1 3.4 0.8 550 I - Ilocos 97.3 1.7 1.0 100.0 1,646 54.8 53.8 13.3 77.8 82.7 21.9 18.4 0.1 6.0 1,603 II - Cagayan Valley
98.5 1.1 0.3 100.0 1,024 71.8 78.7 14.6 75.6 94.6 59.1 18.0 6.6 1.5 1,009 III - Central Luzon 97.1 2.3 0.6 100.0 3,248 72.6 68.8 24.0 80.6 82.7 45.0 19.4 1.1 1.3 3,155 IVA -
CALABARZON 97.6 1.8 0.6 100.0 4,394 61.3 51.7 15.2 71.8 76.3 36.7 15.1 0.8 0.8 4,289 MIMAROPA 97.1 1.4 1.5 100.0 833 73.5 59.1 13.6 81.0 85.5 25.3 10.8 0.4 1.3 808 V - Bicol
97.2 2.4 0.4 100.0 1,553 49.4 43.6 5.3 76.1 83.7 27.2 12.2 0.0 1.5 1,509 VI - Western Visayas 96.1 2.9 1.0 100.0 2,193 57.2 45.4 14.8 70.3 78.4 50.3 14.8 0.5 2.4 2,108 VII - Central
Visayas 80.9 18.4 0.7 100.0 2,291 50.5 54.4 8.0 75.0 87.1 44.1 16.3 3.4 0.3 1,852 VIII - Eastern Visayas 93.1 6.8 0.1 100.0 1,149 69.4 59.6 14.4 81.4 91.1 63.0 10.7 2.8 0.7 1,070 IX -
Zamboanga
Peninsula 75.7 18.5 5.8 100.0 990 56.8 55.5 25.8 77.3 78.7 53.6 18.8 1.6 1.5 749 X - Northern Mindanao 83.7 11.4 4.9 100.0 1,182 70.0 60.6 31.6 75.6 81.1 70.2 17.8 3.4 0.8 990 XI -
Davao 84.3 13.9 1.8 100.0 1,842 56.1 46.9 6.4 81.6 80.1 43.1 12.3 0.2 1.6 1,552 XII - SOCCSKSARGEN 89.9 6.6 3.4 100.0 1,368 68.6 62.7 15.8 81.1 89.1 40.4 13.8 0.9 0.8 1,230
XIII - CARAGA 87.4 10.9 1.7 100.0 687 50.5 43.1 19.0 76.5 78.7 47.7 13.2 1.9 1.0 601 BARMM 88.1 6.4 5.5 100.0 1,066 80.9 73.5 43.5 71.6 87.2 71.0 16.0 6.7 1.1 939
Wealth quintile
Lowest 86.5 9.9 3.6 100.0 6,151 57.2 52.0 16.1 72.7 83.2 45.7 10.4 1.7 1.4 5,323 Second 91.9 7.0 1.0 100.0 6,022 60.9 53.9 13.8 75.2 82.9 42.6 13.5 1.7 1.5 5,537 Middle 94.0 5.3
0.7 100.0 6,209 64.8 57.5 16.4 76.7 83.7 45.9 15.3 0.9 1.4 5,835 Fourth 95.7 3.7 0.6 100.0 6,098 67.5 61.2 18.5 75.4 83.8 49.5 18.9 1.4 1.0 5,836 Highest 96.0 3.4 0.6 100.0 5,892
72.1 66.2 25.3 78.5 84.3 53.3 20.3 2.2 1.3 5,657
Age
<20 91.4 7.9 0.7 100.0 970 62.9 67.5 19.7 79.9 83.9 41.0 16.1 1.2 1.6 887 20–34 92.9 5.9 1.3 100.0 6,874 65.1 61.0 18.7 76.9 84.3 47.9 16.0 1.8 1.1 6,384 35–49 93.3 5.6 1.1 100.0
9,765 66.4 58.0 19.0 75.5 83.5 48.6 17.2 1.7 1.1 9,112 50–64 93.0 5.7 1.3 100.0 8,316 64.6 58.3 17.2 75.2 84.3 47.7 15.3 1.5 1.5 7,736 65+ 91.5 6.5 2.0 100.0 4,448 60.3 52.5 16.2
74.6 81.4 45.0 13.0 1.3 1.6 4,069
Sex
Male 93.1 5.4 1.5 100.0 7,654 61.2 54.6 17.7 75.2 83.2 49.5 12.5 1.6 1.1 7,129 Female 92.7 6.1 1.2 100.0 22,718 65.8 59.5 18.2 76.0 83.7 46.8 16.9 1.6 1.4 21,058
Total 92.8 5.9 1.3 100.0 30,372 64.6 58.3 18.1 75.8 83.6 47.4 15.8 1.6 1.3 28,187
1
Keeping a distance of at least 1 meter from or staying away from individuals experiencing respiratory symptoms
2
This includes contact with wild or farm animals (alive or dead), animal markets, and products that come from animals.

17
Table 5.5 shows the percent distribution of household respondents who would want it to remain a secret if
a family member got infected with COVID-19, according to background characteristics.

▪ Ninety- three percent of household respondents would not keep a family member’s positive COVID
19 diagnosis a secret.

▪ Differences by background characteristics were generally small except that 24% of respondents from
BARMM indicated that they would want a family member’s infection with COVID-19 kept a secret.

Table 5.5 COVID-19 kept secret

Percent distribution of household respondents by whether they would want it to remain a secret that a family member got infected with
COVID-19, according to background characteristics, Philippines NDHS 2022
Number of
Background characteristic Residence No need to remain secret not sure/depends Total
Remain secret Don’t know/ household respondents

Urban 5.6 93.0 1.4 100.0 16,265 Rural 5.7 93.3 0.9 100.0 14,107
Region
National Capital Region 4.3 94.9 0.8 100.0 4,334 Cordillera Admin. Region 4.2 94.8 1.0 100.0 571 I - Ilocos 4.9 94.0 1.2
 100.0 1,646 II - Cagayan Valley 3.4 96.1 0.5 100.0 1,024 III - Central Luzon 7.8 91.0 1.2 100.0 3,248 IVA - CALABARZON 4.2
94.3 1.6 100.0 4,394 MIMAROPA 8.0 90.3 1.7 100.0 833 V - Bicol 5.3 93.8 0.9 100.0 1,553 VI - Western Visayas 5.9 93.5 0.6
100.0 2,193 VII - Central Visayas 5.0 94.2 0.8 100.0 2,291 VIII - Eastern Visayas 4.3 95.6 0.1 100.0 1,149 IX - Zamboanga
Peninsula 4.9 93.6 1.5 100.0 990 X - Northern Mindanao 6.3 93.6 0.1 100.0 1,182 XI - Davao 2.7 96.6 0.7 100.0 1,842 XII -
SOCCSKSARGEN 3.9 93.8 2.2 100.0 1,368 XIII - CARAGA 4.6 94.7 0.8 100.0 687 BARMM 23.6 70.6 5.8 100.0 1,066
Wealth quintile
Lowest 7.3 90.9 1.8 100.0 6,151 Second 4.9 94.2 0.8 100.0 6,022 Middle 5.2 93.9 0.9 100.0 6,209 Fourth 5.5 93.2 1.3 100.0
6,098 Highest 5.4 93.6 1.0 100.0 5,892
Age
<20 6.7 91.7 1.7 100.0 970 20–34 6.6 92.2 1.2 100.0 6,874 35–49 5.5 93.4 1.0 100.0 9,765 50–64 5.4 93.3 1.2 100.0 8,316
65+ 4.7 94.1 1.3 100.0 4,448
Sex
Male 5.8 93.0 1.2 100.0 7,654 Female 5.6 93.2 1.2 100.0 22,718
Total 5.7 93.2 1.2 100.0 30,372

3.6 CHILD DISCIPLINE

Nonviolent disciplinary approaches

Include one or more of the following:

▪ Taking away privileges, forbidding something the child likes, or not

allowing the child to leave the house

▪ Explaining that the child’s behavior was wrong

▪ Giving the child something else to do

Sample: De jure children age 1–14

18
Psychological aggression
Includes one or both of the following:
▪ Shouting, yelling, or screaming at the child

▪ Calling the child dumb, lazy, or a similar term

Sample: De jure children age 1–14

Physical punishment
Includes one or more of the following:
▪ Shaking the child

▪ Spanking, hitting, or slapping the child on the bottom with a bare hand

▪ Hitting the child on the bottom or other part of the body with a belt,
hairbrush, stick, or other similar hard object
▪ Hitting or slapping the child on the face, head, or ears

▪ Hitting the child on the hand, arm, or leg

Sample: De jure children age 1–14

Severe physical punishment

Includes one or both of the following:
▪ Hitting or slapping the child on the face, head, or ears

▪ Beating the child up, that is, hitting the child over and over as hard as one
can
Sample: De jure children age 1–14

The manner in which parents and caretakers discipline children can have long-term consequences for
 children’s physical and psychological development and well-being. The 2022 NDHS Household
Questionnaire included questions from the UNICEF Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) module on
how children in the household are usually disciplined. The questions were asked about one randomly
selected de jure child age 1–14 per household. The respondent to the Household Questionnaire (the
household head or other household member) was asked a series of separate questions about disciplinary
practices that may have been used with the child during the month before the survey.

Table 6.1 shows the percentage of children age 1–14 who were disciplined using various discipline
methods during the past month, according to background characteristics.

▪ Thirty-six percent of children age 1–14 experienced only nonviolent discipline; 48% experienced any
psychological aggression.

▪ While 39% of children experienced any physical punishment, only 3% were disciplined using severe
physical punishment.

▪ Overall, 59% of children age 1–14 experienced any violent discipline method (Table 6.1).

▪ Twelve percent of respondents believe that a child needs physical punishment to be raised or educated
properly (Table 6.2).

19
Table 6.1 Child discipline
Percentage of children age 1–14 by child disciplining methods experienced during the past month, according to background characteristics,
Philippines NDHS 2022
Percentage of children age 1–14 who experienced:

Background Only Psychological Any physical Severe physical Any violent Number of
characteristic nonviolent aggression punishment punishment1 discipline children age 1–14
discipline method
Sex

Male 33.5 49.8 42.8 3.9 61.1 9,037 Female 38.1 46.8 35.1 2.8 56.4 8,379
Residence
Urban 34.1 49.8 40.5 3.4 60.3 8,591 Rural 37.2 47.0 37.7 3.5 57.4 8,825
Region
National Capital Region 34.4 44.4 38.4 3.7 55.1 1,962 Cordillera Admin. Region 30.4 49.4 38.6 1.9 60.5 277 I - Ilocos 32.1 52.6 46.0
0.8 66.3 911 II - Cagayan Valley 26.1 60.4 48.3 1.4 71.7 521 III - Central Luzon 26.2 61.0 46.9 3.3 68.8 1,796 IVA - CALABARZON
34.0 50.1 36.3 2.8 60.1 2,370 MIMAROPA 44.0 43.3 31.6 1.7 52.4 475 V - Bicol 35.0 53.1 40.7 2.8 63.7 1,044 VI - Western Visayas
45.2 33.4 38.1 5.4 51.0 1,183 VII - Central Visayas 39.3 51.3 36.6 2.3 59.9 1,192 VIII - Eastern Visayas 35.7 45.7 44.6 5.2 60.7 703
IX - Zamboanga Peninsula 26.5 60.0 58.1 4.3 72.3 744 X - Northern Mindanao 36.7 48.5 34.3 6.8 56.5 776 XI - Davao 28.8 56.4
43.7 6.0 69.2 972 XII - SOCCSKSARGEN 44.0 42.7 31.7 2.5 50.7 899 XIII - CARAGA 35.1 50.8 32.0 2.1 59.7 471 BARMM 53.7
23.3 21.6 3.2 28.3 1,118
Age
1–2 42.7 29.7 33.8 1.6 45.1 1,700 3–4 31.7 46.7 49.5 2.8 63.3 2,047 5–9 33.0 51.5 44.6 3.3 62.3 6,390 10–14 37.5 50.5 32.6 4.1
57.8 7,279
Mother’s education
No education 41.2 34.1 39.9 4.4 46.3 236 Grades 1–6 35.8 47.2 41.2 4.9 58.6 2,655 Grades 7–10 32.2 52.4 41.9 3.5 63.1 7,081
Grades 11–12 23.3 41.5 54.2 0.6 69.7 133 Postsecondary 43.7 38.6 34.8 1.6 49.2 365 College 38.4 45.2 36.4 2.4 55.4 4,182 Mother
not in household 39.6 47.0 33.8 3.7 55.2 2,764
Wealth quintile
Lowest 39.0 45.0 39.0 4.2 55.1 4,648 Second 34.4 49.3 41.5 3.3 61.5 3,909 Middle 31.7 52.8 40.7 3.8 63.5 3,419 Fourth 33.9 50.3
40.3 2.6 59.8 2,894 Highest 39.1 45.1 32.3 2.5 54.3 2,546
Total 35.7 48.4 39.1 3.4 58.8 17,416

1
Severe physical punishment includes (1) hitting or slapping on the face, head, or ears and (2) beating the child up, that is, hitting the child
over and over as hard as one can.
 20
Table 6.2 Attitudes toward physical punishment
Percentage of household respondents who believe that physical punishment is
needed to bring up, raise, or educate a child properly, according to background
characteristics, Philippines NDHS 2022
Percentage of

Background characteristic respondents who believe that a child needs to be Number of

physically punished respondents to the child discipline module
Sex

Male 10.9 2,979

Female 12.2 14,437
Residence
Urban 12.6 8,591
Rural 11.3 8,825
Region
National Capital Region 10.1 1,962
Cordillera Admin. Region 16.7 277
I - Ilocos 8.6 911
II - Cagayan Valley 7.8 521
III - Central Luzon 11.4 1,796
IVA - CALABARZON 10.5 2,370
MIMAROPA 8.7 475
V - Bicol 8.6 1,044
VI - Western Visayas 13.4 1,183
VII - Central Visayas 9.8 1,192
VIII - Eastern Visayas 12.9 703
IX - Zamboanga Peninsula 20.0 744
X - Northern Mindanao 19.9 776
XI - Davao 15.1 972
XII - SOCCSKSARGEN 11.2 899
XIII - CARAGA 12.9 471
BARMM 13.7 1,118
Age
<25 11.4 1,197
25–34 12.3 4,625
35–49 12.6 7,558
50+ 10.4 4,036
Don’t know * 0
Education
No education 17.9 236
Grades 1–6 13.6 2,655
Grades 7–10 10.4 7,081
Grades 11–12 7.8 133
Postsecondary 12.0 365
College 13.5 4,182
Missing 11.5 2,764
Wealth quintile
Lowest 12.0 4,648
Second 11.1 3,909
Middle 11.9 3,419
Fourth 11.5 2,894
Highest 13.7 2,546
Total 11.9 17,416

Note: An asterisk indicates that a figure is based on fewer than 25 unweighted

cases and has been suppressed.

