01.12.2015 | Research article | Ausgabe 1/2015 Open Access

Losing women along the path to safe motherhood: why is there such a gap between women’s use of antenatal care and skilled birth attendance? A mixed methods study in northern Uganda
- Zeitschrift:
- BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth > Ausgabe 1/2015
Competing interests
Authors’ contributions
Background
Summary - annual service statistics - Lalogi, Uganda - MSF/Spain/Uganda MoH
|
|||
---|---|---|---|
Indicator (annual total)
|
2006
|
2007
|
2008*
|
total # first ANC visits/year
|
1150
|
2250
|
2711
|
total # ANC visits (first + follow up)/ year
|
1790
|
4264
|
5824
|
total # deliveries/year
|
435
|
491
|
577
|
ratio first ANC visits/deliveries
|
2.6:1
|
4.6:1
|
4.7:1
|
Methods
Study setting
Study design
Conceptual framework
Study population, selection, and recruitment of participants
Delivered at health facility (most recent birth)
|
Did not deliver at health facility (most recent birth)
|
Total
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Primipara (1)
|
5
|
6
|
11
|
Multipara (2+)
|
14
|
11
|
25
|
Total
|
19
|
17
|
36
|
Data collection
Data management and analysis
Ethics
Results
Characteristics of the quantitative study sample
Frequency
|
Percent
|
|
---|---|---|
Age (
n = 136)*
|
||
15–19
|
19
|
14.0
|
20–24
|
40
|
29.4
|
25–29
|
38
|
27.9
|
30–34
|
26
|
19.1
|
35–45
|
13
|
9.6
|
Education (
n = 136)*
|
||
Woman’s education
|
||
No formal education
|
26
|
19.1
|
Incomplete primary
|
90
|
66.2
|
Completed primary
|
17
|
12.2
|
Some secondary (or above)
|
03
|
2.2
|
Husband’s education
|
||
No formal education
|
10
|
7.4
|
Incomplete primary
|
50
|
36.8
|
Completed primary
|
34
|
25.0
|
Some secondary (or above)
|
42
|
30.9
|
Ethnic group (
n = 136)*
|
||
Acholi
|
69
|
50.7
|
Langi
|
67
|
49.3
|
Distance to nearest health facility offering delivery services (
n = 113)*
|
||
<2 km
|
14
|
12.4
|
2–<3 km
|
21
|
18.6
|
3–5 km
|
39
|
34.5
|
>5 km
|
39
|
34.5
|
Time to reach nearest health facility offering delivery services (
n = 119)*
|
||
<2 h
|
42
|
35.3
|
2–3 h
|
65
|
54.6
|
>3 h
|
12
|
10.1
|
Time to reach Lalogi health facility (
n = 132)*
|
||
<= 1 h
|
31
|
22.3
|
>1–3 h
|
82
|
59.0
|
>3 h
|
19
|
13.7
|
Cost of reaching nearest delivery care site (
n = 100)**
|
||
0–1,000
|
22
|
22.0
|
1,001–2000
|
23
|
23.0
|
2,001–3,000
|
23
|
23.0
|
3,001–5,000
|
21
|
21.0
|
>5,000–15,000
|
11
|
11.0
|
Birthing history and advice received at antenatal care regarding SBA
Frequency
|
Percent
|
|
---|---|---|
Gravidity (
n = 138)*
|
||
1
|
14
|
10.1
|
2
|
28
|
20.1
|
3
|
15
|
10.8
|
4
|
19
|
13.7
|
5
|
24
|
17.3
|
6–7
|
19
|
13.7
|
8–10
|
19
|
13.7
|
In women of gravidity ≥ 2
|
||
Advice received at ANC during last pregnancy to deliver at HF (
n = 121)**
|
89
|
73.6
|
Place of last delivery: health facility (
n = 122)**
|
71
|
58.2
|
Ever had C-section/stillbirth/fits (
n = 123)**
|
14
|
11.4
|
Decision-making related to current pregnancy and childbirth: socio-cultural, gender, and husband/family influence
Frequency
|
Percent
|
|
---|---|---|
Length of pregnancy
|
||
0–3 months
|
13
|
9.6
|
4
|
32
|
23.5
|
5
|
25
|
18.4
|
6
|
37
|
27.2
|
7+
|
29
|
21.3
|
Who decides where woman will give birth?
