Socio-economic and demographic characteristics
A total pregnant women of 403 from urban and 200 from rural area were participated in the study with a response rate of 97.3% in the quantitative study. The mean (± SD) age of pregnant women in urban and rural area were 25.1 (± 4.4) and 26.6(±4.9) years respectively. Regarding their ethnicity, 164(40.9%) from urban and 131(65.5%) from rural were Agnuak. Out of the total respondents, 271 (44.9%) were protestants among which 213(53.3%) urban and 58(29.3%) rural residents (Table
1).
Table 1Socio-economic and demographic characteristics of women by Residence, Agnuak Zone (n = 603)
Age (years) | 4.02 | < 0.05 |
< 25 | 177 | 44.3 | 71 | 35.7 | 248 | 41.4 | | |
≥ 25 | 223 | 35.8 | 128 | 64.3 | 351 | 58.6 | | |
Family size | 96.44 | < 0.001 |
< 4 | 205 | 50.9 | 36 | 18.0 | 241 | 39.9 | | |
5–6 | 166 | 41.2 | 93 | 46.5 | 259 | 42.9 | | |
≥ 7 | 32 | 7.9 | 71 | 35.5 | 103 | 17.1 | | |
Ethnicity | 31.95 | < 0.001 |
Agnuak | 165 | 41.0 | 131 | 65.5 | 296 | 48.9 | | |
Othersa | 237 | 59.0 | 69 | 34.5 | 306 | 50.8 | | |
Religion | 52.96 | < 0.001 |
Protestant | 213 | 53.3 | 58 | 29.3 | 271 | 44.9 | | |
Orthodox | 91 | 22.8 | 34 | 17.2 | 125 | 20.7 | | |
Catholic | 48 | 12.0 | 52 | 26.3 | 100 | 16.6 | | |
Othersb | 48 | 12.0 | 54 | 27.3 | 102 | 16.9 | | |
Marital Status | 3.13 | 0.077 |
Married/Cohabited | 369 | 91.6 | 191 | 95.5 | 560 | 92.9 | | |
Othersc | 34 | 8.4 | 9 | 4.5 | 43 | 7.1 | | |
Women’s Educational Status | 34.1 | < 0.001 |
No formal education | 40 | 9.9 | 57 | 28.5 | 153 | 25.4 | | |
Formal education | 363 | 90.1 | 143 | 71.5 | 103 | 17.1 | | |
Women’s occupational status | 13.17 | < 0.001 |
Housewives | 267 | 66.3 | 161 | 80.5 | 428 | 71.0 | | |
Othersd | 136 | 33.7 | 39 | 19.5 | 175 | 29.0 | | |
Husband’s educational status | 14.1 | < 0.001 |
No formal education | 22 | 5.7 | 84 | 44.4 | 106 | 18.4 | | |
Primary school | 184 | 47.7 | 78 | 41.3 | 262 | 45.6 | | |
Secondary and above | 180 | 46.6 | 27 | 14.3 | 207 | 36.0 | | |
Husband’s occupational status | 21.79 | < 0.001 |
Farmer | 77 | 19.9 | 156 | 82.5 | 233 | 40.5 | | |
Gov’t/NGO/Self employee | 130 | 33.7 | 20 | 10.6 | 150 | 26.1 | | |
Merchant | 120 | 31.1 | 3 | 1.6 | 123 | 21.4 | | |
Otherse | 59 | 15.3 | 10 | 5.3 | 69 | 12.0 | | |
Time taken to nearby health institution on foot | 442.9 | < 0.001 |
< 1 h | 396 | 98.3 | 31 | 15.5 | 427 | 70.8 | | |
≥ 1 h | 7 | 1.7 | 169 | 84.5 | 176 | 29.2 | | |
Wealth quintile | | | | | | | 0.054 | 1.000 |
First quintile (poorest) | 80 | 19.9 | 40 | 20.0 | 120 | 19.9 | | |
Second quintile | 81 | 20.1 | 41 | 20.5 | 122 | 20.2 | | |
Third quintile | 77 | 19.1 | 39 | 19.5 | 116 | 19.2 | | |
Fourth quintile | 85 | 21.1 | 41 | 20.5 | 126 | 20.9 | | |
Fifth quintile (wealthiest) | 80 | 19.9 | 39 | 19.5 | 119 | 19.7 | | |
Majority of the pregnant women were married [366(90.8%) from urban and 191(95.5%) from rural area]. Regarding their educational status, 65(16.1%) from urban and 88(44.0%) from rural area had no formal education (