3.7 CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS

Table 7 presents the weighted and unweighted numbers and percent distributions of women interviewed in
the 2022 NDHS according to background characteristics. The results presented in this report are based on
weighted data; thus, they are representative of the country as a whole, urban and rural areas, and each of
the regions.

▪ Slightly more than half of respondents are under age 30 (51%).

▪ Three in four respondents report being in good (54%) or very good (22%) health. ▪ Seventy-seven

percent of respondents are Roman Catholics, 10% are Protestants, and 7% are Muslims.

21
 ▪ The highest percentage of respondents are Tagalog (30%), followed by Cebuano (22%), Ilokano and
Hiligaynon/Ilonggo (8% each), and Bikolano (7%).

▪ Thirty-six percent of respondents are married, 19% are living together with a partner as if married (in
subsequent tables, the 55% of women who are married or living together as if married are referred to
as married), and 42% have never been married; only a small percentage of women are divorced or
separated (2%) or widowed (1%).

▪ The National Capital Region and CALABARZON have the highest share of respondents (15% each),
followed by Central Luzon (11%).

▪ With respect to educational status, 1% of women report that they have never attended school, 9% have
completed at least some primary school, 43% have completed at least some junior high school, 10%
have completed at least some senior high school, and 37% have completed at least some postsecondary
school or college.

▪ Seventeen percent of respondents are in the lowest wealth quintile and 23% are in the highest.

Table 7 Background characteristics of respondents

Percent distribution of women age 15–49 by selected background characteristics, Philippines NDHS
2022
Background characteristic Age Weighted percent Unweighted number
Weighted number

15–19 19.9 5,531 5,850 20–24 16.8 4,677 4,538 25–29 14.0 3,904 3,789 30–34 13.4
3,729 3,646 35–39 12.3 3,418 3,388 40–44 12.2 3,389 3,407 45–49 11.4 3,173 3,203
Self-reported health status
Very good 21.7 6,048 5,920 Good 54.0 15,027 14,249 Moderate 23.1 6,422 7,315 Bad
1.1 303 311 Very bad 0.1 21 26
Religion
Roman Catholic 76.5 21,293 19,584 Protestant 9.5 2,640 2,898 Iglesia ni Cristo 2.9 812
705 Aglipay 1.4 388 512 Islam 6.6 1,823 3,068 Other Christian 2.2 610 671 Other 0.8 231
359 No religion 0.1 25 24
Ethnic group
Tagalog 30.0 8,339 5,108 Cebuano 21.7 6,024 6,067 Ilokano 7.5 2,074 2,650
Hiligaynon/Ilonggo 8.4 2,345 2,098 Bikolano 6.7 1,860 1,755 Kapampangan 3.3 927 627
Maranao 1.6 445 770 Tausog 1.5 430 915 Waray 3.6 1,007 1,409 Aeta 0.1 34 68 Badjao
0.1 28 64 Other 15.5 4,308 6,290
Marital status
Never married 41.7 11,596 11,400 Married 36.2 10,062 10,688 Living together 18.8 5,244
4,834 Divorced/separated 2.4 666 621 Widowed 0.9 252 278
Residence
Urban 56.0 15,579 11,334 Rural 44.0 12,242 16,487

Continued…

22
Table 7—Continued characteristic Weighted percent Unweighted number
Background Region
Weighted number

National Capital Region 15.4 4,280 2,635

Cordillera Admin. Region 1.6 438 1,668
I - Ilocos 5.3 1,473 1,160
II - Cagayan Valley 3.0 833 1,164
III - Central Luzon 11.1 3,100 2,321
IVA - CALABARZON 15.2 4,215 1,613
MIMAROPA 2.6 715 1,405
V - Bicol 5.1 1,405 1,553
VI - Western Visayas 6.6 1,831 1,842
VII - Central Visayas 7.3 2,023 1,457
VIII - Eastern Visayas 3.8 1,062 1,678
IX - Zamboanga Peninsula 3.5 970 1,159
X - Northern Mindanao 3.7 1,035 1,711
XI - Davao 5.3 1,474 1,418
XII - SOCCSKSARGEN 4.2 1,175 1,360
XIII - CARAGA 2.3 636 1,512
BARMM 4.2 1,156 2,165
Education
No education 0.7 197 282
Grades 1–6 9.1 2,538 3,005
 Grades 7–10 43.0 11,954 11,717
Grades 11–12 9.9 2,751 2,755
Postsecondary 2.2 625 626
College 35.1 9,755 9,436
Wealth quintile
Lowest 16.5 4,595 6,715
Second 18.8 5,219 6,067
Middle 20.4 5,666 5,187
Fourth 21.7 6,048 4,907
Highest 22.6 6,292 4,945
Total 100.0 27,821 27,821

Note: Education categories refer to the highest level of education attended, whether or not that level
was completed.

3.8 FERTILITY

Table 8 shows the total fertility rate (TFR) and age-specific fertility rates (ASFRs) among women by
5-year age groups for the 3-year period preceding the survey.

Total fertility rate

The average number of children a woman would have by the end of her
childbearing years if she bore children at the current age-specific fertility rates.
Age-specific fertility rates are calculated for the 3 years before the survey
based on detailed pregnancy histories provided by women.
Sample: Women age 15–49

▪ If fertility were to remain constant at current levels, a woman in the Philippines would bear an average
of 1.9 children in her lifetime. Hence, the Philippines is below the replacement fertility level of 2.1
children.

▪ Fertility is higher in rural areas than in urban areas; on average, rural women give birth to 2.2 children
in their lifetime, as compared with 1.7 children for urban women.

▪ Fertility is low among adolescents (25 births per 1,000 women age 15–19). It peaks at 105 births per
1,000 among women age 25–29 and decreases thereafter.

23
Table 8 Current fertility
Age-specific and total fertility rates, the general fertility rate, and
the crude birth rate for the 3 years preceding the survey,
according to residence, Philippines NDHS 2022
Residence
Age group Urban Rural Total
10–14 [0] [0] [0] 15–19 22 28 25 20–24 71 102 84 25–29 95
120 105 30–34 84 108 95 35–39 55 63 58 40–44 16 27 21
45–49 [1] [2] [2]
TFR (15–49) 1.7 2.2 1.9 GFR 57 72 63 CBR 12.7 14.0 13.3

Note: Age-specific fertility rates are per 1,000 women. Estimates

in brackets are truncated. Rates are for the period 1–36 months
preceding the interview. Rates for the 10–14 age group are based
on retrospective data from women age 15–17.
TFR: Total fertility rate, expressed per woman
GFR: General fertility rate, expressed per 1,000 women age 15–
44
CBR: Crude birth rate, expressed per 1,000 population

Trends: As shown in Figure 1, the TFR declined from 4.1 between 1993 and 2017. The TFR among women in rural areas
children per woman in 1993 to 1.9 in 2022; the pace of the decline decreased from 4.8 in 1993 to 2.2 in 2022. Among women in
between 2017 and 2022 was much more rapid than the decline urban areas, the TFR decreased from 3.5
 Figure 1 Trends in fertility by residence TFR for the 3 4.8 4.7
4.3
years before each survey Total
4.1 3.7 3.5 3.3
3.0
Rural 3.8
3.5

to 1.7 over the same period. 3.5 2.7 2.2

2.9 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.6
2.4
Urban 1.9
1.7

1993 NDHS 1998 2003 2008 2013 2017 2022

3.9 TEENAGE FERTILITY Teenage pregnancy NDHS

NDHS
NDHS
NDHS
NDHS
NDHS

Percentage of women age 15–19 who have ever been pregnant.

Sample: Women age 15–19

Table 9 shows the percentage of women age 15–19 who have had a live birth or were pregnant with their
first child at the time of the survey, according to background characteristics.

▪ Five percent of women age 15–19 have ever been pregnant.

▪ Four percent of women have had a live birth.

▪ Less than 1% of women have had a pregnancy loss.

▪ Two percent of women are currently pregnant.

24
Table 9 Teenage pregnancy
Percentage of women age 15–19 who have ever had a live birth, percentage who have ever had a pregnancy loss, percentage who are
currently pregnant, and percentage who have ever been pregnant, according to background characteristics, Philippines NDHS 2022
Percentage of women age 15–19 who:
Background characteristic Age Have ever had a live birth loss1 Are currently pregnant Number of women
Have ever had a pregnancy Have ever been pregnant

15 0.1 0.4 1.2 1.4 1,062 16 0.9 0.0 0.8 1.7 1,185 17 3.6 0.2 1.8 5.6 1,116 18 4.7 0.2 1.3 5.9 1,132 19 10.2 1.6 3.3 13.3 1,036
Residence
Urban 3.3 0.3 1.7 4.8 2,832 Rural 4.4 0.6 1.6 6.1 2,699
Region
National Capital Region 1.8 0.0 1.1 2.8 663 Cordillera Admin. Region 4.1 0.0 2.5 6.1 99 I - Ilocos 2.4 1.1 1.1 2.4 285 II -
Cagayan Valley 4.1 0.6 1.7 5.8 196 III - Central Luzon 4.5 1.3 2.7 8.0 651 IVA - CALABARZON 4.1 0.4 0.8 4.9 805 MIMAROPA
3.8 0.5 0.7 5.0 172 V - Bicol 1.2 0.2 1.1 2.4 351 VI - Western Visayas 5.2 0.0 2.0 6.6 394 VII - Central Visayas 1.9 0.0 2.9 4.8
398 VIII - Eastern Visayas 3.9 0.4 1.5 4.9 245 IX - Zamboanga Peninsula 5.2 0.6 1.9 7.1 212 X - Northern Mindanao 7.3 0.4 4.1
10.9 196 XI - Davao 7.0 0.3 1.1 8.2 265 XII - SOCCSKSARGEN 2.8 0.5 0.9 3.8 222 XIII - CARAGA 6.5 1.1 0.4 7.7 139
BARMM 4.5 0.4 2.2 6.6 239
Education
No education * * * * 14 Grades 1–6 14.9 1.8 2.8 19.1 151 Grades 7–10 3.6 0.6 1.8 5.3 3,472 Grades 11–12 3.5 0.1 1.4 4.8
1,745 Postsecondary * * * * 5 College 1.9 0.0 0.1 1.9 144
Wealth quintile
Lowest 7.7 0.8 2.8 10.3 1,005 Second 3.8 0.3 2.1 5.5 1,103 Middle 5.0 1.1 2.0 7.5 1,138 Fourth 1.9 0.1 0.8 2.7 1,151 Highest
1.1 0.0 0.7 1.8 1,133
Total 3.8 0.4 1.6 5.4 5,531

Note: An asterisk indicates that a figure is based on fewer than 25 unweighted cases and has been
 suppressed. 1 Stillbirth, miscarriage, or abortion

3.10 FERTILITY PREFERENCES

Desire for another child

Women were asked whether they wanted more children and, if so, how long
they would prefer to wait before the birth of the next child. Women who are
sterilized are assumed not to want any more children.
Sample: Currently married women age 15–49

Table 10 shows fertility preferences among currently married women age 15–49 by number of living
children.

▪ Fourteen percent of women want another child soon (within the next 2 years), 17% want to have
another child later (in 2 or more years), and less than 1% want another child but have not decided
when.

▪ Forty-nine percent of women want no more children, and an additional 9% are sterilized.

25
▪ The percentage of women who want no more children increases with number of living children, from
4% among women with no living children to 72% among those with six or more children.

Table 10 Fertility preferences by number of living children

Percent distribution of currently married women age 15–49 by desire for children, according to number of living children, Philippines NDHS
2022

Number of living children1

Desire for children 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+ Total
Have another soon2 63.2 25.3 7.8 4.1 3.3 2.9 1.4 13.9 Have another later 3 17.9 40.0 18.2 7.7 3.5 3.9 2.2 17.4 Have another, undecided
when 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 Undecided 5.7 10.4 9.2 6.9 5.6 6.9 7.9 8.1 Want no more 4.3 21.3 56.6 61.8 69.0 66.5 72.0 48.8
Sterilized4 0.4 0.9 5.9 17.6 16.1 15.7 12.0 8.7 Declared infecund 8.0 1.8 2.1 2.0 2.4 4.0 4.4 2.8
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of women 1,164 3,364 4,212 2,988 1,747 829 1,002 15,306

1
The number of living children includes a woman’s current pregnancy.
2
Wants next birth within 2 years
3
Wants to delay next birth for 2 or more years
4
Includes both female and male sterilization

3.11 FAMILY PLANNING

3.11.1 Contraceptive Use

Contraceptive prevalence
Percentage of women who use any contraceptive method.
Sample: Currently married women age 15–49 and sexually active unmarried
women age 15–49

Modern methods
Include male and female sterilization, injectables, intrauterine devices (IUDs),
contraceptive pills, implants, female and male condoms, emergency
contraception, the standard days method, and the lactational amenorrhea
method.

Tables 11.1 and 11.2 present contraceptive use among currently married women and sexually active
unmarried women.

▪ Fifty-eight percent of currently married women are using any contraception method, with 42% using
any modern method and 17% using any traditional method.
 ▪ The most commonly used contraceptive methods among currently married women are the pill (20%),
withdrawal (13%), female sterilization (9%), and injectables (5%).

▪ Forty-one percent of sexually active unmarried women are using any contraceptive method; 24% are
using any modern method, and 18% are using any traditional method.

▪ Among sexually active unmarried women, the most common methods used are withdrawal (15%) and
male condoms (12%).

