| Literature DB >> 23158554 |
Peter W Gething1, Fiifi Amoako Johnson, Faustina Frempong-Ainguah, Philomena Nyarko, Angela Baschieri, Patrick Aboagye, Jane Falkingham, Zoe Matthews, Peter M Atkinson.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Appropriate facility-based care at birth is a key determinant of safe motherhood but geographical access remains poor in many high burden regions. Despite its importance, geographical access is rarely audited systematically, preventing integration in national-level maternal health system assessment and planning. In this study, we develop a uniquely detailed set of spatially-linked data and a calibrated geospatial model to undertake a national-scale audit of geographical access to maternity care at birth in Ghana, a high-burden country typical of many in sub-Saharan Africa.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23158554 PMCID: PMC3533981 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-991
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Figure 1Schematic diagram showing main input data, analytical steps, and primary outputs in generation of a calibrated nationwide journey-time model. SAE = small area estimation; EA = enumeration area; WoCBA = women of childbearing age.
Figure 2Modelled journey-time to health facilities offering care at birth. Mapped values show estimated journey-time via (top row) mechanised and (bottom row) non-mechanised transport from each pixel to the nearest facility offering (A and D) any level of care at birth; (B and E) Partial/Basic/Comprehensive EmONC services; or (C and F) Comprehensive EmONC services. Facilities of each type are overlaid as black dots and district and regional boundaries are also shown.
Summary of geographical access to three levels of facility-based birth care in Ghana, by region
| < 2 hrs | 5,586,265 (90%) | 4,099,329 (66%) | 3,384,040 (55%) | |
| > 2 hrs | 619,438 (10%) | 2,106,374 (34%) | 2,821,663 (46%) | |
| > 4 hrs | 185,917 (3%) | 1,091,760 (18%) | 1,766,669 (29%) | |
| < 2 hrs | 1,708,397 (95%) | 1,315,565 (73%) | 1,223,834 (68%) | |
| > 2 hrs | 87,721 (5%) | 480,553 (27%) | 572,284 (32%) | |
| > 4 hrs | 12,561 (1%) | 197,955 (11%) | 276,998 (15%) | |
| < 2 hrs | 479,302 (87%) | 318,954 (58%) | 269,541 (49%) | |
| > 2 hrs | 69,043 (13%) | 229,391 (42%) | 278,803 (51%) | |
| > 4 hrs | 11,851 (2%) | 133,026 (24%) | 189,944 (35%) | |
| < 2 hrs | 430,841 (87%) | 297,882 (60%) | 250,054 (50%) | |
| > 2 hrs | 66,107 (13%) | 199,066 (40%) | 246,894 (50%) | |
| > 4 hrs | 7,534 (2%) | 106,144 (21%) | 195,614 (39%) | |
| < 2 hrs | 600,380 (96%) | 426,226 (68%) | 394,962 (63%) | |
| > 2 hrs | 23,831 (4%) | 197,986 (32%) | 229,249 (37%) | |
| > 4 hrs | 8,000 (1%) | 64,969 (10%) | 110,305 (18%) | |
| < 2 hrs | 782,777 (99%) | 736,523 (94%) | 644,211 (82%) | |
| > 2 hrs | 2,406 (1%) | 48,660 (6%) | 140,972 (18%) | |
| > 4 hrs | 0 (0%) | 19,734 (3%) | 63,860 (8%) | |
| < 2 hrs | 428,607 (78%) | 205,709 (37%) | 139,996 (25%) | |
| > 2 hrs | 122,486 (22%) | 345,383 (63%) | 411,096 (75%) | |
| > 4 hrs | 37,463 (7%) | 228,182 (41%) | 276,431 (50%) | |
| < 2 hrs | 230,331 (98%) | 130,994 (56%) | 122,261 (52%) | |
| > 2 hrs | 4,245 (2%) | 103,582 (44%) | 112,314 (48%) | |
| > 4 hrs | 43 (0%) | 45,690 (20%) | 82,763 (35%) | |
| < 2 hrs | 145,442 (91%) | 94,318 (59%) | 56,933 (36%) | |
| > 2 hrs | 14,915 (9%) | 66,039 (41%) | 103,423 (65%) | |
| > 4 hrs | 1,735 (1%) | 38,352 (24%) | 73,455 (46%) | |
| < 2 hrs | 340,811 (72%) | 273,282 (58%) | 178,094 (38%) | |
| > 2 hrs | 132,105 (28%) | 199,634 (42%) | 294,822 (62%) | |
| > 4 hrs | 65,228 (14%) | 114,732 (24%) | 209,138 (44%) | |
| < 2 hrs | 439,376 (82%) | 299,875 (56%) | 104,152 (19%) | |
| > 2 hrs | 96,580 (18%) | 236,081 (44%) | 431,804 (81%) | |
| > 4 hrs | 41,502 (8%) | 142,975 (27%) | 288,162 (54%) |
Values are the estimated number (and regional percentage) of women of childbearing age living less than 2 hours, greater than 2 hours or greater than 4 hours journey-time from their nearest facility offering each level of care. Also shown in the left-hand column are the estimated total number of women of childbearing age in each region. EmONC = emergency obstetric and newborn care.
Figure 3District level summaries of estimated geographical access by women of childbearing age to nearest health facilities offering care at birth. Panels relate to facilities offering (A) any level of care at birth; (B) Partial/Basic/Comprehensive EmONC services; and (C) Comprehensive EmONC services. District and regional boundaries are also shown.
Comparison of national and international targets for provision of comprehensive EmONC facilities with estimated levels of geographic access
| 318,848 | 63% | 54% | 71% | ||
| 262,503 | 76% | 68% | 85% | ||
| 228,213 | 88% | 49% | 65% | ||
| 526,802 | 38% | 50% | 61% | ||
| 185,430 | 63% | 82% | |||
| 434,418 | 46% | 82% | 92% | ||
| 308,570 | 65% | 25% | 50% | ||
| 343,826 | 58% | 52% | 65% | ||
| 169,441 | 35% | 54% | |||
| 699,959 | 71% | 29% | 38% | 56% | |
| 775,199 | 64% | 26% | 19% | 46% | |
Percentages exceeding stated targets are highlighted in bold.
1. Population ratios derived from [29] with population data based on provisional results from 2010 Ghana Statistical Service Population and Housing Census. 2. Targets as stated in [29] and [30].