p < 0.001). Twenty two (5.5%) and 84 (42.2%) of their husbands had no formal education from urban and rural area respectively (
p < 0.001). Occupational status of pregnant women in urban area were statistically different from rural area (
p < 0.001). Four hundred twenty seven (70.8%) respondents were housewives among which 267(66.3%) were from urban and 160(80.0%) were from rural area. Housewive in this study indicates a married woman who manages the household as her main occupation and whose spouse usually earns the family. Seventy (19.7%) and 154(81.5%) of their husbands from urban and rural area were farmers respectively. Besides, 396(98.3%) from urban and 31(15.5%) from rural resided pregnant women were located in a resident that takes less than one hour travel time on foot to nearby health institution (
p < 0.001). In terms of their income status, 120 (19.9%) were in the first quintile (poorest) of wealth quintile (Table
1).
Maternal l characteristics
Significantly higher proportion of respondents from urban area were expecting their first child [138(34.2%) urban and 43(21.5%) rural;
p < 0.01]. One hundred ninety (74.5%) and 96(61.5%) respondents gave live birth for the first time in urban and rural area respectively (Table
2).
Table 2Obstetric characteristics of respondents by residential area, Agnuak zone (n = 603)
Gravidity | 10.76 | < 0.01 |
1 | 138 | 34.2 | 43 | 21.5 | 181 | 30.0 | | |
2–4 | 232 | 57.6 | 134 | 67.0 | 366 | 60.7 | | |
≥ 5 | 33 | 8.2 | 23 | 11.5 | 56 | 9.3 | | |
Parity | 822 | 0.474 |
1 | 190 | 74.5 | 96 | 61.5 | 286 | 47.4 | | |
2–4 | 50 | 19.6 | 49 | 31.4 | 99 | 16.4 | | |
≥5 | 15 | 5.9 | 11 | 7.1 | 26 | 4.3 | | |
Started ANC service | 6.3 | 0.481 |
Yes | 346 | 85.9 | 143 | 71.5 | 489 | 81.1 | | |
No | 57 | 14.1 | 57 | 28.5 | 114 | 18.9 | | |
Trimester of first ANC visit (by weeks) | 97.0 | 0.476 |
≤ 12 | 63 | 18.3 | 30 | 21.3 | 93 | 15.4 | | |
13–24 | 270 | 78.5 | 100 | 70.9 | 370 | 61.4 | | |
≥ 25 | 11 | 3.2 | 11 | 7.8 | 22 | 3.7 | | |
Number of ANC visits | 11.96 | 0.478 |
Planned not to attend at all | 24 | 6.0 | 38 | 19.0 | 62 | 10.3 | | |
1–3 | 8 | 2.0 | 18 | 9.0 | 26 | 4.3 | | |
≥ 4 | 366 | 92.0 | 144 | 72.0 | 510 | 84.6 | | |
History of obstetric complication | 3.19 | 0.074 |
Yes | 42 | 10.4 | 31 | 15.5 | 73 | 12.1 | | |
No | 360 | 89.6 | 169 | 84.5 | 529 | 87.9 | | |
Decision maker for obstetric care seeking | 8.28 | 0.041 |
Herself and husband | 340 | 84.4 | 161 | 80.5 | 501 | 83.1 | | |
Herself only | 30 | 7.4 | 18 | 9.0 | 48 | 7.9 | | |
Husband only | 24 | 6.0 | 8 | 4.0 | 32 | 5.3 | | |
Family/relative | 9 | 2.2 | 13 | 6.5 | 22 | 3.6 | | |
Regarding their ANC visit status, 346(85.9%) and 143(71.5%) pregnant women from urban and rural area had visited at least once during current pregnancy respectively. However, only 93(15.4%) pregnant women started ANC visit during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy in the study area (Table
2).