|
||
Self
|
36
|
26.5
|
Husband or partner
|
43
|
31.6
|
Self & husband/partner together
|
41
|
30.2
|
Other
|
16
|
11.5
|
Intended place of delivery for current pregnancy
|
||
Health facility
|
133
|
97.8
|
With TBA (home)
|
3
|
2.2
|
Factors associated with choice of birth setting: advice at ANC, socio-cultural and birthing history factors
Factor
|
Delivery in health facility
|
p-value*
|
Crude Odds Ratio
|
---|---|---|---|
[95 % Confidence Interval]
|
|||
Woman’s highest level of education
|
n = 71
|
p = 0.92
|
|
No formal education
|
14/25 (56.0 %)
|
1
|
|
Incomplete primary
|
47/81 (58.0)
|
1.09 [.44–2.70]
|
|
Completed primary (or above)
|
10/16 (62.5)
|
1.31 [.36–4.82]
|
|
Husband’s highest level of education
|
n = 71
|
p = 0.46
|
|
No formal education
|
6/9 (66.7)
|
2.09 [0.45–9.67]
|
|
Incomplete primary
|
22/45 (48.9)
|
1
|
|
Completed primary
|
20/32 (62.5)
|
1.74 [0.68–4.46]
|
|
Some secondary (or above)
|
23/36 (63.9)
|
1.85 [0.74–4.61]
|
|
Age
|
n = 71
|
p = 0.34
|
|
15–19
|
7/9 (77.8)
|
1.75 [0.31–10.02]
|
|
20–24
|
24/36 (66.7)
|
1
|
|
25–29
|
20/38 (52.6)
|
0.56 [0.21–1.45]
|
|
30–34
|
12/26 (46.2)
|
0.43 [0.15–1.25]
|
|
35–45
|
8/13 (61.5)
|
0.80 [0.21–3.03]
|
|
Ethnic group
|
n = 71
|
p = 0.01
|
|
Acholi
|
44/64 (68.8)
|
2.53 [1.18–5.41]
|
|
Langi
|
27/58 (46.6)
|
1
|
|
Religion
|
n = 69
|
p = 0.54
|
|
Catholic
|
51/84 (60.7)
|
1
|
|
Protestant
|
18/33 (54.6)
|
.78 [.34–1.76]
|
|
Gravidity
|
n = 124
|
p = 0.02
|
|
2
|
20/28 (71.4)
|
1
|
|
3–4
|
24/34 (70.6)
|
0.96 [0.32–2.92]
|
|
5+
|
27/59 (45.8)
|
0.34 [0.12–0.92]
|
|
Who decides where woman gives birth
|
n = 71
|
p = 0.95
|
|
Self
|
21/34 (61.8)
|
1
|
|
Husband/partner
|
23/41 (56.1)
|
.79 [.31–2.01]
|
|
Self & husband/ partner together
|
20/34 (58.8)
|
.88 [.33–2.36]
|
|
Other
|
7/13 (53.9)
|
.72 [.20–2.67]
|
|
Woman needs permission to attend health centre
|
p = 0.16
|
1.70 [.81–3.6]
|
|
Yes
|
46/73 (63.0)
|
||
No
|
24/48 (50.0)
|
||
Perceived ease of reaching nearest health facility offering delivery care
|
n = 66
|
p = 0.27
|
|
Very difficult
|
13/21 (61.9)
|
1
|
|
Difficult
|
36/54 (66.7)
|
1.23 [.43–3.53]
|
|
Easy
|
13/28 (46.4)
|
.53 [.16–1.73]
|
|
Very easy
|
4/5 (80.0)
|
2.46 [.22–28.12]
|
|
Distance to nearest health facility offering delivery care
|
n = 59
|
p = 0.44
|
|
Less than 2 km
|
8/12 (66.7)
|
2.22 [0.47–10.50]
|
|
2–<3 km
|
9/19 (47.4)
|
1
|
|
3–5 km
|
23/34 (67.7)
|
2.32 [0.71–7.61]
|
|
>5 km
|
19/35 (54.3)
|
1.32 [0.43–4.10]
|
|
Time it takes to reach this health facility (Lalogi)
|
n = 71
|
p = 0.14
|
|
Under 1.5 h
|
16/29 (55.2)
|
1
|
|
1.5–3 h
|
47/73 (64.4)
|
1.47 [0.61–3.55]
|
|
>3 h
|
8/18 (44.4)
|
0.65 [0.20–2.16]
|
|
Time to reach nearest HF offering delivery services
|
n = 63
|
p = 0.45
|
|
Under 1.5 h
|
18/35 (51.4)
|
1
|
|
1.5–3 h
|
38/59 (64.4)
|
1.71 [.72–4.05]
|
|
>3 h
|
7/11 (63.6)
|
1.65 [.40–6.83]
|
|
Average fee (UGX) from home to nearest HF offering delivery services
|
n = 59
|
p = 0.79
|
|
0–1,000
|
11/18 (61.1)
|
1
|
|
1,001–2000
|
16/22 (72.7)
|
1.70 [.44–6.62]
|
|
2,001–3,000
|
16/23 (69.6)
|
1.46 [.39–5.45]
|
|
3,001–5,000
|
10/18 (55.6)
|
.80 [.21–3.06]
|
|
>5,000–15,000
|
6/10 (60.0)
|
.96 [.19–4.78]
|
|
Woman’s knowledge of danger or warning signs during labour & delivery
|
n = 71
|
p = 0.63
|
|
0/none
|
23/38 (60.5)
|
1
|
|
1 danger sign
|
26/47 (55.3)
|
0.81 [0.34–1.94]
|
|
2 danger signs
|
6/13 (46.2)
|
0.56 [0.15–2.04]
|
|
3 or more danger signs
|
16/24 (66.7)
|
1.30 [0.44–3.84]
|
|
Previous complications – ever experienced C-section, stillbirth, or fits
|
(
n = 71)
|
p = 0.63
|
|
Yes
|
9/14 (64.3)
|
1.34 [.42–4.28]
|
|
No
|
62/108 (57.4)
|
1
|
|