26
Table 11.1 Current use of contraception according to background characteristics
Percent distribution of currently married and sexually active unmarried women age 15–49 by contraceptive method currently used, according to background characteristics, Philippines
NDHS 2022

Any
Female
Male
Modern method
Any tradi
Traditional method
Not
Background characteristic
Any
method
modern method
sterili zation
sterili
zation IUD
Injec
tables Implants Pill
Male
condom LAM Other
tional method
Calendar/ rhythm
With
drawal Other
currently
using Total
Number of women
CURRENTLY MARRIED WOMEN
Number of living children
0 13.1 5.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 1.0 0.0 0.0 7.9 1.1 6.9 0.0 86.9 100.0 1,423 1–2 58.5 39.8 3.6 0.1 2.8 5.0 2.4 22.9 2.4 0.5 0.1 18.7 3.0 15.7 0.0 41.5 100.0 7,478 3–4 70.0 54.4 17.4
0.1 3.9 5.9 3.8 21.0 1.9 0.3 0.1 15.6 3.5 12.0 0.1 30.0 100.0 4,612 5+ 63.4 47.0 13.8 0.2 4.3 6.2 4.2 16.7 1.1 0.6 0.1 16.3 3.5 12.7 0.2 36.6 100.0 1,793
Age
15–19 46.1 34.5 0.0 0.0 1.6 3.3 4.9 20.6 2.3 1.7 0.1 11.7 0.7 10.9 0.0 53.9 100.0 307 20–24 56.5 41.6 0.0 0.0 3.2 7.6 5.9 22.1 1.5 1.3 0.0 14.9 1.4 13.5 0.0 43.5 100.0 1,303 25–29
60.3 44.6 1.3 0.0 2.4 6.8 4.2 26.8 2.3 0.7 0.0 15.7 1.5 14.2 0.0 39.7 100.0 2,384 30–34 61.3 43.8 4.7 0.1 3.0 5.7 3.2 24.3 2.4 0.4 0.0 17.4 2.8 14.6 0.0 38.7 100.0 2,935 35–39 65.0
47.6 10.3 0.0 4.1 5.5 2.8 21.7 2.8 0.3 0.1 17.5 3.3 14.0 0.1 35.0 100.0 2,808 40–44 59.8 42.1 15.1 0.1 2.9 4.0 1.6 16.3 1.7 0.1 0.3 17.7 4.4 13.2 0.1 40.2 100.0 2,915 45–49 46.9 31.7
16.0 0.3 2.6 1.9 0.6 9.2 1.0 0.0 0.1 15.2 3.8 11.3 0.1 53.1 100.0 2,654
Residence
Urban 57.3 39.7 9.0 0.1 2.7 5.0 2.5 17.6 2.5 0.2 0.1 17.6 2.9 14.7 0.0 42.7 100.0 8,263 Rural 59.5 44.3 8.2 0.1 3.4 5.0 3.1 22.4 1.3 0.6 0.1 15.2 3.2 11.9 0.1 40.5 100.0 7,043
Education
No education 31.5 27.2 3.0 0.0 2.5 5.2 7.7 7.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 4.3 0.7 3.6 0.0 68.5 100.0 135 Grades 1–6 56.9 44.5 9.9 0.0 4.0 4.3 3.7 21.6 0.6 0.3 0.0 12.4 2.6 9.6 0.2 43.1 100.0 2,144
Grades 7–10 60.5 43.9 8.2 0.0 3.3 5.4 3.0 22.0 1.6 0.4 0.1 16.6 2.5 14.1 0.0 39.5 100.0 7,102 Grades 11–12 51.5 37.5 0.0 0.0 3.6 9.7 4.0 17.3 1.8 0.9 0.1 14.0 0.5 13.5 0.0 48.5 100.0
371 Postsecondary 53.7 41.6 10.1 0.0 1.4 7.4 3.5 13.8 5.2 0.0 0.1 12.1 3.4 8.5 0.2 46.3 100.0 439 College 57.5 38.5 9.4 0.2 2.3 4.1 1.9 17.0 2.9 0.4 0.2 19.0 4.1 14.9 0.0 42.5 100.0
5,114
Wealth quintile
Lowest 59.8 45.4 5.5 0.0 4.7 6.1 4.4 22.8 1.0 0.9 0.1 14.5 3.0 11.3 0.2 40.2 100.0 3,071 Second 61.7 46.4 8.7 0.0 3.8 5.5 4.4 22.1 1.4 0.4 0.0 15.2 2.5 12.7 0.1 38.3 100.0 3,111
Middle 59.4 43.3 8.7 0.0 2.9 6.2 2.9 20.2 2.2 0.1 0.0 16.1 2.4 13.7 0.0 40.6 100.0 3,139 Fourth 54.3 34.8 8.5 0.3 1.8 3.4 1.1 17.0 2.2 0.4 0.1 19.5 3.9 15.6 0.0 45.7 100.0 3,016
Highest 56.0 38.8 11.9 0.2 1.8 3.5 1.1 16.6 3.1 0.4 0.3 17.2 3.3 13.9 0.0 44.0 100.0 2,970
Total 58.3 41.8 8.7 0.1 3.0 5.0 2.8 19.8 2.0 0.4 0.1 16.5 3.0 13.4 0.1 41.7 100.0 15,306 SEXUALLY ACTIVE UNMARRIED WOMEN 1
Residence
Urban 39.4 23.4 2.1 0.0 0.2 1.8 1.7 6.0 11.6 0.0 0.0 16.0 3.0 12.5 0.5 60.6 100.0 339 Rural 45.6 24.8 1.1 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.8 9.3 12.6 0.0 0.0 20.8 0.8 20.0 0.0 54.4 100.0 167
Total 41.4 23.8 1.8 0.0 0.2 1.5 1.4 7.1 11.9 0.0 0.0 17.6 2.3 15.0 0.3 58.6 100.0 506

Note: If more than one method is used, only the most effective method is considered in this tabulation. Other modern methods include other methods mentioned by the respondent
and also include the patch, emergency contraception, and SDM.
SDM = Standard days method
LAM = Lactational amenorrhea method
1
Women who have had sexual intercourse within 30 days preceding the survey
27
Table 11.2 Current use of contraception according to region
Percent distribution of currently married women age 15–49 by contraceptive method currently used, according to region, Philippines NDHS 2022 Modern method
Traditional method

Any
Any
modern
Female sterili
Male sterili
Injec
Male
Any
traditional
Calendar/
With
Not
currently
Number of
Region women
method
method
zation
zation IUD
tables Implants Pill
condom LAM Other
method
rhythm
drawal Other
using Total
National Capital Region 53.9 38.4 10.3 0.3 1.9 4.8 2.1 15.7 3.1 0.1 0.0 15.5 1.8 13.8 0.0 46.1 100.0 2,058 Cordillera Admin. Region 56.2 42.9 14.8 0.0 2.6 4.1 2.5 16.8 1.6 0.4 0.1 13.3
4.0 9.3 0.0 43.8 100.0 229 I - Ilocos 64.7 43.4 14.5 0.2 1.1 5.4 0.3 19.9 1.2 0.7 0.0 21.3 3.0 18.3 0.0 35.3 100.0 820 II - Cagayan Valley 68.0 58.3 13.6 0.0 3.9 4.1 2.0 33.5 1.2 0.1 0.0
9.7 1.3 8.4 0.0 32.0 100.0 479 III - Central Luzon 60.5 41.2 12.3 0.0 0.7 6.7 1.9 17.2 2.2 0.2 0.0 19.3 1.9 17.4 0.0 39.5 100.0 1,764 IVA - CALABARZON 56.9 36.9 8.8 0.1 1.0 3.3 2.0
19.8 1.6 0.2 0.0 20.0 2.5 17.4 0.0 43.1 100.0 2,261 MIMAROPA 59.6 45.1 5.5 0.0 1.4 8.4 4.9 22.8 1.9 0.2 0.1 14.5 3.2 10.9 0.4 40.4 100.0 402 V - Bicol 64.5 38.8 6.2 0.0 1.2 4.7 1.9
20.0 2.8 1.5 0.5 25.7 5.5 19.9 0.3 35.5 100.0 730 VI - Western Visayas 60.4 42.9 6.8 0.3 4.6 3.2 3.7 22.3 1.9 0.1 0.0 17.5 5.8 11.7 0.0 39.6 100.0 994 VII - Central Visayas 61.3 44.9
6.9 0.0 7.2 7.0 2.1 18.3 2.9 0.1 0.3 16.3 4.5 11.8 0.0 38.7 100.0 1,181 VIII - Eastern Visayas 65.7 42.5 7.2 0.0 2.9 7.4 2.9 17.7 2.9 0.8 0.8 23.2 4.2 18.9 0.1 34.3 100.0 545 IX -
Zamboanga Peninsula 56.0 47.9 3.9 0.0 4.1 5.8 7.3 23.7 2.0 1.1 0.0 8.1 4.4 3.6 0.2 44.0 100.0 566 X - Northern Mindanao 58.3 49.5 7.3 0.0 8.8 2.9 5.1 22.3 2.2 0.8 0.2 8.8 2.5 6.2 0.0
41.7 100.0 606 XI - Davao 63.4 49.8 7.9 0.0 5.0 3.3 3.6 28.9 0.7 0.4 0.0 13.5 3.3 10.3 0.0 36.6 100.0 901 XII - SOCCSKSARGEN 54.9 46.0 4.8 0.0 5.5 5.3 4.0 23.7 1.1 1.5 0.0 8.9 3.0
5.8 0.0 45.1 100.0 700 XIII - CARAGA 57.8 47.8 6.3 0.0 5.8 4.2 5.8 22.9 2.4 0.3 0.1 10.0 3.4 6.6 0.0 42.2 100.0 372 BARMM 35.2 20.5 4.0 0.0 1.2 5.4 3.1 6.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 14.7 0.6 13.7
0.4 64.8 100.0 700
Total 58.3 41.8 8.7 0.1 3.0 5.0 2.8 19.8 2.0 0.4 0.1 16.5 3.0 13.4 0.1 41.7 100.0 15,306

Note: If more than one method is used, only the most effective method is considered in this tabulation. Other modern methods include other methods mentioned by the respondent
and also include the patch, emergency contraception, and SDM.
SDM = Standard days method
LAM = Lactational amenorrhea method

28
Table 11.3 presents the percent distribution of users of modern contraceptive methods age 15–49 by most
recent source of method.

▪ The public sector (50%) is a slightly more popular source for modern contraception in the Philippines
than the private sector (46%) (Table 11.3).

▪ Barangay health stations serve 20% of modern contraceptive users, with government hospitals (19%)
and rural or urban health centers and lying-in clinics (10%) also prominent.

▪ Pharmacies are the most popular private sector source of modern contraception, serving 38% of
modern method users.

Table 11.3 Source of modern contraception methods

 Percent distribution of users of modern contraceptive methods age 15–49 by most recent source of method, according to method, Philippines
NDHS 2022

Source sterilization sterilization IUD Injectables Implants Pill condom Total

Female Male Male
Public sector 73.0 * 88.3 85.3 90.0 24.1 14.2 50.1 Government hospital 67.7 * 36.6 2.6 21.7 0.5 1.0 18.9 Rural health center/urban
health center/lying-in
clinic 3.6 * 23.2 26.8 30.3 4.4 2.3 9.8 Barangay health station 1.6 * 27.5 52.4 37.0 17.8 10.1 19.9 Barangay supply/service
point officer/BHW 0.0 * 0.9 3.5 0.9 1.5 0.8 1.3 Other public sector 0.0 * 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Private medical sector 26.9 * 11.3 14.6 10.0 70.3 72.0 46.3 Private hospital/clinic/
lying-in clinic 26.6 * 10.5 8.7 9.3 0.5 0.0 8.3 Pharmacy 0.0 * 0.1 4.3 0.2 69.6 71.9 37.6 Private doctor 0.3 * 0.6 1.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.3 Private
nurse/midwife 0.0 * 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Other source 0.1 * 0.4 0.1 0.0 5.6 13.8 3.6 Puericulture center 0.0 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Shop/store 0.0 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 12.6 3.3 Church
0.0 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 Friend/relative 0.0 * 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.2 Other 0.1 * 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.1
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of women 1,389 15 475 779 464 3,107 435 6,676

Note: Total includes 12 other users of modern methods including the patch, emergency contraception, the standard days method, and other
modern methods mentioned by the respondent. The total excludes the lactational amenorrhea method (LAM), mucus/Billings/ovulation, basal
body temperature, and symptothermal methods. An asterisk indicates that a figure is based on fewer than 25 unweighted cases and has been
suppressed. BHW = Barangay health worker

Trends: The use of contraceptives among currently married 73 71 72

women increased from 40% in 1993 to 58% in 2022 (Figure 2). 71 70
Over this same period, the use of modern
contraception increased from 25%
Figure 2 Trends in use of, need for, and demand for
family planning
Total demand 73
Percentage of currently married women age 15–49 71

to 42%.
18 12
1520 16 17 18 14 17 3025 23 22 17 25 28
42
33 34 38 40
Unmet need
Currently using traditional
methods (met need)
Currently using modern methods (met need)
 1993 NDHS 1998 2003 2008 2013 2017 2022
NDHS
NDHS
NDHS
NDHS
NDHS
NDHS

Note: Due to rounding, numbers may not sum to total.

29
3.11.2 Need and Demand for Family Planning

Table 12 presents data on unmet need, met need, and total demand for family planning among currently
married and sexually active unmarried women. These indicators help evaluate the extent to which family
planning programs in Philippines are meeting the demand for services.

Unmet need for family planning

Proportion of women who (1) are not pregnant and not postpartum
amenorrheic and are considered fecund and want to postpone their next birth
for 2 or more years or stop childbearing altogether but are not using a
contraceptive method, (2) have a mistimed or unwanted current pregnancy, or
(3) are postpartum amenorrheic and their last birth in the last 2 years was
mistimed or unwanted.
Met need for family planning
Current contraceptive use (any method).
Sample: Currently married women age 15–49 and sexually active unmarried
women age 15–49

Demand for Unmet need for family planning

family planning: + met need (current contraceptive use [any method])

Proportion of demand Current contraceptive use (any method)

satisfied: Unmet need + current contraceptive use (any method)

Proportion of demand
satisfied Current contraceptive use (any modern method) Unmet need +
by modern current contraceptive use (any method)
methods:

▪ Twelve percent of currently married women have an unmet need for family planning.

▪ Seven in every 10 currently married women have a demand for family planning; 83% of this demand
is satisfied, 59% by modern methods.

▪ Eighty-four percent of sexually active unmarried women have a demand for family planning, including
42% who have an unmet need for family planning.