Forty two (10.4%) urban and 31(15.5%) rural area pregnant women had history of obstetric complication. For a pregnant woman to seek obstetric care, decision maker was significantly different in urban and rural area. Thus, higher proportion of pregnant women from urban area, 340(84.4%) made decision jointly by herself and husband compared to their rural counterparts, 161(80.5%) (Table
2).
Majority of participants in the FGD raised that a pregnant woman started ANC visit to nearby health institute when her pregnancy was about 5 months. The discussants mentioned the importance visiting health institution for ANC service. They said “it is important to attend ANC; to ascertain the duration of the pregnancy, to get vaccinated, to undergo some medical investigations, to know the date of birth, and obtain some medications such as for anemia.”
The participators of FGD were raised the importance of ANC for the health of both woman and her fetus as follows;
“Yes it is important to follow ANC visit. When I attended a health center, the professional did some checkups and advised me to come back for any unusual signs/symptoms. He also told me to prepare some clothes and bed sheets.” (A pregnant woman whose age was between 20 and 25; from urban area, FGD5)
“It is important to follow ANC visit. Because when a woman visited the health center, the doctor might update her on the wellbeing of baby. Besides, she might be informed to make some savings for any uncertainties and to prepare some clothes for the newborn baby.” A woman whose age was between 30-55; urban HDA, FGD5)
The qualitative finding also pointed out that majority of pregnant women made decisions jointly with their husbands to seek obstetric health care. However, they added that husbands were the usual finance providers especially in rural area; so decisions were not simply by pregnant women. One of the discussant from rural area explained as below;
“When it comes to decision, husband and wife decide in cooperation. However, a better idea is suggested by the husband. There is occasions she attends by herself, and sometimes, the husband accompanies her. However, I also know husbands who are very strict and never let her to go health institution unless he is willing.”(A father whose age was between 30-35; from rural area, FGD7)
“I am the one in charge of offering advice (permission). But, she can still go without my advice or permission since she can do things willfully. I also provide cash when she buys groceries or other necessary materials for her birth related costs.” (A father whose age was between 30-35; from rural area, FGD6)
The characteristics of FGD participants are provided in the Table
3 below.
Table 3Characteristics of Focus Group Discussion participants by residential area, Agnuak Zone (No of FGD = 6)
FGD Target Group |
Pregnant Women |
Age in years: | | | | |
20–25 | 5 | 56 | 4 | 44 |
26–30 | 4 | 44 | 5 | 56 |
Marital Status: Married | 9 | 100 | 9 | 100 |
Education level: Read and write | | | 2 | 22 |
Primary cycle School (1–4) | 2 | 22 | 4 | 44 |
Secondary cycle School (5–8) | 4 | 45 | 3 | 33 |
High School (9–10) | 3 | 33 | | |
Main Occupation: Housewive/Unemployed | 7 | 78 | 8 | 89 |
Farmer | | | 1 | 11 |
Self-employed/Small business | 2 | 22 | | |
