Introduction
Methods
Study setting and research design
Study population and sampling technique
Study population
Sample size determination for quantitative approach
Test for sample size adequacy
Sampling procedure
Methods of data collection tools and process
Questionnaire-interview method
Focus group discussions (FGDs)
Statistical analyses
Diet diversity score
Results
Response rate
Socio-demographic characteristics of adolescent who are pregnant or lactating and quality-oriented overall utilization of nutrition services as proxy to access to quality nutrition services
Characteristics (n = 337) | Frequency | Percentage | OR | 95% CI |
---|---|---|---|---|
Age [Mean (SD) = 16.3 (2.2)years] | 337 | – | 0.91 | 0.77–1.09 |
Adolescent status | ||||
Lactating | 233 | 69.1 | 1.00 | – |
Pregnant | 104 | 30.9 | 0.49* | 0.29–0.81 |
Marital status | ||||
Single living with Parent/Guardian | 198 | 58.8 | 1.00 | – |
Married | 126 | 37.4 | 1.12 | 0.19–6.50 |
Separated | 7 | 2.1 | 0.74 | 0.16–3.60 |
Single living alone | 6 | 1.8 | 0.97 | 0.58–1.66 |
Highest level of education | ||||
Primary Completed | 94 | 27.9 | 1.00 | – |
Primary Ongoing | 36 | 10.7 | 1.83 | 0.18–18.40 |
Secondary Ongoing | 74 | 22.0 | 2.88 | 0.29–28.60 |
Secondary Completed | 27 | 8.0 | 6.00 | 0.56–64.00 |
Stopped Going to School | 102 | 30.3 | 3.52 | 0.35–35.00 |
Tertiary Ongoing | 4 | 1.18 | – | – |
Religion | ||||
Others, Specify | 14 | 4.2 | 1.00 | – |
Christian | 323 | 95.8 | 0.44 | 0.04–5.30 |
Source of food | ||||
Own agricultural production | 240 | 71.6 | 1.00 | – |
Purchase from market | 187 | 55.8 | 1.44 | 0.93–2.27 |
Food aid | 13 | 3.9 | 0.75 | 0.23–2.49 |
Donation from neighbors and/or friends | 14 | 4.2 | 1.11 | 0.36–3.42 |
Church donation | 2 | 0.6 | 1.66 | 0.09–30.60 |
Dependency on parent or guardians | 168 | 50.1 | 0.62* | 0.39–0.99 |
Perceived quality of nutrition services
R6- Yes in reality when I was pregnant, I was advised and given morale and due to that I was really very happy...
R2- Yes, I think they are satisfied because after talking with the doctor, she will realize it is normal to everyone and she can find support from community at large.
Quality of food based on diet diversity
Facility-based determinants to overall utilization of critical services and products related to pregnant and lactating adolescents and their children
Factor | OR | 95% CI |
---|---|---|
Service provider | ||
#Nutritionists | 3.18* | 1.50–6.60 |
Nurse | 2.70* | 1.40–5.30 |
Clinical Officer | 1.64 | 0.70–3.70 |
CHVs | 1.08 | 0.50–2.20 |
Community Development Social Worker | 0.29 | 0.10–1.50 |
Pharmacists | 0.39 | 0.06–2.70 |
Type of facility | ||
#Public dispensaries | 1.27 | 0.60–3.00 |
Private clinic | 0.44 | 0.20–1.30 |
Private hospital | 1.84 | 0.10–27.10 |
Public hospital | 0.25 | 0.01–6.50 |
Public Health Centre | 4.52* | 1.50–13.50 |
CBO and NGO health project | 0.59 | 0.20–1.80 |
FBO project | 1.61 | 0.40–6.10 |
At school | 0.81 | 0.40–1.70 |
Distance facility | ||
# < 1 km | 2.42* | 1.20–4.80 |
1-5 km | 5.34* | 1.90–15.10 |
Methods of conveying messages | ||
#Video clips | 1.00 | – |
IEC materials e.g. brochures leaflet etc. | 7.85* | 1.50–40.50 |
Face-to-face | 3.91* | 1.30–11.90 |
Social media e.g. WhatsApp and Facebook pages | 0.29 | 0.10–1.40 |
Radio broadcasting | 1.22 | 0.70–2.30 |