▪ Fifty percent of sexually active unmarried women have their demand for family planning satisfied;
29% have their demand satisfied by modern methods.
 30
Table 12 Need and demand for family planning among currently married women and sexually active unmarried women
Percentage of currently married women and sexually active unmarried women age 15–49 with an unmet need for family planning,
percentage with a met need for family planning, percentage with a met need for family planning who are using modern methods,
percentage with a demand for family planning, percentage of the demand for family planning that is satisfied, and percentage of the
demand for family planning that is satisfied with modern methods, according to background characteristics, Philippines NDHS 2022

Unmet need (currently using) Percentage of demand satisfied3

Total demand
Met need for family planning
Background for family planning methods Modern methods1 for family planning2 Number of women methods Modern methods1
characteristic All All
CURRENTLY MARRIED WOMEN

Age
15–19 28.3 46.1 34.5 74.5 307 62.0 46.3 20–24 19.4 56.5 41.6 75.9 1,303 74.4 54.8 25–29 14.7 60.3 44.6 75.0 2,384 80.4 59.4 30–
34 12.9 61.3 43.8 74.1 2,935 82.6 59.1 35–39 10.6 65.0 47.6 75.6 2,808 86.0 62.9 40–44 10.5 59.8 42.1 70.2 2,915 85.1 59.9 45–
49 8.5 46.9 31.7 55.4 2,654 84.7 57.2
Residence
Urban 12.5 57.3 39.7 69.8 8,263 82.1 56.9 Rural 12.3 59.5 44.3 71.8 7,043 82.9 61.7
Region
National Capital Region 11.6 53.9 38.4 65.5 2,058 82.3 58.6 Cordillera Admin. Region 15.9 56.2 42.9 72.2 229 77.9 59.4 I - Ilocos
11.1 64.7 43.4 75.8 820 85.4 57.2 II - Cagayan Valley 7.3 68.0 58.3 75.2 479 90.3 77.5 III - Central Luzon 10.7 60.5 41.2 71.2 1,764
85.0 57.8 IVA - CALABARZON 12.8 56.9 36.9 69.7 2,261 81.6 53.0 MIMAROPA 13.5 59.6 45.1 73.1 402 81.6 61.8 V - Bicol 12.2
64.5 38.8 76.7 730 84.0 50.6 VI - Western Visayas 16.1 60.4 42.9 76.5 994 78.9 56.1 VII - Central Visayas 12.8 61.3 44.9 74.1
1,181 82.8 60.7 VIII - Eastern Visayas 9.7 65.7 42.5 75.4 545 87.2 56.4 IX - Zamboanga Peninsula 14.2 56.0 47.9 70.2 566 79.8
68.2 X - Northern Mindanao 12.9 58.3 49.5 71.2 606 81.9 69.5 XI - Davao 8.9 63.4 49.8 72.3 901 87.7 68.9 XII - SOCCSKSARGEN
11.7 54.9 46.0 66.6 700 82.4 69.1 XIII - CARAGA 13.7 57.8 47.8 71.6 372 80.8 66.9 BARMM 19.8 35.2 20.5 55.0 700 63.9 37.3
Education
No education 19.6 31.5 27.2 51.2 135 61.6 53.2 Grades 1–6 13.0 56.9 44.5 70.0 2,144 81.4 63.6 Grades 7–10 11.6 60.5 43.9 72.0
7,102 84.0 61.0 Grades 11–12 21.5 51.5 37.5 73.0 371 70.5 51.3 Postsecondary 16.4 53.7 41.6 70.1 439 76.6 59.4 College 12.1
57.5 38.5 69.5 5,114 82.6 55.4
Wealth quintile
Lowest 13.7 59.8 45.4 73.6 3,071 81.3 61.7 Second 12.4 61.7 46.4 74.1 3,111 83.2 62.7 Middle 12.2 59.4 43.3 71.6 3,139 83.0 60.5
Fourth 12.6 54.3 34.8 66.9 3,016 81.2 52.0 Highest 11.0 56.0 38.8 67.1 2,970 83.5 57.9
Total 12.4 58.3 41.8 70.7 15,306 82.5 59.1 SEXUALLY ACTIVE UNMARRIED WOMEN4
Residence
Urban 41.8 39.4 23.4 81.1 339 48.5 28.8 Rural 42.8 45.6 24.8 88.4 167 51.6 28.1
Total 42.1 41.4 23.8 83.5 506 49.6 28.6

Note: Numbers in this table correspond to the revised definition of unmet need described in Bradley et al. 2012. 1 Modern methods include
female sterilization, male sterilization, IUD, injectables, implants, patch, pill, male condom, female condom, emergency contraception,
standard days method (SDM), mucus/Billings/ovulation, basal body temperature, symptothermal, lactational amenorrhea method (LAM),
and other modern methods.
2
Total demand is the sum of unmet need and met need.
3
Percentage of demand satisfied is met need divided by total demand.
4
Women who have had sexual intercourse within 30 days preceding the survey

Trends: Total demand for family planning among currently married women has held steady at 70% to
73% since 1993 (as shown in Figure 2). Over this same period, unmet need has declined from 30% to
12%.

31
3.12 EARLY CHILDHOOD MORTALITY

Neonatal mortality: The probability of dying within the first month of life.
Postneonatal mortality: The probability of dying between the first month of
life and the first birthday (computed as the difference between infant and
neonatal mortality).
Infant mortality: The probability of dying between birth and the first
birthday. Child mortality: The probability of dying between the first and the
fifth
birthday.
Under-5 mortality: The probability of dying between birth and the fifth
birthday.

Table 13 presents early childhood mortality estimates for three successive 5-year periods prior to the 2022
NDHS. The rates were estimated directly from the information collected as part of a retrospective
pregnancy history in which respondents listed all of the children to whom they have given birth, along with
each child’s date of birth, survivorship status, and current age or age at death.
 ▪ During the 5 years immediately preceding the survey, the neonatal mortality rate was 15 deaths per
1,000 live births.

▪ The infant mortality rate was 22 deaths per 1,000 live births.

▪ The child mortality rate was 5 deaths per 1,000 children surviving to age 12 months, while the overall
under-5 mortality rate was 26 deaths per 1,000 live births.

Table 13 Early childhood mortality rates

Neonatal, postneonatal, infant, child, and under-5 mortality rates for 5-year periods preceding the survey, Philippines NDHS 2022

Years preceding the survey Postneonatal mortality (PNN)1 Infant Child Under-5 mortality (5q0)
Neonatal mortality (NN) mortality (1q0) mortality (4q1)
0–4 15 7 22 5 26 5–9 8 6 14 6 20 10–14 10 7 17 6 24

1
Computed as the difference between the infant and neonatal mortality rates

Trends: As shown in Figure 3, the under-5 mortality rate Figure 3 Trends in early childhood mortality
decreased from 54 deaths per 1,000 live births during the 5 years rates
preceding the 1993 survey to 26 deaths per 1,000 live births in the Deaths per 1,000 live births in the 5-year period preceding
most recent 5-year period. Infant and neonatal mortality rates the survey
have generally also shown declines. 54
48
40 Under-5 mortality
3.13 MATERNAL CARE 25
34 31 27 26 35
34 29 23 21 22
Proper care during pregnancy and delivery is important for the Infant mortality
health of both the mother and the baby. Table 14 presents key
indicators related to
18 18 17
16 13 14 15 Neonatal mortality
maternal care. 1993 NDHS 1998 2003 2008 2013 2017 2022
NDHS
NDHS
NDHS
NDHS
NDHS
NDHS

32
3.13.1 Antenatal Care

Antenatal care from a skilled provider

Pregnancy care received from skilled providers, such as doctors and
nurses/midwives.
Sample: Women age 15–49 who had a live birth or stillbirth in the 2 years
before the survey

Antenatal care (ANC) from a skilled provider is important to monitor pregnancy and reduce morbidity and
mortality risks for the mother and child during pregnancy, at delivery, and during the postnatal period.

▪ Eighty-six percent of women who had a live birth in the 2 years preceding the survey received
antenatal care from skilled providers.
 ▪ Eighty-three percent of women had four or more ANC visits during their most recent pregnancy
resulting in a live birth in the 2 years preceding the survey.

▪ Most (86%) women who had a live birth in the 2 years preceding the survey took some form of iron
supplementation during their pregnancy.

Trends: The percentage of women with a live birth in the 2 years preceding the survey who received
antenatal care from a skilled provider increased from 84% in 1993 to 95% in 2013 before decreasing to
93% in 2017 and 86% in 2022.

3.13.2 Tetanus Toxoid

Protection against neonatal tetanus

The number of tetanus toxoid injections needed to protect a baby from
neonatal tetanus depends on the mother’s vaccinations. A birth is protected
against neonatal tetanus if the mother has received any of the following:
▪ Two tetanus toxoid injections during the pregnancy

▪ Two or more injections, the last one within 3 years of the birth

▪ Three or more injections, the last one within 5 years of the birth

▪ Four or more injections, the last one within 10 years of the birth

▪ Five or more injections at any time prior to the birth

Sample: Women age 15–49 with a live birth in the 2 years before the survey

Tetanus toxoid injections are given during pregnancy to prevent neonatal tetanus, a major cause of early
infant death in many countries. Neonatal tetanus is often caused by failure to observe hygienic procedures
during delivery.

▪ About 8 in 10 (78%) women with a live birth in the 2 years before the survey received sufficient
tetanus toxoid injections to protect their baby against neonatal tetanus.

33
Table 14 Maternal care indicators
Among women age 15–49 who had a live birth and/or a stillbirth in the 2 years preceding the survey, percentage who received antenatal care (ANC) from a skilled provider for the
most recent live birth or stillbirth, percentage with four or more ANC visits for the most recent live birth or stillbirth, percentage who took any iron-containing supplements during
pregnancy, and percentage whose most recent live birth was protected against neonatal tetanus; among all live births and stillbirths in the 2 years before the survey, percentage
delivered by a skilled provider, percentage delivered in a health facility, and percentage delivered via cesarean section; and among women age 15–49 with a live birth or stillbirth in
the 2 years preceding the survey, percentage who received a postnatal check during the first 2 days after giving birth, according to background characteristics, Philippines NDHS 2022
Women who had a live birth
and/or a stillbirth in the 2 years
Women who had a live birth and/or a stillbirth in the 2 years preceding the survey Live births and stillbirths in the 2 years preceding the survey Percentage
preceding the survey

Background characteristic
Percentage receiving
antenatal care from a skilled provider1
Percentage with 4+ ANC visits
Percentage who took any iron-containing supplements during
pregnancy2
whose most recent live birth was protected against
neonatal
tetanus3
Number of women
Percentage delivered by a skilled provider1
Percentage delivered in a health facility
Percentage delivered by cesarean section
Number of births
Percentage
with a postnatal check during the first 2 days after birth4
Number of women
LIVE BIRTHS
Mother’s age at birth
<20 84.3 76.1 85.1 73.3 251 88.9 87.0 14.6 266 67.5 251 20–34 86.0 83.9 86.1 80.4 2,069 90.5 89.4 18.3 2,158 76.7 2,069 35–49 86.6 83.0 87.0 72.8 506 85.8 85.0 26.9 518 73.9
506
Residence
Urban 86.3 86.0 88.1 79.7 1,413 93.0 91.8 22.4 1,467 76.2 1,413 Rural 85.5 80.0 84.3 77.1 1,414 86.1 85.0 16.6 1,475 74.6 1,414
Region
National Capital Region 82.2 84.8 83.4 81.6 274 95.9 93.4 22.3 291 68.6 274 Cordillera Admin. Region 89.1 78.6 93.2 64.1 50 98.5 92.9 30.6 52 84.9 50 I - Ilocos 87.7 90.4 87.3 72.8
146 97.9 97.9 22.7 149 62.6 146 II - Cagayan Valley 97.2 81.4 94.5 94.4 101 95.7 94.3 25.1 103 79.9 101 III - Central Luzon 94.9 92.9 87.9 84.5 304 97.8 97.0 35.7 311 67.9 304 IVA
- CALABARZON 91.3 92.2 91.2 84.4 415 95.8 93.8 29.4 424 73.0 415 MIMAROPA 89.4 75.9 74.7 82.6 88 79.7 77.0 12.8 91 75.8 88 V - Bicol 86.9 76.1 83.2 78.4 131 92.9 92.0 18.4
139 89.0 131 VI - Western Visayas 96.9 85.6 93.0 78.8 226 93.6 93.3 9.3 233 88.6 226 VII - Central Visayas 86.6 90.1 93.8 68.8 205 93.0 95.4 16.0 216 89.3 205 VIII - Eastern
Visayas 98.9 88.5 86.8 94.9 90 92.0 89.9 14.2 98 81.5 90 IX - Zamboanga Peninsula 70.7 84.6 78.9 77.6 129 75.6 76.0 9.5 138 79.0 129 X - Northern Mindanao 87.2 84.4 83.4 75.6
120 93.9 93.3 13.3 127 89.6 120 XI - Davao 87.9 91.3 97.7 84.6 144 90.6 90.6 15.5 150 82.9 144 XII - SOCCSKSARGEN 73.9 73.6 77.3 73.1 150 83.2 81.7 11.6 155 72.0 150 XIII -
CARAGA 92.1 91.8 88.7 73.8 76 92.0 90.6 11.7 77 84.8 76 BARMM 47.5 27.9 63.2 52.6 178 42.4 39.1 4.9 188 44.5 178
Mother’s education
No education (49.7) (28.9) (54.5) (42.4) 27 (52.4) (51.6) (4.8) 30 (54.5) 27 Grades 1–6 74.1 64.9 72.8 69.3 319 67.0 66.7 7.3 334 63.4 319 Grades 7–10 84.4 82.3 86.1 80.2 1,267
89.3 87.5 14.7 1,330 74.9 1,267 Grades 11–12 88.9 85.9 85.7 74.5 190 93.7 93.1 12.4 196 80.6 190 Postsecondary 94.5 89.0 76.3 85.8 54 97.9 97.9 51.5 58 75.6 54 College 91.7
90.5 92.4 80.4 969 97.2 96.6 29.9 995 79.5 969
Continued...

34
Table 14—Continued

Women who had a live birth and/or a stillbirth in the 2 years preceding the survey Live births and stillbirths in the 2 years preceding the survey Percentage
Women who had a live birth and/or a stillbirth in the 2 years preceding the survey

Background characteristic
Wealth quintile
Percentage receiving
antenatal care from a skilled provider1
Percentage with 4+ ANC visits
Percentage who took any iron-containing supplements during
pregnancy2
whose most recent live birth was protected against
neonatal
tetanus3
Number of women
Percentage delivered by a skilled provider1
Percentage delivered in a health facility
Percentage delivered by cesarean section
Number of births
Percentage
with a postnatal check during the first 2 days after birth4
Number of women

Lowest 73.5 65.6 77.5 73.1 779 72.7 71.2 5.5 817 69.4 779 Second 83.2 84.6 85.8 76.6 530 91.0 89.9 14.3 558 77.8 530 Middle 90.1 86.2 88.0 84.6 614 96.1 94.8 19.2 640 81.8 614
Fourth 94.3 92.3 91.5 82.3 453 99.0 97.7 26.9 463 76.1 453 Highest 96.5 97.6 94.0 77.3 450 99.1 98.9 43.4 464 73.5 450
Total 85.9 83.0 86.2 78.4 2,826 89.6 88.4 19.5 2,942 75.4 2,826 STILLBIRTHS
Total (97.3) (76.3) (85.0) na 39 (91.9) (91.9) (23.8) 40 (85.7) 39 LIVE BIRTHS AND STILLBIRTHS5
Total 86.0 82.9 86.2 na 2,859 89.6 88.5 19.5 2,983 75.5 2,859

Note: If more than one source of assistance was mentioned, only the provider with the highest qualifications is considered in this tabulation. Figures in parentheses are based on 25–
49 unweighted cases. na = Not applicable
1
Skilled provider includes doctor, nurse, and midwife.
2
Iron tablets and syrup or micronutrient supplements
3
Includes mothers with two injections during the pregnancy of their most recent live birth, or two or more injections (the last within 3 years of the most recent live birth), or three or more
injections (the last within 5 years of the most recent live birth), or four or more injections (the last within 10 years of the most recent live birth), or five or more injections at any time
prior to the last live birth
4
Includes women who received a check from a doctor, nurse, midwife, traditional birth attendant/hilot, or barangay health worker
5
For women who had both a live birth and a stillbirth in the 2 years preceding the survey, data on antenatal care and postnatal checks are tabulated for the most recent birth only.
35
3.13.3 Delivery Care

Institutional deliveries
Deliveries that occur in a health facility.
Sample: All live births and/or stillbirths in the 2 years before the survey

Skilled assistance during delivery

Births delivered with the assistance of doctors and nurses/midwives.
Sample: All live births and/or stillbirths in the 2 years before the survey

Access to proper medical attention and hygienic conditions during delivery can reduce the risk of
complications and infections that could lead to death or serious illness for the mother, the baby, or both
(Van Lerberghe and De Brouwere 2001; WHO 2006).