HDA Leaders | | | | |
Age in years: | | | | |
30–35 | 5 | 56 | 2 | 22 |
35–40 | 2 | 22 | 3 | 33 |
40–45 | 2 | 22 | 4 | 44 |
Marital Status: Married | 9 | 100 | 9 | 100 |
Education level: Read and write | 1 | 11 | 3 | 33 |
Primary Cycle School (1–4) | 3 | 33 | 3 | 33 |
Secondary Cycle School (5–8) | 3 | 33 | 3 | 33 |
High School (9–10) | 2 | 23 | | |
Main Occupation: Housewive/Unemployed | 7 | 78 | 9 | 100 |
Self-employed/Small business | 2 | 22 | | |
Farmer | | | | |
Fathers |
Age in years: |
30–35 | 3 | 33 | 3 | 33 |
35–40 | 4 | 45 | 7 | 67 |
40–45 | 2 | 22 | | |
Marital Status: Married | 9 | 100 | 9 | 100 |
Education level: Read and write |
Primary Cycle School (1–4) | | | 3 | 33 |
Secondary Cycle School (5–8) | 4 | 45 | 4 | 45 |
High School (9–10) | 5 | 56 | 2 | 22 |
Main Occupation: |
Farmer | 2 | 22 | 7 | 78 |
Self-employed/Small business | 7 | 78 | 2 | 22 |
Knowledge of key danger signs and attitude towards BP and CR practice
Vaginal bleeding was the most common type of a key danger sign spontaneously identified by the pregnant women during pregnancy, childbirth and the postpartum period. However, significantly higher proportion of pregnant women from urban area spontaneously identified it during pregnancy, 135(33.5%); labour and childbirth, 277(68.7%); and postpartum, 221(54.8%) than their rural counterparts; [
p < 0.001] (Table
4).
Table 4Knowledge of key danger signs and attitude towards birth preparedness and complication readiness of respondents by residential area, Agnuak zone (n = 603)
Knowledge of key danger signs during pregnancy (Multiple responses) |
Severe vaginal bleeding | 135 | 33.5 | 53 | 26.5 | 188 | 31.2 | 29.35 | < 0.001 |
Swollen hands/face | 38 | 9.4 | 4 | 2.0 | 42 | 6.9 | 14.52 | < 0.01 |
Blurred vision | 13 | 3.2 | 45 | 22.5 | 58 | 9.6 | 23.37 | < 0.001 |
Knowledge of key danger signs during labour and delivery (Multiple responses) |
Severe vaginal bleeding | 277 | 68.7 | 79 | 39.5 | 356 | 59.0 | 48 | < 0.001 |
Convulsions | 23 | 5.7 | 4 | 2.0 | 27 | 4.5 | 8.20 | < 0.05 |
Prolonged labour | 156 | 38.7 | 60 | 30.0 | 216 | 35.8 | 7.77 | < 0.05 |
Retained placenta | 40 | 9.9 | 20 | 10.0 | 60 | 9.9 | 35.14 | < 0.001 |
Knowledge of key danger signs during postnatal period (Multiple responses) |
Severe vaginal bleeding | 221 | 54.8 | 65 | 32.5 | 286 | 47.4 | 32.47 | < 0.001 |
Foul smelling vaginal discharge | 10 | 2.5 | 16 | 8.0 | 26 | 4.3 | 19.79 | < 0.001 |
High fever | 95 | 23.6 | 40 | 20.0 | 135 | 22.4 | 28.39 | < 0.001 |
Knowledge of key danger signs during pregnancy, labour and delivery, and postpartum | 7.16 | < 0.01 |
Favourable knowledge | 131 | 32.5 | 44 | 22.0 | 175 | 29.0 | | |
Unfavourable knowledge | 272 | 67.5 | 156 | 78.0 | 428 | 71.0 | | |
Attitude towards birth preparedness and complication readiness | 24.44 | < 0.001 |
Favourable attitude | 249 | 61.8 | 81 | 40.5 | 330 | 54.7 | | |
Unfavourable attitude | 154 | 38.2 | 119 | 59.5 | 273 | 45.3 | | |
In the study area, only 175(20.0%) pregnant women had favourable knowledge. From these, 134(32%) were from urban area; [
p < 0.01] (Table
4).
Regarding attitude towards BP and CR practice, significantly higher proportion of pregnant women from urban area, 249(61.8%) had favourable attitude; [
p < 0.001] (Table
4).