Whether woman received advice at ANC during last pregnancy to deliver at health facility
|
n = 71
|
p = .005
|
|
Yes
|
59/89 (66.3)
|
3.28 [1.37–7.85]
|
|
No
|
12/32 (37.5)
|
1
|
Factor
|
Unadjusted OR [95 % CI]
|
Adjusted OR [95 % CI]
|
---|---|---|
Model including ANC delivery advice, ethnic group & gravidity (
n = 120)
|
||
Whether woman received advice at ANC during last pregnancy to deliver at health facility
|
3.28 [1.37–7.85]
|
2.81 [1.12–7.01]
|
Ethnic group
p = 0.88*
|
||
Langi
|
1
|
1
|
Acholi
|
2.53 [1.18–5.41]
|
1.94 [0.86–4.37]
|
Gravidity
p = 0.03**
|
||
2
|
1
|
1
|
3–4
|
0.96 [0.32–2.92]
|
0.91 [0.28–3.00]
|
5+
|
0.34 [0.12–0.92]
|
0.33 [0.12–0.94]
|
Voices from the villages: Why is there such a gap between women’s use of ANC and SBA? (Qualitative results)
Quality of Care: Fear, shame, and maltreatment as barriers to health facility delivery
Access Barriers, timing and progression of labour, and a critical window of time
"You need to give money summing 30,000 UGX [~$15 USD] onward for fuel [for the ambulance]. [If] you fail to produce it, you [stay behind] and die. You are referred and that is the problem [of] the mother who cannot afford getting such amount.... It's not catered for by the policy - because if it was so, the distributed ambulances, they know that they are going to [need] fuel, and now they are saying there's no fuel”.
Poverty: many faces, few choices (socio-economic factors)
Socio-cultural and gender barriers: Perceptions and realities
“The general tendency is for home delivery because it’s more comfortable… and there’s no need for health facility delivery if the woman is not unwell…. The reason to go to health facility is if [she] thinks something may go wrong back home. Women go to ANC to get the card and get registered so they are not blamed if they go to health facility for delivery, in case of complications….” (male policymaker)
The supply side: human resources management and health systems challenges in implementing a universal SBA policy
Discussion
What health workers say matters: association between advice at ANC and place of delivery
Quality of care and client-provider interaction as a primary barrier
Access viewed as a major barrier by all groups of respondents
Poverty: from dignity to “defeat”
What enables women to deliver in health facilities?
Birth planning and preparedness, including advice at ANC
Strengthening the supply side: health systems and health workers need greater resources, support
Study strengths and limitations
Recommendations for future research
-
An analysis of why health workers do not consistently and universally advise ANC clients to deliver at health facilities; whether they have made the shift from the high-risk profiling approach in ANC to promoting SBA for all; and whether they are aware of the ANC-SBA gap in their own health facility’s service statistics;
-
Testing and comparing the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, acceptability, and sustainability of various strategies for improving quality of care and client-provider interaction, as perceived by women clients, especially the poor and vulnerable.
-
A comprehensive review examining all relevant programmes and policies on maternal and newborn health in Northern Uganda, using a “post-conflict” and a “pro-poor” lens to assess: 1) whether the repatriation has worsened the situation and, if so, how this deterioration of accessibility can be prevented, and 2) how policies and practices (e.g., “requirements”) disadvantage the poor;
-
Evaluating various “pro-poor” strategies, such as demand-side financing to assess which ones might effectively alleviate the problem of pervasive poverty in the region and increases uptake of SBA;