▪ Overall, 90% of live births were assisted during delivery by a skilled provider.

▪ Eighty-eight percent of live births took place in a health facility.

▪ Twenty percent of live births were delivered via cesarean section.

▪ Although the number of cases is low, the delivery care received for stillbirths was similar to that for
live births.

Trends: As shown in Figure 4, the percentage of live births that complications arising from the delivery, as well as to provide the
were assisted by a skilled provider increased from 54% in 1993 to mother with important information on how to care
90% in 2022. Figure 4 Trends in delivery assistance
Percentage of live births in the 2 years preceding the survey
3.13.4 Postnatal Care for the Mother delivered by a skilled provider

A large proportion of maternal and neonatal deaths occur during 88 90

the first 48 hours after delivery. Thus, prompt postnatal care 78
(PNC) for both the mother and the child is important to treat any 54 59 62 65

for herself and motherhood recommend that receive a check 1993 NDHS 2003 2013 2022
her child. Safe programs all women of their 1998 2008 2017

health during the first 2 days after birth. NDHS

NDHS NDHS
NDHS NDHS
NDHS

▪ Among women who had a live birth in the 2 years preceding the survey, 75% had a postnatal check
during the first 2 days following the birth. Although the number of cases is low, the percentage of
women who reported a postnatal check following a stillbirth was somewhat higher (86%).

▪ The percentage of women who had a postnatal check during the 2 days following their most recent live
birth varies by region, from 45% in BARMM to 90% in Northern Mindanao.

3.14 VACCINATION COVERAGE

Universal immunization of children against common vaccine-preventable diseases is crucial to reducing

infant and child morbidity and mortality. In the Philippines, routine childhood vaccines include bacillus
Calmette-Guérin (BCG) (tuberculosis), HepB (hepatitis B), oral polio vaccine (OPV) or inactivated polio
vaccine (IPV), pentavalent or DPT-HepB-Hib (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus; hepatitis B; and Haemophilus
influenzae type b), pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV), and measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR).

36
Information on vaccination coverage was obtained in two ways in the Philippines NDHS: from written
vaccination records, including vaccination or health cards, and from verbal reports from the mother.
Overall, 67% of children age 12–23 months and 58% of children age 24–35 months had a vaccination card
that was seen during the interview (data not shown). Tables 15.1 and 15.2 present vaccination coverage
among children age 12–23 months and 24–35 months by background characteristics.

3.14.1 Basic Antigen Coverage

Fully vaccinated: basic antigens

Percentage of children who received specific vaccines at any time before the
survey (according to a vaccination card or the mother’s report). To have
received all basic antigens, a child must receive at least:
▪ One dose of BCG vaccine, which protects against tuberculosis

▪ Three doses of polio vaccine given as oral polio vaccine (OPV),

inactivated polio vaccine (IPV), or a combination of OPV and IPV
▪ Three doses of DPT-containing vaccine, which protects against diphtheria,
pertussis (whooping cough), and tetanus
▪ One dose of measles-containing vaccine given as measles, mumps, and
rubella (MMR)
Sample: Children age 12–23 months

Historically, an important measure of vaccination coverage has been the proportion of children receiving
all “basic” antigens. Children are considered fully vaccinated against all basic antigens if they have
received the BCG vaccine, three doses each of polio vaccine (OPV or IPV) and DTP-containing vaccine,
and a single dose of measles-containing vaccine. In the Philippines, the BCG vaccine is usually given at
birth or at first clinic contact, while the DPT vaccines are given in combination with Hib and either HepB
(DPT-Hib-HepB) or IPV (DPT-Hib-IPV) at approximately age 6, 10, and 14 weeks. When the DPT
formulation does not include IPV, three doses of oral polio vaccine are given according to the same
schedule as DPT-Hib-HepB. A first dose of measles-containing vaccine should be given at or soon after
age 9 months.

▪ Among children age 12–23 months, overall, 72% are fully vaccinated with basic antigens: 88%
received the BCG vaccine, 79% received three doses of DPT-containing vaccine, 78% received the
three doses of polio vaccine (either IPV or OPV), and 79% received an MMR vaccination.

▪ The percentage of children age 12–23 months who are fully vaccinated with basic antigens is highest
in Cagayan Valley (90%) and lowest in BARMM (18%).

3.14.2 Vaccination Coverage according to National Schedule

A second measure of vaccination coverage is the percentage of children age 12–23 months and 24–35
months who are fully vaccinated according to the national schedule. In this report, a child age 12–23
months is considered to be fully vaccinated according to the national schedule if the child has received all
basic antigens as well as a birth dose of HepB vaccine, a dose of IPV, three doses of HepB and Hib
(usually given as part of the DPT-containing vaccine), and three doses of the pneumococcal conjugate
vaccine (PCV). Children age 24–35 months are considered fully vaccinated according to the national
schedule if they receive a second dose of the MMR vaccine in addition to all of the vaccinations relevant
for a child age 12–23 months.

▪ Tables 15.1 and 15.2 show that 59% of children age 12–23 months are fully vaccinated according to
the national schedule. This includes 82% who received the birth dose of HepB, 79% who received a
 dose of IPV, and 72% who received three doses of PCV.

▪ Eleven percent of children age 12–23 months received no vaccinations.

37
▪ Among children age 24–35 months, 66% received a second dose of MMR vaccine, and 50% are fully
vaccinated according to the national schedule.

Trends: Since 1993, the percentage of children age 12–23 Percentage of children age 12–23 months
months who received all basic antigens has fluctuated (Figure
5), rising from 72% in 1993 to 80% in 2008, and then decreasing 73 80 77 72
72 70 70
to 72% in 2022. The percentage of children age 12–23 months Fully vaccinated
who (basic antigens)
did not receive any vaccinations increased from 4% in 2013 to
11% in 2022. No vaccinations
Figure 5 Trends in childhood vaccinations 6 9
787 4 11

1993 NDHS 1998 2003 2008 2013 2017 2022

NDHS
NDHS
NDHS
NDHS
NDHS
NDHS
 38
Table 15.1 Vaccinations according to background characteristics
Percentage of children age 12–23 months and children age 24–35 months who received specific vaccines at any time before the survey (according to a vaccination card or the
mother’s report), percentage fully vaccinated (basic antigens), percentage fully vaccinated according to the national schedule, and percentage who received no vaccinations,
according to background characteristics, Philippines NDHS 2022
Children age 12–23 months:
Children age 24–35

Background
HepB (birth dose)1
DPT HepB Hib Polio2
PCV

MMR
Fully
vaccinated (basic
antigens)3
Fully
vaccinated (according to national schedule)4
No vacci
Number of
MMR
months:
Fully
vaccinated (according to national schedule)5
Number of
characteristic 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
BCG
IPV
1
nations
children
2
children
Sex
Male 87.9 83.5 86.8 82.6 80.5 86.3 80.8 78.4 86.8 82.6 80.5 87.2 83.3 79.9 79.3 82.6 78.3 71.2 78.7 73.8 60.0 11.1 718 67.4 50.6 812 Female 87.8 80.8 86.5 83.6 77.2 85.1 81.9 76.2
86.5 83.6 77.2 85.4 81.6 75.8 78.9 81.1 77.8 71.8 79.6 69.7 58.8 11.3 724 65.3 49.2 736
Birth order
1 92.1 87.5 90.8 88.5 84.5 89.6 85.1 81.0 90.8 88.5 84.5 90.7 88.0 84.4 85.6 87.4 85.2 79.1 85.1 79.2 68.1 7.5 441 72.6 54.1 496 2–3 89.5 84.7 88.6 85.3 81.3 88.6 85.0 80.8 88.6
85.3 81.3 89.1 84.9 79.5 80.6 84.9 80.4 72.7 81.2 72.5 59.9 9.6 667 67.9 52.4 683 4–5 85.7 76.6 82.4 76.7 71.1 79.7 73.8 70.1 82.4 76.7 71.1 78.7 73.7 69.6 71.0 71.8 67.3 63.5 71.9
65.3 51.3 13.6 238 60.8 44.9 245 6+ 61.5 53.6 64.5 59.1 55.6 62.5 57.6 53.9 64.5 59.1 55.6 65.0 61.2 56.8 59.1 59.6 55.0 48.0 55.8 49.0 36.1 33.7 96 44.9 30.0 124
Vaccination card6
Seen 99.0 91.5 98.9 95.7 94.1 98.4 94.3 92.7 98.9 95.7 94.1 98.8 96.7 94.5 90.3 96.1 93.3 89.2 92.4 89.8 75.6 0.1 959 79.3 65.0 893 Not seen or no
longer has 79.8 77.4 76.6 72.2 60.5 74.1 68.8 58.1 76.6 72.2 60.5 74.6 66.5 55.2 69.3 65.5 58.8 44.9 64.9 45.5 34.3 19.1 362 52.9 32.7 519 Never had 22.7 22.3 19.8 16.4 13.2 19.3
16.4 12.6 19.8 16.4 13.2 22.0 16.5 13.0 20.2 17.1 14.3 10.9 16.6 7.8 5.8 76.1 121 33.3 16.9 135
Residence
Urban 88.5 84.4 86.6 84.0 79.2 86.7 82.8 77.8 86.6 84.0 79.2 86.8 81.8 76.6 81.7 82.4 79.6 71.9 79.6 71.5 61.7 11.0 712 65.0 49.3 815 Rural 87.2 80.0 86.7 82.3 78.5 84.7 79.9 76.8
86.7 82.3 78.5 85.7 83.1 79.0 76.6 81.2 76.5 71.1 78.8 72.0 57.2 11.4 730 68.1 50.6 733
Mother’s
education
No education (64.8) (57.1) (51.7) (51.7) (51.7) (51.7) (51.7) (51.7) (51.7) (51.7) (51.7) (54.9) (53.6) (53.6) (51.7) (51.7) (35.3) (35.3) (51.7) (51.7) (27.5) (32.0) 16 * * 10 Grades 1–6
75.5 63.0 76.7 68.5 59.1 71.8 66.6 59.8 76.7 68.5 59.1 71.8 64.9 59.6 62.9 65.1 57.5 49.3 59.8 48.0 33.6 20.3 176 47.5 35.0 195 Grades 7–10 89.0 82.9 86.9 83.4 80.5 86.7 81.7 78.6
86.9 83.4 80.5 87.3 84.1 79.4 79.7 83.0 78.9 72.1 78.8 73.7 60.3 10.4 630 68.0 52.1 746 Grades 11–12 88.6 83.3 89.0 86.7 76.3 89.6 87.7 76.3 89.0 86.7 76.3 89.6 88.4 71.5 78.0
80.2 73.8 69.6 78.7 61.8 51.2 10.4 73 58.4 35.1 77 Postsecondary (88.3) (87.8) (88.3) (88.3) (85.8) (88.3) (88.3) (85.8) (88.3) (88.3) (85.8) (88.3) (88.3) (88.3) (88.3) (88.2) (88.2)
(86.0) (81.3) (81.3) (78.5) (11.7) 26 (69.0) (59.5) 52 College 91.2 88.1 90.4 87.9 84.4 89.6 85.7 82.2 90.4 87.9 84.4 90.3 86.0 83.2 84.4 87.0 85.4 78.9 87.0 79.0 68.2 8.5 520 74.0
55.0 469
Wealth quintile
Lowest 77.6 67.9 76.5 70.9 65.4 74.5 69.5 65.2 76.5 70.9 65.4 75.2 72.0 66.1 66.0 71.1 65.2 59.7 65.9 58.8 45.0 20.3 432 51.0 37.8 365 Second 90.9 84.0 91.3 86.5 80.6 91.2 84.8
78.0 91.3 86.5 80.6 89.8 84.9 78.7 82.2 82.8 79.9 71.5 83.8 75.7 62.8 7.7 263 69.5 49.5 370 Middle 91.5 86.6 87.5 85.1 80.5 87.2 84.2 79.7 87.5 85.1 80.5 88.5 85.8 80.4 82.3 84.6
80.4 74.7 81.3 74.1 62.8 8.5 298 72.4 57.9 313 Fourth 91.0 89.6 91.1 89.1 86.0 90.7 87.5 84.1 91.1 89.1 86.0 90.9 86.9 84.9 86.1 85.9 84.2 75.2 82.9 75.3 63.7 8.3 202 70.8 55.3 271
Highest 95.4 93.8 94.9 93.6 92.8 93.7 90.1 89.2 94.9 93.6 92.8 95.4 90.4 88.7 89.3 92.8 90.5 85.3 91.9 84.6 73.4 4.6 246 72.7 52.7 228
Total 87.8 82.2 86.7 83.1 78.9 85.7 81.4 77.3 86.7 83.1 78.9 86.3 82.4 77.8 79.1 81.8 78.0 71.5 79.2 71.8 59.4 11.2 1,442 66.4 49.9 1,548

Note: Children are considered to have received the vaccine if it was either written on the child’s vaccination card or reported by the mother. For children whose vaccination information
is based on the mother’s report, date of vaccination is not collected. The proportions of vaccinations given during the first and second years of life are assumed to be the same as for
children with a written record of vaccination. Figures in parentheses are based on 25–49 unweighted cases. An asterisk indicates that a figure is based on fewer than 25 unweighted
cases and has been suppressed.
BCG = Bacillus Calmette-Guérin
DPT = Diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus
HepB = Hepatitis B
Hib = Haemophilus influenzae type b
OPV = Oral polio vaccine
IPV = Inactivated polio vaccine
PCV = Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine
MMR = Measles, mumps, rubella
1
Children are considered to have received HepB (birth dose) if it was recorded on their card or reported by their mother, regardless of timing.
2
Polio = IPV or OPV
3
BCG, three doses of DPT-containing vaccine, three doses of polio vaccine, and one dose of MMR
4
BCG, HepB (birth dose), three doses of DPT-containing vaccine, three doses of HepB (excluding birth dose), three doses of Hib, three doses of polio vaccine, one dose of IPV, three
doses of PCV, and one dose of MMR 5 BCG, HepB (birth dose), three doses of DPT-containing vaccine, three doses of HepB (excluding birth dose), three doses of Hib, three doses of
polio vaccine, one dose of IPV, three doses of PCV, and two doses of MMR 6 Vaccination card, booklet, or other home-based record