In qualitative study, the most frequently and correctly mentioned danger signs during discussion were vaginal bleeding, prolonged labor, swelling of legs and retained placenta. However, majority of participants mentioned that most of these problems were frequently occur during labour and childbirth or after childbirth. They also mistakenly mentioned anemia, lack of vitamins, loss of appetite, and vomiting as danger signs. A pregnant woman whose age was between 20 and 25 shared the danger signs raised by majority of discussants and explained her idea as written below;
“In my opinion, the problem occurs from the beginning of her pregnancy. For example, if she falls down or carried heavy weights, she might experience physical deterioration, running liquids (leakages) in her vagina or change in her voice. At this time, her husband notices and take her to health center. Hence, such experience is not only during childbirth but also throughout her pregnancy.” (From urban, FGD2)
Community services have an important role in reducing barriers of reaching health care contact as well as improving access to a health care facility by the woman during maternal services. However, majority of discussants did not know community support systems. This might be due to one or more reasons such as unavailability of the services, not informed on those available services or difficult to access them because these services are found far away from their residence. For example, majority of discussants were not aware of organized community support services such as a blood bank and ambulance service. In the discussion, they reported that there are communities that a pregnant woman supported by her relatives and sometimes by her neighborhood. The discussants also raised that there are communities that established local group called ‘edir’ to support families who are members of the group during difficult condition. Edir is a local voluntary association established by members of the kebele to provide—among others—financial support at the time of emergency medical treatment or referral.
Participants mentioned that a woman get supported by herself or her relatives in emergency situation if she was not a member of the ‘
edir.’ Bringing clothes and flour, and performing household tasks such as cooking, searching for firewood, and fetching water were the most commonly mentioned community support by discussants. (A pregnant woman whose age was between 26 and 30; from urban area, expressed the issue as follows; FGD2);
“In my area, there is a traditional association ‘edir’ which established to save money thus a pregnant woman get supported at the time of difficulties.”
Contrary, another discussant from rural area mentioned;
“There is no any financial support group in our community. A pregnant woman accompanied by her families or herself whenever she was referred to Gambella or elsewhere.” (A pregnant woman whose age was between 26-30, FGD3)
Another father from urban area explained his experience as follows:
“When my wife was referred to Gambella hospital last year, I got cash contributed from myself and my wife’s relatives and we rented a car and went to there.” (Whose age was between 30-35, FGD4)
“… There is no blood bank around. It was in Gambella hospital when my wife was in need of blood transfusion... Then, she got transfusion blood from blood bank and then, referred to Jimma referral hospital.” (A father whose age was between 30-35; from rural area, FGD2)
Birth preparedness and complication readiness practice by residence
A total of five spontaneous responses of BP and CR practices considered in this study. Among these, significantly higher proportion of urban pregnant women identified a health facility for childbirth and emergency occasions compared to their rural counterparts [183(45.5%) urban and 59(29.5%) rural; p < 0.001]. Contrary, significantly higher proportion of pregnant women from rural area identified mode of transport to go health facility for childbirth as well as whenever emergency occurs [66(16.4%) urban and 53(26.5%) rural; p < 0.01]. Two hundred seventy five (68.4%) urban and 124(62.0%) rural women saved money to pay for costs related to childbirth and emergency occasions; p > 0.05. Fifty two (12.9%) urban and 20(10.0%) rural women identified skilled health personnel who assist them during child birth and emergency occasions. Out of 59(9.8%) pregnant women identified potential blood donor, 44(10.9%) were from urban and 15(7.5%) were from rural area.
The overall prevalence of BP and CR in this study was 23.4%. Significantly higher proportion of pregnant women from urban area spontaneously mentioned at least three BP and CR components than their rural counterparts [104(25.8%) urban and 37(18.5%) rural; p < 0.05].
