The survey was subcontracted to Kiev International Institute of Sociology (KIIS). The questionnaire was developed by the research team and adjusted according to the recommendations of KIIS. Prior to the survey, a pre-test on a convenience sample of 55 respondents was conducted. The questions were followed by a feedback from the respondents who described the problems with understanding or answering the questions. Based on the results of this pre-test, the questionnaire, stated preference tasks in particular, was revised and adjusted.
The survey was carried out in December 2009 -January 2010. The fieldwork took place on December 11-28, 2009. An informed consent was obtained from all individuals included in the study. The study instruments and methodology were reviewed by the Institutional Review Board at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy and a waiver from a full ethical review was obtained.
To get a representative all-Ukrainian sample of 300 interviews for the limited budget of the pilot survey, KIIS proposed to employ a stratified, multi-stage area probability sample of a big nationwide study. This allowed reducing transportation costs. However, information about the non-response rate and, consequently, non-respondents’ characteristics was not available. Thus, the pilot survey interviews were added to the interview chain at the secondary sampling units. The sampling methodology was developed by the sub-contractor. The sample of households from which sample persons were selected, was based on randomly sampled voting precincts within proportionally sampled settlements (e.g., cities towns, villages).
Stage 1: Selection of primary sampling units (settlements)
Ukraine is divided into 24 regions (oblasts), Kyiv and the Crimea. Each oblast is divided into counties (rayons), and one city in each region is designated as the county center. In official statistics, the rural population consists only of villages; the urban population is defined as comprising all cities and urban type villages. The sample was stratified according to whether population points were considered urban or rural. At the first stage of the sample development, 110 primary sampling units were selected by probability proportional to size
principle. This consisted of 60 cities and towns, 13 urban type villages (PGT) and 36 villages. Nuclear infected territories around the Chernobyl and individuals permanently institutionalized in medical facilities, military quarters, and prisons were not covered in the sampling.
Stage 2: Selection of secondary sampling units (voting precincts)
Voting precincts were used as secondary sample units, because official statistics about them is accessible. They cover all territory of the country, are located more or less evenly, and have moderate size. Within each primary sampling unit, several voting precincts were randomly chosen taking into account the number of residential routes, which is proportional to the number of apartments. The number of selected voting precincts depended on the size of the ultimate clusters in the large nationwide survey. The sample of this pilot survey includes 207 secondary sampling units. 1-2 respondents were interviewed in each secondary sampling unit.
Stage 3: Household and respondent selection
A randomized-number rule was used to select the street, household and apartment that the interviewer was to visit first. Before selecting ‘potential respondents’, an interviewer enumerates and lists adult (i.e., 18 and older) household members living in a consecutive run of apartments (i.e., from lower to higher apartment numbers) until he or she has a list of occupants sorted by (1) apartment, (2) gender, and (3) age. After generating a list of occupants, the interviewer seeks to recruit every third occupant for the study (i.e., the 3rd occupant is to be interviewed if the assignment for the secondary sampling unit is 1 interview, and the 3rd and the 6th are to be interviewed if the assignment includes 2 interviews).
Overall 303 effective interviews were conducted during the fieldwork stage. 127 interviewers took part in the survey. 10% of interviews were controlled. That included the control analysis of interviewers’ diaries and control phone calls to check the fact and quality of the interviews in the selected households. As a consequence of the control, none of the questionnaires was removed from the final data file. The sample developed for the survey is representative for adult population of Ukraine – the resident population aged 18 and older; it is random at each step of selection. The summary statistics of the sample is presented in Table A.1.
Table A.1 Socio-demographic characteristics of the sample (303 respondents) Characteristic Observation s Percent of total Percent of non-missing Mean (S.D.) Age aged 18-34 72 23.76% 23.76% 47.5 (16.2) aged 35-54 127 41.91% 41.91% valid n = 303 aged 55+ 104 34.32% 34.32% Sex Male 98 32.34% 32.34% female 205 67.66% 67.66% Place of residence village 122 40.26% 40.26% town (20-500) 116 38.28% 38.28%
big city (500+) or capital 65 21.45% 21.45% Education level
lower than secondary 61 20.13% 20.20%
secondary 174 57.43% 57.62%
higher or degree 67 22.11% 22.19%
(missing) 1 0.33%
Health status
absolutely sick to bad 49 16.17% 16.17%
fair 139 45.87% 45.87%
good to perfect 115 37.95% 37.95%
Voluntary insurance policy
no 287 94.72% 95.35%
yes 14 4.62% 4.65%
(missing) 2 0.66%
Size of the household
1 member 41 13.53% 13.53% 3.03 (1.56)
2 or more members 262 86.47% 86.47% valid n = 303 Number of children in the household
no children 181 59.74% 60.33% 0.55 (0.84)
1 or more children 119 39.27% 39.67% valid n = 300
(missing) 3 0.99%
Share of household members who do not work or earn less or one half of family not
working 166 54.79% 54.97% 0.53 (0.35)
more than half of family not 136 44.88% 45.03% valid n = 302
(missing) 1 0.33%
Income (descriptive)
not sufficient 105 34.65% 35.71%
meets the need 126 41.58% 42.86%
allows saving 63 20.79% 21.43%
(missing) 9 2.97%
Table A.1 (continued) Socio-demographic characteristics of the sample (303 respondents) Characteristic Observation s Percentage of total Percentage of non-missing Mean (S.D.) Income (level, UAH)
1000 UAH or less 58 19.14% 21.72% 2 346.8 (1 781.1) from 1001 to 2000 UAH 104 34.32% 38.95% valid n = 267 from 2001 to 4000 UAH 66 21.78% 24.72%
4001 UAH and more 39 12.87% 14.61%
(missing) 36 11.88%
Experience in visiting and paying to a physician
did not visit 55 18.15% 18.97%
visited did not pay 101 33.33% 34.83%
visited and paid 134 44.22% 46.21%
(missing) 13 4.29%