39
Table 15.2 Vaccinations according to region
Percentage of children age 12–23 months and children age 24–35 months who received specific vaccines at any time before the survey (according to a vaccination card or the
mother’s report), percentage fully vaccinated (basic antigens), percentage fully vaccinated according to the national schedule, and percentage who received no vaccinations,
according to region, Philippines NDHS 2022
Children age 12–23 months:
Children age 24–35

HepB (birth dose)1

DPT HepB Hib Polio2
PCV
MMR
Fully
vaccinated (basic
antigens)3
Fully
vaccinated (according to national schedule)4
No vacci
Number of
months:
Fully
vaccinated (according to national schedule)5
Numbe r of
childre
Region 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 children MMR 2
BCG
IPV
1
nations
n
National Capital Region 90.8 86.3 88.6 83.9 77.8 87.9 82.0 75.8 88.6 83.9 77.8 87.1 76.5 70.3 80.5 79.9 75.9 66.7 77.8 65.7 57.0 7.3 153 64.2 48.2 147 Cordillera Admin.
Region 97.0 93.5 98.0 97.0 94.1 96.9 90.3 88.4 98.0 97.0 94.1 97.8 90.3 87.8 88.7 86.9 84.1 79.9 92.5 83.9 65.7 1.0 24 76.7 59.3 23 I - Ilocos 90.8 89.2 90.1 84.8 79.2 89.2 83.9 77.0
90.1 84.8 79.2 90.4 84.7 83.7 83.2 90.4 85.0 82.0 84.2 75.5 69.7 8.5 65 53.8 43.6 78 II - Cagayan Valley 98.6 90.9 98.7 93.5 90.6 98.7 88.5 85.6 98.7 93.5 90.6 93.6 93.6 92.2 92.2
92.4 92.3 85.4 93.1 90.2 77.7 1.3 54 96.3 83.5 46 III - Central Luzon 96.4 94.8 96.9 94.7 90.8 96.9 94.4 90.6 96.9 94.7 90.8 96.9 92.7 88.4 91.1 89.2 84.1 75.4 85.6 78.4 66.4 2.9 160
66.7 54.0 159 IVA - CALABARZON 94.1 93.3 94.1 94.1 91.4 92.3 92.3 89.6 94.1 94.1 91.4 94.1 94.1 91.4 91.6 94.1 94.1 89.0 90.0 87.4 82.3 5.9 173 79.4 59.1 233 MIMAROPA 88.5
72.8 89.4 86.4 82.3 89.4 86.4 82.3 89.4 86.4 82.3 90.9 88.7 77.2 77.1 77.1 72.4 60.2 81.4 74.3 43.2 8.3 41 75.1 42.5 46 V - Bicol 94.7 94.0 94.0 91.0 88.0 93.2 90.2 87.3 94.0 91.0
88.0 94.0 90.0 89.2 86.3 94.0 94.0 86.1 90.5 80.6 71.7 5.1 71 62.1 46.8 84 VI - Western Visayas 89.5 82.7 88.9 86.1 81.9 89.1 88.9 84.7 88.9 86.1 81.9 89.5 89.2 83.5 79.3 85.3 82.1
77.2 85.2 77.7 62.8 10.5 118 86.1 64.5 85 VII - Central Visayas 90.1 75.7 90.8 86.3 85.2 86.0 76.3 75.2 90.8 86.3 85.2 91.6 87.1 82.7 84.9 87.3 80.9 77.6 88.3 77.6 53.2 8.0 111 57.6
44.8 114 VIII - Eastern Visayas 97.8 83.9 97.1 96.6 96.6 96.8 92.4 92.4 97.1 96.6 96.6 96.6 95.9 94.1 85.4 89.2 84.0 82.6 93.4 89.8 54.7 1.2 50 84.8 65.1 77 IX - Zamboanga
Peninsula 84.5 80.4 80.8 76.8 74.3 80.8 79.6 75.0 80.8 76.8 74.3 83.3 79.9 77.5 79.1 77.4 73.6 71.9 72.5 65.8 60.1 11.8 69 56.3 47.7 70 X - Northern Mindanao 90.2 85.9 86.3 86.1
82.5 88.2 85.3 81.7 86.3 86.1 82.5 89.8 88.2 82.9 81.5 86.7 84.3 68.0 83.0 76.8 56.7 9.8 67 72.2 57.8 58 XI - Davao 89.0 77.0 89.0 80.3 68.7 81.0 72.3 68.7 89.0 80.3 68.7 81.0 78.3
68.3 67.4 78.3 69.7 61.9 61.8 59.6 54.1 11.0 77 66.9 41.5 85 XII - SOCCSKSARGEN 81.4 77.0 77.1 71.1 66.7 77.1 71.9 66.7 77.1 71.1 66.7 76.3 67.9 63.5 66.9 69.8 63.3 59.9 72.9
60.8 46.8 18.6 73 58.0 42.5 93 XIII - CARAGA 85.1 79.5 85.3 83.6 72.8 86.4 86.4 74.9 85.3 83.6 72.8 84.0 79.3 70.6 79.9 83.7 79.1 64.1 82.6 64.4 49.6 13.0 39 62.5 46.0 43 BARMM
38.2 31.8 32.8 25.5 20.2 34.2 25.0 19.4 32.8 25.5 20.2 33.2 29.0 23.2 24.8 27.9 24.4 20.8 21.9 18.1 14.9 59.9 98 26.0 14.3 104
Total 87.8 82.2 86.7 83.1 78.9 85.7 81.4 77.3 86.7 83.1 78.9 86.3 82.4 77.8 79.1 81.8 78.0 71.5 79.2 71.8 59.4 11.2 1,442 66.4 49.9 1,548

Note: Children are considered to have received the vaccine if it was either written on the child’s vaccination card or reported by the mother. For children whose vaccination information
is based on the mother’s report, date of vaccination is not collected. The proportions of vaccinations given during the first and second years of life are assumed to be the same as for
children with a written record of vaccination.
BCG = Bacillus Calmette-Guérin
DPT = Diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus
HepB = Hepatitis B
Hib = Haemophilus influenzae type b
OPV = Oral polio vaccine
IPV = Inactivated polio vaccine
MMR = Measles, mumps, rubella
PCV = Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine
1
Children are considered to have received HepB (birth dose) if it was recorded on their card or reported by their mother, regardless of timing.
2
Polio = IPV or OPV
3
BCG, three doses of DPT-containing vaccine, three doses of polio vaccine, and one dose of MMR
4
BCG, HepB (birth dose), three doses of DPT-containing vaccine, three doses of HepB (excluding birth dose), three doses of Hib, three doses of polio vaccine, one dose of IPV, three
doses of PCV, and one dose of MMR 5 BCG, HepB (birth dose), three doses of DPT-containing vaccine, three doses of HepB (excluding birth dose), three doses of Hib, three doses of
polio vaccine, one dose of IPV, three doses of PCV, and two doses of MMR

40
3.15 CARE SEEKING AND TREATMENT OF CHILD ILLNESS

Acute respiratory infection (ARI), fever, and dehydration from diarrhea are important contributing causes
of childhood morbidity and mortality in developing countries (WHO 2003). Prompt medical attention
when a child has symptoms of these illnesses is, therefore, crucial in reducing child deaths. Table 16
presents information on care seeking for ill children in the Philippines. Overall, less than 1% of children
under age 5 showed symptoms of an ARI, 11% exhibited fever, and 6% experienced diarrhea in the 2
weeks preceding the survey (data not shown).

▪ Advice or treatment was sought for three in every four children (72%) with symptoms of ARI in the 2
weeks preceding the survey (Table 16).

▪ Advice or treatment was sought for 41% of children with a fever in the 2 weeks preceding the survey. ▪

Advice or treatment was sought for 37% of children with diarrhea in the 2 weeks preceding the survey.

▪ About half (49%) of children with diarrhea received oral rehydration salts (ORS), 27% were given
zinc supplements, 19% received ORS and zinc supplements, and 13% were given ORS, zinc
supplements, and continued feeding, as recommended.
 41
Table 16 Treatment for acute respiratory infection, fever, and diarrhea according to background characteristics
Among children under age 5 who had symptoms of acute respiratory infection (ARI) or had a fever during the 2 weeks preceding the survey, percentage for whom advice or treatment
was sought, and among children under age 5 who had diarrhea during the 2 weeks preceding the survey, percentage for whom advice or treatment was sought, percentage given a
fluid made from oral rehydration salt (ORS) packets or given prepackaged ORS fluid, percentage given zinc, percentage given ORS and zinc, and percentage given ORS, zinc, and
continued feeding, according to background characteristics, Philippines NDHS 2022
Children with symptoms of ARI1 Children with fever Children with diarrhea

Background characteristic
Age in months
Percentage for whom advice or treatment was sought2
Number of children
Percentage for whom advice or treatment was sought2
Number of children
Percentage for whom advice or treatment was sought2
Percentage given fluid from ORS packet or prepackaged
Percentage given zinc
Percentage given ORS and zinc
Percentage
given ORS, zinc, and continued feeding3
Number of children

<6 * 3 44.7 58 * * * * * 20 6–11 * 4 32.5 144 35.1 42.9 27.9 22.2 15.0 61 12–23 * 15 45.6 204 38.9 50.6 28.7 21.4 16.7 152 24–35 * 4 47.8 160 46.3 57.0 19.2 15.1 11.8 84 36–47 * 12
36.0 162 23.9 46.2 33.0 20.5 12.6 102 48–59 * 12 40.5 137 (33.7) (40.6) (7.2) (5.3) (2.8) 37
Sex
Male (56.9) 27 43.3 457 38.8 45.9 32.1 20.4 13.9 249 Female * 22 38.8 408 33.8 51.9 20.1 17.7 12.4 206
Residence
Urban * 24 41.6 436 34.5 49.2 22.8 17.9 10.4 230 Rural (59.3) 25 40.8 429 38.5 48.0 30.6 20.5 16.1 226
Mother’s education
No education * 1 * 6 * * * * * 4 Grades 1–6 * 7 46.2 123 41.1 58.6 20.3 17.7 12.0 66 Grades 7–10 (73.7) 27 38.6 401 31.4 48.0 26.1 19.4 12.8 207 Grades 11–12 * 1 (37.8) 41 (23.3)
(39.4) (21.6) (12.8) (7.2) 32 Postsecondary * 1 * 25 * * * * * 5 College * 12 43.8 270 44.9 47.0 29.8 19.3 14.1 142
Wealth quintile
Lowest * 11 37.3 235 32.1 46.9 21.4 18.9 13.3 111 Second * 16 45.4 205 29.1 45.0 22.6 13.5 9.2 138 Middle * 4 43.3 155 44.7 54.7 38.7 28.0 16.9 97 Fourth * 6 39.0 158 41.7 47.4
25.3 19.5 14.4 74 Highest * 12 41.7 113 (45.6) (54.1) (28.8) (18.0) (16.4) 37
Total 71.8 50 41.2 866 36.5 48.6 26.7 19.2 13.2 456

Note: Figures in parentheses are based on 25–49 unweighted cases. An asterisk indicates that a figure is based on fewer than 25 unweighted cases and has been suppressed. 1
Symptoms of ARI include short, rapid breathing that is chest-related and/or difficult breathing that is chest-related.
2
Includes advice or treatment from the following sources: public sector, private medical sector, puericulture center, and shops/stores. Excludes advice or treatment from a traditional
practitioner, friends/relatives, and church.
3
Continued feeding includes children who were given more, the same as usual, or somewhat less food during the diarrhea episode.

42
3.16 INFANT AND YOUNG CHILD FEEDING

Optimal infant and young child feeding (IYCF) practices are critical to the health and survival of young
children. Recommended IYCF practices include early initiation of breastfeeding (within the first hour of
life), exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months of life, and feeding children a diet that meets minimum
diversity criteria (WHO and UNICEF 2021).

Early initiation of breastfeeding

Percentage of children born in the last two years who were put to the breast
within 1 hour of birth.
Sample: Number of children born in the last 2 years

Exclusive breastfeeding under 6 months

Percentage of children age 0–5 months who were fed exclusively with
breast milk during the previous day.
Sample: Youngest children age 0–5 months living with their mother

Minimum dietary diversity 6–23 months

Percentage of children age 6–23 months who were fed a minimum of five out
of eight defined food groups during the previous day. The eight food groups
are breast milk; grains, roots, and tubers; legumes and nuts; dairy products
(milk, yogurt, cheese); flesh foods (meat, fish, poultry, organ meat); eggs;
vitamin A–rich fruits and vegetables; and other fruits and vegetables.
Sample: Youngest children age 6–23 months living with their mother
 ▪ Over half (55%) of children born in the last 2 years were put to the breast within 1 hour of birth
(Table 17).

▪ Two in every five (41%) children under age 6 months were exclusively breastfed. ▪ About half

(47%) of children age 6–23 months met the minimum dietary diversity requirement.

Table 17 Infant and young child feeding (IYCF) indicators

Percentage of children fed according to various IYCF practices, Philippines NDHS 2022
Indicator Indicator numerator and denominator Value
Early initiation of breastfeeding Percentage of children born in the last 2 years who were put to the
breast within 1 hour of birth 54.1
Number of children born in the last 2 years1 2,942
Exclusive breastfeeding under 6 months Percentage of children age 0–5 months who were fed exclusively with breast milk during
the previous day 40.9 Number of youngest children age 0–5 months living with their mother
670
Minimum dietary diversity 6–23 months Percentage of children age 6–23 months who were fed foods and beverages from at least
five out of eight defined food groups during the previous day 47.2
Number of youngest children age 6–23 months living with their mother 2,061
Percentage of children age 6–23 months who were given a sweet beverage during the
Sweet beverage consumption 6–23 months previous day 34.6 Number of youngest children age 6–23 months living with their mother
2,061
Percentage of children age 6–23 months fed unhealthy foods during the previous day 45.7
Unhealthy food consumption 6–23 months Number of youngest children age 6–23 months living with their mother 2,061

1
Includes children born in the 2 years preceding the survey regardless of whether the children are living or dead at the
time of interview.

43
Unhealthy infant and young child feeding practices should be avoided because they can promote unhealthy
weight gain and replace nutritious foods that provide important nutrients for children. For infants and
young children, consumption of sweet foods and beverages increases the risk of dental caries and
childhood obesity. The indicator definition below for unhealthy food consumption describes sentinel
unhealthy foods—foods that are high in sugar, salt, or unhealthy fats—that are commonly consumed by
infants and young children (WHO and UNICEF 2021).