In the qualitative study, majority of discussants mentioned about readiness for childbirth mainly on household preparations related to food, drinks and clothes. They were unable to mention beyond saving money and did not well understood birth preparation components as per the recommendation. The most commonly mentioned items by discussants were food stuffs like butter, drinks like soup and juices, and clothes for newborn and mother. A thirty-two years old father from urban area described the situation as (FGD4);
“…When my wife was near to give birth, I prepared many things. The surrounding environment were cleaned, I saved money for some expenditures, like to buy bed sheets and groceries. When a woman give birth, there is bleeding, so she needs to eat good diets.”
Another discussant from rural area described similar idea;
“…I have prepared butter and bought clothes for myself and my baby. I also saved money.” (A pregnant woman whose age was between 26-30; from rural, FGD2)
Majority of discussants from urban area raised that major means of transportation in their area were private vehicle and bajaj (a small vehicle which is tricycle). Whereas discussants from rural area mentioned that means of transport mostly available were motorbikes or bajaj. “Even if they saved money to pay for the cost of transportation, the vehicle was not easily available in our area,” majority of discussants said. One of the discussant whose age was between 35 and 40; father from rural area, FGD4 explained as;
“…There was a man whose wife was told to go to Hospital and wait there until she give birth. But, he ignored and kept her at home. …When the labour started, we had to carry her by local stretcher made of wood to the place where we found small vehicle, a distance which takes about 20 minutes on foot. We rented a Bajaj and went to Abobo. When we arrived at Abobo town, we got a car to Gambella town. In such situations, prior readiness is very important. Therefore, lack of preparedness contested us this much.”
Factors associated with birth preparedness and complication readiness.
From bi-variate logistic regression analysis, factors such as residence, family size, mother’s educational status, mother’s occupational status, husband’s educational status, husband’s occupational status, wealth quintiles, gravidity, trimester of first ANC visit, number of ANC visits, history of obstetric complication, decision maker for obstetric care seeking, time taken to nearby health institution, knowledge status of obstetric danger signs, attitude of women towards BP and CR practice have p-value ≤0.25 and considered for multivariable logistic regression.
In multivariable logistic regression analysis, independent predictors of BP and CR with p-value < 0.05 were residence, occupational status of pregnant women, history of at least one obstetric complication, trimester of first ANC visit, number of ANC visits, knowledge of three obstetric danger signs at least one from each phase of pregnancy, labour and delivery, and postpartum, attitude of pregnant women towards BP and CR practice and wealth quintile.
Among socio-demographic variables; residence, occupational status of pregnant women and wealth quintiles were found to be associated with BP and CR. Mothers from urban area were about 1.5 times more likely well prepared for birth and its complication than those from rural area (AOR = 1.4; CI: 1.1, 3.8). Mothers having occupation of student were 1.5 times (AOR = 1.5; CI: 1.1, 2.9) and Government employee were about 2 times (AOR = 2.1; CI: 1.3, 5.9) more likely to be prepared for birth and its complication than being housewive. Mothers in the lowest quintile of wealth status (poorest) were about 80% (AOR = 0.2; CI: 0.1, 0.7), in the 2nd quintile were about 70% (AOR = 0.3; CI: 0.1, 0.7) or 3rd quintile were about 60% (AOR = 0.4; CI: 0.2, 0.9) times less likely to be prepared for birth and its complication than those in the fifth quintiles of better wealth status (Table
5).
Table 5Factors independently associated with birth preparedness and complication readiness of respondents in Agnuak zone (n = 603)
Residence |
Urban | 104 (73.8) | 299 (64.7%) | 403 (66.8) | 1.5 (1.1, 2.3)c | 1.4 (1.1, 3.8)f |
Rural | 37 (26.2) | 163 (35.3) | 200 (33.2) | 1 | 1 |
Women’s occupational status |
Housewives | 75 (53.2) | 352 (76.2) | 427 (70.8) | 1 | 1 |
Student | 14 (9.9) | 57 (12.3) | 71 (11.8) | 1.9 (1.2, 3.9)c | 1.5 (1.1, 2.9)f |
Gov’t/NGO/Self employee | 23 (16.3) | 19 (4.1) | 42 (7.0) | 5.7 (2.9, 10.9)c | 2.1 (1.3, 5.9)f |
Merchant | 16 (11.3) | 22 (4.8) | 38 (6.3) | 3.4 (1.7, 6.8)c | 2.9(.9, 9.0) |
Othera | 3 (9.2) | 22 (2.6) | 25 (4.1) | .6 (0.1, 1.6)c | .4(.4, 2.2) |
Trimester of first ANC visit |
First trimester | 55 (40.4) | 38 (10.9) | 93 (19.2) | 5.6 (3.4, 8.9)c | 3.7 (1.8, 7.6)d |
Otherb | 81 (59.6) | 311 (89.1) | 392 (80.8) | 1 | 1 |
Number of antenatal care visits |
≥ 4 visits | 128 (91.4) | 261 (57.2) | 389 (65.3) | 7.9 (4.3, 14.8)c | 1.9 (1.2, 4.3)f |
< 4 visits | 12 (8.6) | 195 (42.8) | 207 (34.7) | 1 | 1 |
History of obstetric complication |
Yes | 50 (35.5) | 23 (5.0) | 73 (12.1) | 10.5 (6.1, 18.0)c | 7.3 (3.1, 17.4)d |
No | 91 (64.5) | 438 (95.0) | 529 (87.9) | 1 | 1 |
Knowledge status of obstetric danger signs | |
Favourable knowledge | 98 (69.5) | 77 (16.7) | 175 (29.0) | 11.4 (7.3, 17.6)c | 6.4 (3.6, 11.4)d |
Unfavourable knowledge | 43 (30.5) | 385 (83.3) | 428 (71.0) | 1 | 1 |
Attitude of women towards BP and CR |
Favourable attitude | 117 (83.0) | 213 (46.1) | 330 (54.7) | 5.7 (3.5, 9.2)c | 2.3 (1.2, 4.4)f |
Unfavourable attitude | 24 (17.0) | 249 (53.9) | 273 (45.3) | 1 | 1 |
Wealth quintile |
1st quintile (poorest) | 16 (11.3) | 104 (22.5) | 120 (19.9) | 0.2 (0.1, 0.4)c | 0.2 (0.1, 0.7)e |
2nd quintile | 26 (18.4) | 96 (20.8) | 122 (20.2) | 0.4 (0.2, 0.6)c | 0.3 (0.1, 0.7)e |
3rd quintile | 23 (16.3) | 93 (20.1) | 116 (19.2) | 0.3 (0.2, 0.6)c | 0.4 (0.2, 0.9)f |
4th quintile | 25 (17.7) | 101 (21.9) | 126 (20.9) | 0.3 (0.2, 0.6)c | 0.4 (0.2, 1.1) |
5thquintile (wealthiest) | 51 (36.2) | 68 (14.7) | 119 (19.7) | 1 | 1 |
Among the obstetric characteristics; history of obstetric complication, trimester of first ANC visit and number of ANC visits showed significant association. Mothers who had history of obstetric complication found to be about 7 times more likely to be well prepared for birth and ready for complication than their counterparts (AOR = 7.3; CI: 3.1,17.4). Mothers who started ANC visit within 12 weeks after they become pregnant were about 3.7 times more likely to be well prepared than those who started after 12 weeks (AOR = 3.7; CI: 1.8, 7.6). Those mothers who planned to attended four or more ANC visits were about 1.9 times more likely to be well prepared as compared to their counter parts (AOR = 1.9;CI:1.2,4.3) (Table
5).
Knowledge of obstetric danger signs was found to be associated with BP and CR. Mothers who knew three danger signs at least one from each phase of pregnancy, labour and delivery, and postpartum were about 7.3 times more likely to be well prepared than their counterparts (AOR = 7.3; CI: 3.1, 17.4). Regarding mothers’ attitude towards BP and CR practice, those who have favourable attitude were found to be about 2.3 times more likely well prepared than their counterparts (AOR = 2.3; CI:1.2, 4.4) (Table
5).