Sweet beverage consumption 6–23 months

Percentage of children age 6–23 months who were given a sweet beverage
during the previous day.
Unhealthy food consumption 6–23 months
Percentage of children age 6–23 months who were fed sentinel unhealthy
foods during the previous day.
Sample: Youngest children age 6–23 months living with their mother

▪ One-third (35%) of children age 6–23 months were fed a sweet beverage.

▪ Forty-six percent of children age 6–23 months consumed unhealthy foods.

Trends: Exclusive breastfeeding practices in the Philippines percentage has increased to 41%.
have increased modestly over time (Figure 6). The last NDHS to Figure 6 Trends in exclusive
capture exclusive breastfeeding was in 2008, at which point 34% breastfeeding
of children were exclusively breastfed. Since then, the 38
Percentage of children age 0–5 months 29 34 3441
3.17 EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT Early Childhood 1993 NDHS 2008 NDHS
1998 NDHS 2022 NDHS
2003 NDHS
Development Index

Children are considered to be developmentally on track if they have achieved

the minimum number of milestones expected for their age group. Each of the
three general domains is composed of a set of core subdomains:
Health subdomains: gross motor development, fine motor development, and
self-care.
Learning subdomains: expressive language, literacy, numeracy, pre-writing,
and executive functioning.
Psychosocial well-being subdomains: emotional skills, social skills,
internalizing behavior, and externalizing behavior.

Early childhood development is a multidimensional process that involves an ordered progression of motor,
cognitive, language, socioemotional, and regulatory skills and capacities across the first few years of life
(UNICEF 2016). While these are distinct domains of early childhood development, they are
interconnected. Nurturing and supporting all of these dimensions in a holistic manner is key to ensuring
that children have the best chance to reach their full potential. Physical growth, literacy and numeracy

44
skills, socioemotional development, and learning readiness set the trajectory for lifelong health, learning,
and well-being (Shonkoff and Phillips 2000).

The Early Childhood Development Index 2030 (ECDI2030) module, which captures the achievement of
key developmental milestones by children between age 24–59 months, was included in the 2022 NDHS.

Mothers were asked 20 questions about one of their randomly selected children age 24–59 months. These
questions focused on the way children behave in certain everyday situations and the skills and knowledge
they have acquired, reflecting the increasing difficulty of the skills children acquire as they grow. The 20
items are organized according to the three general domains of health, learning, and psychosocial well
being.

The ECDI2030 module is not designed to report on individual domains separately. Rather, it is meant to
produce a single summary score that captures the interlinked developmental concepts embedded in the
three domains mentioned in SDG 4.2.1.

▪ The results show that 77% of children age 24–59 months are developmentally on track for their age in
terms of health, learning, and psychosocial well-being (Table 18).

▪ Early childhood development increases with increasing household wealth; 66% of children in the
lowest wealth quintile are developmentally on track, as compared with 84% of children in the highest
wealth quintile.

Table 18 Early Childhood Development Index 2030

Percentage of children age 24–59 months who are developmentally on track in
health, learning, and psychosocial well-being, Philippines NDHS 2022
Early Childhood
Background characteristic Age in months Development Index 2030
Number of children age 24–59 months

24–35 81.6 1,496 36–47 79.8 1,545 48–59 69.4 1,577

Sex
Male 74.3 2,436 Female 79.6 2,181
Residence
Urban 78.1 2,454 Rural 75.4 2,163
Early childhood
 education attendance
Attending 80.1 609 Not attending 73.3 2,513 Information not
available 81.4 1,495
Mother’s education
No education 47.4 41 Grades 1–6 63.6 655 Grades 7–10 77.0
2,177 Grades 11–12 89.3 131 Postsecondary 77.5 146 College
82.0 1,469
Wealth quintile
Lowest 66.2 1,174 Second 77.3 1,031 Middle 80.3 909 Fourth 82.0
802 Highest 83.5 701
Total 76.8 4,617

45
3.18 HIV

3.18.1 Prevention Knowledge among Young People

Knowledge about HIV prevention

Knowing that consistent use of condoms during sexual intercourse and having
just one uninfected faithful partner can reduce the chances of getting HIV,
knowing that a healthy-looking person can have HIV, and rejecting two major
misconceptions about HIV transmission: HIV can be transmitted by mosquito
bites and a person can become infected by sharing food with a person who
has HIV.
Sample: Women age 15–24

Knowledge of how HIV is transmitted is crucial to enabling people to avoid HIV infection, and this is
especially true for young people, who are often at greater risk because they may have shorter relationships
with more partners or engage in other risky behaviors.

▪ Two-thirds (65%) of women age 15–24 know that consistent condom use is a means to prevent the
spread of HIV (Table 19).

▪ Seven in 10 women (69%) know that limiting sexual intercourse to one uninfected partner can reduce
the likelihood of contracting HIV.

▪ Only 26% of women age 15–24 have thorough knowledge of HIV prevention (as defined above).
 46
Table 19 Knowledge about HIV prevention methods among young women
Percentage of young women age 15-24 who, in response to prompted questions, say that people can reduce the risk of
getting HIV by using condoms every time they have sexual intercourse, and by having one sex partner who is not infected
and has no other partners, and percentage who correctly identify both ways of preventing the sexual transmission of HIV
and reject major misconceptions about HIV transmission, according to background characteristics, Philippines NDHS 2022
Percentage who say HIV
can be prevented by:

Background characteristic Using Limiting sexual intercourse to one Percentage with knowledge about Number of women
condoms1 uninfected partner2 HIV prevention3
Age

15–19 57.5 61.6 19.8 5,531 15–17 52.0 57.2 16.4 3,363 18–19 65.9 68.5 24.9 2,168
20–24 73.9 76.8 33.5 4,677 20–22 72.3 76.1 31.7 3,012 23–24 76.8 77.9 37.0 1,665
Marital status
Never married 63.9 67.3 26.1 8,524 Ever had sex 76.3 77.2 34.2 783 Never had sex 62.7 66.3 25.3 7,741 Ever
married 70.3 74.8 26.0 1,683
Residence
Urban 68.1 69.3 30.1 5,504 Rural 61.4 67.7 21.3 4,703
Region
National Capital Region 73.0 70.4 45.0 1,392 Cordillera Admin. Region 66.9 75.8 32.2 165 I - Ilocos 53.2 65.1
14.2 548 II - Cagayan Valley 73.4 78.5 24.9 345 III - Central Luzon 66.2 73.9 26.0 1,178 IVA - CALABARZON
68.0 69.8 28.1 1,536 MIMAROPA 61.7 78.0 25.0 295 V - Bicol 71.4 75.4 20.8 584 VI - Western Visayas 65.8 68.4
17.0 753 VII - Central Visayas 64.4 69.0 24.5 710 VIII - Eastern Visayas 73.9 76.9 32.3 439 IX - Zamboanga
Peninsula 59.0 63.6 14.3 361 X - Northern Mindanao 64.9 65.8 25.8 357 XI - Davao 68.8 66.0 22.8 469 XII -
SOCCSKSARGEN 60.9 64.2 21.5 425 XIII - CARAGA 54.3 63.7 21.7 228 BARMM 26.5 28.3 12.0 422
Education
No education 36.6 30.2 11.4 34 Grades 1–6 39.8 47.2 14.4 297 Grades 7–10 56.0 60.7 17.5 4,319 Grades 11–
12 69.6 73.1 27.1 2,712 Postsecondary 62.2 58.3 24.9 91 College 77.6 79.6 40.0 2,755
Wealth quintile
Lowest 51.0 56.7 16.1 1,607 Second 60.8 67.6 19.5 2,027 Middle 66.4 69.2 24.4 2,119 Fourth 70.2 71.4 31.8
2,261 Highest 72.4 74.6 35.1 2,193
Total 15–24 65.0 68.6 26.1 10,208

1
Using condoms every time they have sexual intercourse
2
Partner who has no other partners
3
Knowledge about HIV prevention means knowing that consistent use of condoms during sexual intercourse and having
just one uninfected faithful partner can reduce the chance of getting HIV, knowing that a healthy-looking person can have
HIV, and rejecting two common misconceptions about transmission or prevention of HIV: HIV can be transmitted by
mosquito bites and a person can become infected by sharing food with a person who has HIV.

47
3.18.2 Sexual Behavior

Information on sexual behavior is important in designing and monitoring intervention programs to control
the spread of HIV.

▪ Less than 1% of women age 15–49 reported having two or more sexual partners during the 12 months
prior to the survey (Table 20).

▪ Among the 4% of women who had a partner in the last 12 months who was neither their husband nor
someone they lived with, 23% reported using a condom during their last sexual intercourse.

▪ Among all women who ever had sexual intercourse, the mean number of lifetime sexual partners is
1.5.

Table 20 Multiple sexual partners and higher-risk sexual intercourse in the last 12 months
Among all women age 15–49, percentage who had sexual intercourse with more than one sexual partner in the last 12 months and percentage
who had intercourse in the last 12 months with a person who neither was their husband nor lived with them; among women age 15–49 who had
sexual intercourse in the last 12 months with a person who neither was their husband nor lived with them, percentage who used a condom during
 last sexual intercourse with such a partner; and among women who ever had sexual intercourse, mean number of sexual partners during their
lifetime, according to background characteristics, Philippines NDHS 2022
Women who had intercourse
in the last 12 months with a

Percentage who had 2+ Percentage Mean number of sexual

All women who reported
Percentage who had inter course in the last using a
12 months with a person who neither was condom during
their last sexual
person who neither was their husband nor intercourse
lived with them Women who ever had sexual intercourse1
Background Age partners in the last 12 husband nor lived Number of women Number of women Number of women
characteristic months with them with such a partner partners in lifetime

15–24 0.2 5.4 10,208 22.3 551 1.5 2,461 15–19 0.1 2.5 5,531 22.9 136 2.0 523 20–24 0.3 8.9 4,677 22.1 415 1.4 1,938
25–29 0.8 8.1 3,904 20.5 316 1.4 3,014 30–39 0.4 3.1 7,147 10.8 223 1.5 6,544 40–49 0.2 1.6 6,562 1.2 102 1.4 6,342
Marital status
Never married 0.3 8.7 11,596 19.2 1,004 1.8 2,155 Married/living together 0.3 0.5 15,306 20.2 71 1.4 15,289 Divorced/separated/widowed
1.4 12.8 919 4.9 118 1.6 917
Residence
Urban 0.4 5.3 15,579 19.8 825 1.5 10,276 Rural 0.2 3.0 12,242 13.6 368 1.4 8,085
Region
National Capital Region 0.2 6.0 4,280 22.4 255 1.5 2,719 Cordillera Admin. Region 0.0 3.7 438 17.0 16 1.4 274 I - Ilocos 0.2 5.3 1,473
12.3 78 1.4 988 II - Cagayan Valley 0.3 2.8 833 (9.6) 23 1.2 534 III - Central Luzon 0.3 3.5 3,100 12.1 107 1.5 2,071 IVA - CALABARZON
0.5 4.4 4,215 26.1 184 1.9 2,738 MIMAROPA 0.4 3.1 715 (14.9) 22 1.4 466 V - Bicol 0.1 3.5 1,405 (28.9) 49 1.3 860 VI - Western Visayas
0.2 4.2 1,831 12.1 76 1.4 1,185 VII - Central Visayas 0.6 5.6 2,023 11.7 114 1.5 1,423 VIII - Eastern Visayas 0.5 3.1 1,062 21.1 33 1.4 642
IX - Zamboanga Peninsula 0.6 3.8 970 (5.6) 37 1.3 665 X - Northern Mindanao 0.3 3.7 1,035 12.9 38 1.6 728 XI - Davao 0.1 5.6 1,474
23.9 83 1.5 1,077 XII - SOCCSKSARGEN 0.2 3.8 1,175 (9.5) 44 1.3 811 XIII - CARAGA 0.4 5.0 636 7.4 32 1.5 443 BARMM 0.1 0.1 1,156
* 1 1.1 740

Continued…

48
Table 20—Continued who had inter who reported
course in the using a
last 12 months condom during
with a person
Women who had intercourse in the last 12 months with a
person who neither was their husband nor lived with them
All women
Percentage Women who ever had sexual intercourse1
Percentage

Background Percentage who had who neither was their Number of women a partner Number of women partners in lifetime Number of women
characteristic 2+ partners in the husband nor lived last sexual Mean number of
last 12 months with them intercourse with such sexual
Education

No education 0.0 2.4 197 * 5 1.3 154 Grades 1–6 0.3 0.8 2,538 * 20 1.4 2,312 Grades 7–10 0.3 2.9 11,954 17.3 349 1.5 8,187 Grades 11–
12 0.3 5.3 2,751 18.0 146 2.0 634 Postsecondary 0.3 5.1 625 (0.5) 32 1.4 505 College 0.3 6.6 9,755 19.1 642 1.4 6,568
Wealth quintile
Lowest 0.3 2.1 4,595 13.3 97 1.3 3,383 Second 0.5 3.6 5,219 16.9 189 1.5 3,613 Middle 0.3 4.7 5,666 15.6 266 1.6 3,818 Fourth 0.2 5.4
6,048 17.3 325 1.5 3,775 Highest 0.3 5.0 6,292 22.3 316 1.5 3,772

Total 0.3 4.3 27,821 17.9 1,193 1.5 18,361

Note: Figures in parentheses are based on 25–49 unweighted cases. An asterisk indicates that a figure is based on fewer than 25 unweighted
cases and has been suppressed.
1
Means are calculated excluding respondents who gave non-numeric responses.

3.18.3 Prior HIV Testing

HIV testing programs diagnose people living with HIV so that they can be linked to care and access
antiretroviral therapy (ART). Knowledge of HIV status helps HIV-negative individuals reduce risk and
remain negative.
 ▪ Only 9% of women age 15–49 have ever been tested for HIV and received the results; less than 1%
have ever been tested and did not receive the results (Table 21).

▪ The percentage of women who were ever tested and received results was greatest among those age
25–29 (17%), which coincides with women with the highest fertility rates.

49
Table 21 Coverage of prior HIV testing
Percent distribution of women age 15–49 by HIV testing status and by whether they received the results of the last test, percentage of women ever
tested, and percentage of women who were tested in the last 12 months and received the results of the last test, according to background
characteristics, Philippines NDHS 2022
Percent distribution of women by testing status and by
whether they received the results of the last test
Ever tested, did
Background Age Ever tested and received not receive results Never tested1 Total Percentage ever tested
characteristic results Number of women

15–24 4.1 0.3 95.5 100.0 4.5 10,208 15–19 1.1 0.2 98.7 100.0 1.3 5,531 20–24 7.7 0.5 91.8 100.0 8.2 4,677
25–29 17.4 0.6 82.0 100.0 18.0 3,904 30–39 15.2 0.8 84.0 100.0 16.0 7,147 40–49 6.6 0.6 92.8 100.0 7.2 6,562
Marital status
Never married 3.1 0.2 96.8 100.0 3.2 11,596 Ever had sex 11.3 0.5 88.3 100.0 11.7 2,166 Never had sex 1.2 0.1 98.7 100.0 1.3 9,431
Married or living together 13.9 0.9 85.2 100.0 14.8 15,306 Divorced/separated/widowed 13.8 0.6 85.6 100.0 14.4 919
Residence
Urban 12.3 0.7 87.0 100.0 13.0 15,579 Rural 5.7 0.4 93.9 100.0 6.1 12,242
Region
National Capital Region 16.6 0.5 82.9 100.0 17.1 4,280 Cordillera Admin. Region 6.9 0.7 92.4 100.0 7.6 438 I - Ilocos 4.2 0.5 95.3 100.0
4.7 1,473 II - Cagayan Valley 6.3 0.9 92.8 100.0 7.2 833 III - Central Luzon 12.7 1.3 86.0 100.0 14.0 3,100 IVA - CALABARZON 12.4 0.3
87.3 100.0 12.7 4,215 MIMAROPA 6.6 0.8 92.6 100.0 7.4 715 V - Bicol 5.9 0.5 93.6 100.0 6.4 1,405 VI - Western Visayas 7.7 0.8 91.5
100.0 8.5 1,831 VII - Central Visayas 11.9 0.6 87.4 100.0 12.6 2,023 VIII - Eastern Visayas 7.6 0.8 91.6 100.0 8.4 1,062 IX - Zamboanga
Peninsula 3.9 0.1 96.0 100.0 4.0 970 X - Northern Mindanao 2.3 0.3 97.4 100.0 2.6 1,035 XI - Davao 7.0 0.4 92.7 100.0 7.3 1,474 XII -
SOCCSKSARGEN 3.7 0.1 96.2 100.0 3.8 1,175 XIII - CARAGA 6.6 0.5 92.9 100.0 7.1 636 BARMM 0.4 0.1 99.5 100.0 0.5 1,156
Education
No education 2.8 0.0 97.2 100.0 2.8 197 Grades 1–6 4.3 0.2 95.5 100.0 4.5 2,538 Grades 7–10 8.4 0.8 90.8 100.0 9.2 11,954 Grades 11–
12 3.9 0.2 95.8 100.0 4.2 2,751 Postsecondary 14.1 0.6 85.4 100.0 14.6 625 College 13.3 0.5 86.2 100.0 13.8 9,755
Wealth quintile
Lowest 3.8 0.4 95.8 100.0 4.2 4,595 Second 7.1 0.7 92.1 100.0 7.9 5,219 Middle 11.0 0.6 88.4 100.0 11.6 5,666 Fourth 10.9 0.5 88.6 100.0
11.4 6,048 Highest 12.6 0.6 86.9 100.0 13.1 6,292
Total 9.4 0.6 90.0 100.0 10.0 27,821 1Includes respondents who have not heard of HIV or who refused to answer questions on testing
 50
3.19 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Intimate Partner Violence by Background Characteristics

In the 2022 NDHS, information was obtained from women age 15–49 who ever had a husband or intimate
partner and who have experienced emotional, physical, or sexual violence committed by their current or
most recent husband/intimate partner. The term husband includes a partner with whom a woman is living
as if married. Husband/intimate partner refers to the current husband for currently married women; the
most recent husband for divorced, separated, or widowed women; the current intimate partner for never
married women who currently have an intimate partner; and the most recent intimate partner for never
married women who do not currently have an intimate partner but had one in the past.

Physical violence: push you, shake you, or throw something at you; slap you;
twist your arm or pull your hair; punch you with his fist or with something that
could hurt you; kick you, drag you, or beat you up; try to choke you or burn you
on purpose; or threaten or attack you with a knife, gun, or any other weapon.
Percentage of women who have ever experienced any physical violence
(committed by a husband or intimate partner).
Sample: Women age 15–49 who ever had a husband/intimate partner

Sexual violence: physically force you to have sexual intercourse with him
even when you did not want to, physically force you to perform any other
sexual acts you did not want to, or force you with threats or in any other way to
perform sexual acts you did not want to.
Percentage of women who have ever experienced any sexual violence
(committed by a husband or intimate partner).
Sample: Women age 15–49 who ever had a husband/intimate partner

Emotional violence: say or do something to humiliate you in front of others;

threaten to hurt or harm you or someone close to you; insult you or make you
feel bad about yourself; not allow you to engage in any legitimate work or
practice your profession; control your own money or property or force you to
work; destroy your personal property, pets, or belongings or threaten or
actually harm your pets; or have other intimate relationships.
Percentage of women who have ever experienced any emotional violence
(committed by a husband or intimate partner).
Sample: Women age 15–49 who ever had a husband/intimate partner

▪ Eighteen percent of women have ever experienced any form of physical, sexual, or emotional violence
by their current or most recent husband/intimate partner (Table 22).

▪ Overall, women are more likely to have experienced emotional violence (15%) than physical violence
(6%) or sexual violence (2%).

▪ Marital status is linked to whether a woman has ever experienced violence. Eleven percent of never
married women have ever experienced any violence, as compared with 19% of ever-married women.
Forty-five percent of women who are currently divorced, separated, or widowed have experienced
violence, compared with 17% of currently married women.

51
Table 22 Intimate partner violence by background characteristics
 Percentage of women age 15–49 who have ever had a husband or intimate partner and who have ever experienced emotional, physical, or
sexual violence committed by their current or most recent husband/intimate partner, according to background characteristics, Philippines
NDHS 2022
Number of
women who
ever had a

Background Age Emotional violence Physical violence Physical and sexual and Physical or sexual husband/ intimate
characteristic Sexual violence sexual emotional Physical or sexual partner
Physical and or emotional

15–19 13.8 2.8 1.6 0.7 0.7 3.8 15.5 767 20–24 14.1 5.8 2.7 1.8 1.5 6.7 16.3 1,635 25–29 13.3 6.0 1.7 1.1 1.0 6.7 15.1 2,087 30–39 15.7
6.9 2.4 1.4 1.3 7.9 18.2 4,528 40–49 16.2 7.0 2.4 1.7 1.5 7.7 18.7 4,346
Religion
Roman Catholic 15.8 6.7 2.3 1.5 1.3 7.5 18.1 10,203 Protestant 16.9 8.0 3.0 1.9 1.7 9.2 19.8 1,272 Iglesia ni Cristo 14.2 5.5 2.3 1.5 1.0
6.3 16.6 400 Aglipay 15.7 7.2 5.9 2.7 2.3 10.4 19.0 197 Islam 7.7 2.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 2.6 9.0 848 Other Christian 10.6 5.3 2.0 1.3 1.3 5.9
11.3 307 Other 13.6 5.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 5.2 16.0 123 No religion * * * * * * * 12
Ethnic group
Tagalog 12.4 5.4 1.6 1.3 1.2 5.7 14.0 3,459 Cebuano 17.5 6.7 2.6 2.0 1.8 7.4 19.7 3,127 Ilokano 15.9 8.2 3.5 1.4 1.2 10.3 19.0 1,109
Hiligaynon/Ilonggo 14.6 6.2 2.6 1.5 1.2 7.4 17.6 1,139 Bikolano 19.4 9.4 3.1 1.9 1.6 10.5 21.9 969 Kapampangan 9.9 2.8 0.6 0.6 0.0 2.8
11.8 444 Maranao 11.4 2.1 0.5 0.2 0.2 2.4 11.9 196 Tausog 6.3 5.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 5.6 9.8 185 Waray 18.7 6.9 2.7 1.1 0.9 8.6 21.3 480
Aeta (26.4) (10.9) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (10.9) (26.4) 16 Badjao (10.8) (4.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (4.0) (14.8) 14 Other 15.7 6.6 2.4 1.2 1.1 7.8 18.5
2,226
Residence
Urban 13.4 5.8 2.1 1.4 1.2 6.6 15.6 7,354 Rural 17.4 7.1 2.5 1.5 1.3 8.1 19.9 6,008
Region
National Capital Region 11.0 5.8 2.9 1.5 1.4 7.1 13.4 1,846 Cordillera Admin. Region 18.0 5.1 2.7 1.3 0.8 6.5 19.8 215 I - Ilocos 22.3
9.7 3.8 1.9 1.9 11.6 25.0 748 II - Cagayan Valley 14.4 8.0 1.9 1.0 1.0 8.9 17.5 401 III - Central Luzon 15.3 5.8 2.0 1.8 1.6 6.1 17.0 1,552
IVA - CALABARZON 12.1 5.8 1.2 0.8 0.7 6.2 13.9 1,912 MIMAROPA 20.5 8.6 3.2 2.4 2.1 9.4 23.7 354 V - Bicol 23.4 10.0 4.3 2.5 2.2
11.8 26.5 713 VI - Western Visayas 15.5 7.1 2.4 1.4 1.2 8.0 18.7 909 VII - Central Visayas 17.5 5.5 2.3 2.0 1.8 5.8 18.6 1,015 VIII -
Eastern Visayas 21.3 6.3 2.4 1.2 0.9 7.5 22.9 489 IX - Zamboanga Peninsula 17.1 8.5 1.6 0.9 0.9 9.2 20.7 525 X - Northern Mindanao
14.2 3.9 2.5 1.0 1.0 5.4 15.3 552 XI - Davao 16.6 8.3 2.5 1.9 1.7 8.9 20.7 729 XII - SOCCSKSARGEN 12.0 4.6 1.4 0.6 0.5 5.4 14.5 572
XIII - CARAGA 17.0 6.7 2.8 1.6 1.6 7.9 20.2 299 BARMM 4.9 1.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.7 5.6 530
Marital status
Never married 9.1 2.1 1.3 0.7 0.6 2.7 10.5 2,006 Currently has intimate
partner 5.3 1.4 0.6 0.2 0.2 1.8 6.7 1,359 Had intimate partner 17.2 3.6 2.9 1.8 1.7 4.6 18.6 647 Ever married 16.3 7.2 2.5 1.6 1.4 8.1
18.7 11,356 Married/living together 14.8 6.4 2.0 1.2 1.0 7.2 17.2 10,731 Divorced/separated/
widowed 42.0 21.3 9.5 8.4 7.8 22.4 44.6 625
Employment
Employed for cash 15.1 7.4 2.6 1.7 1.6 8.3 17.5 6,639 Employed not for cash 19.6 6.4 2.2 1.4 1.2 7.1 22.1 1,413 Not employed 14.1 5.2
1.9 1.1 0.9 6.0 16.3 5,310

Continued…

52
Table 22— Background Emotional violence Physical violence Physical and Physical and Physical or sexual Physical or sexual who ever had a
Continued characteristic Sexual violence sexual sexual and or emotional husband/
emotional intimate
Education
partner
Number of women

No education 9.6 2.8 0.7 0.0 0.0 3.5 10.7 102 Grades 1–6 20.4 9.4 3.3 2.4 2.1 10.3 24.0 1,558 Grades 7–10 16.6 7.0 2.3 1.3 1.2 8.0
19.2 5,951 Grades 11–12 15.4 4.1 2.1 1.3 1.2 4.9 16.7 670 Postsecondary 12.4 4.9 1.5 0.9 0.8 5.5 13.6 329 College 12.0 5.2 2.0 1.3
1.2 5.9 13.8 4,752
Wealth quintile
Lowest 17.2 7.9 2.6 1.5 1.3 9.0 20.1 2,464 Second 18.0 7.4 2.4 1.3 1.2 8.5 20.5 2,626 Middle 16.0 7.4 2.8 2.0 1.7 8.3 18.9 2,827 Fourth
14.0 5.2 2.0 1.2 1.1 6.0 15.9 2,741 Highest 11.0 4.3 1.7 1.2 1.1 4.8 12.4 2,704
Total 15.2 6.4 2.3 1.4 1.3 7.3 17.5 13,362

Notes: The term husband includes a partner with whom a woman is living as if married. Husband/intimate partner refers to the current
husband for currently married women; the most recent husband for divorced, separated, or widowed women, the current intimate partner for
never married women who currently have an intimate partner; and the most recent intimate partner for never-married women who do not
currently have an intimate partner but had one in the past. Figures in parentheses are based on 25–49 unweighted cases. An asterisk
indicates that a figure is based on fewer than 25 unweighted cases and has been suppressed.
 53
REFERENCES

Bradley, S. E. K., T. N. Croft, J. D. Fishel, and C. F. Westoff. 2012. Revising Unmet Need for Family
Planning. DHS Analytical Studies No. 25. Calverton, Maryland, USA: ICF International.
https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/AS25/AS25%5B12June2012%5D.pdf.

National Statistics Office (NSO) [Philippines] and ICF Macro. 2009. National Demographic and Health
Survey 2008. Calverton, Maryland, USA: NSO and ICF Macro.

National Statistics Office (NSO) [Philippines] and Macro International Inc. (MI). 1994. National
Demographic Survey 1993. Calverton, Maryland, USA: NSO and MI.

National Statistics Office (NSO) [Philippines] and ORC Macro. 2004. National Demographic and Health
Survey 2003. Calverton, Maryland, USA: NSO and ORC Macro.

National Statistics Office (NSO) [Philippines], Department of Health (DOH) [Philippines], and Macro
International Inc. (MI). 1999. National Demographic and Health Survey 1998. Manila, the Philippines:
NSO and MI.

Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) and ICF International. 2014. Philippines National Demographic and
Health Survey 2013. Manila, the Philippines, and Rockville, Maryland, USA: PSA and ICF International.

Shonkoff, J., and D. Phillips. 2000. From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood
Development. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). 2016 Advancing Early Childhood Development: From
Science to Scale. Executive Summary. https://www.thelancet.com/pb
assets/Lancet/stories/series/ecd/Lancet_ECD_Executive_Summary.pdf

Van Lerberghe, W., and V. De Brouwere. 2001. “Of Blind Alleys and Things That Have Worked:
History’s Lessons on Reducing Maternal Mortality.” In Safe Motherhood Strategies: A Recent Review of
the Evidence, edited by V. De Brouwere and W. Van Lerberghe, 7–33. Antwerp: ITG Press.

World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). Joint Monitoring
Programme for Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene. Core Questions on Drinking Water, Sanitation and
Hygiene for Household Surveys: 2018 Update. 2018. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund
(UNICEF) and World Health Organization (WHO).

World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). 2021. Indicators for
Assessing Infant and Young Child Feeding Practices: Definitions and Measurement Methods. Geneva:
WHO. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240018389.

World Health Organization (WHO). 2003. World Health Report 2003. Geneva: WHO.
https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/42789.

World Health Organization (WHO). 2006. Standards for Maternal and Neonatal Care. Geneva: WHO.
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241511216.

55