| Literature DB >> 24612450 |
Aline Philibert1, Valéry Ridde, Aristide Bado, Pierre Fournier.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although many developing countries have developed user fee exemption policies to move towards universal health coverage as a priority, very few studies have attempted to measure the quality of care. The present paper aims at assessing whether women's satisfaction with delivery care is maintained with a total fee exemption in Burkina Faso.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24612450 PMCID: PMC3995832 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-120
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.655
Distribution of demographic and public health data characteristics between control and intervention health districts
| | ||
|---|---|---|
| | | |
| Surface area (km2) | 12 273 | 13871 |
| Total population in 2010 | 389 839 | 474846 |
| % of population below the poverty line in 2003 | 37.2 | 52.0 |
| | | |
| Most practiced religion | Islam | Islam |
| Most represented ethnic group | Peulh | Peulh |
| | | |
| Distribution of health system levels | 1 DH, 30 CSPS, 1 MC, 3 PHC | 1 DH, 1 RH, 29 CSPS, 1 MC |
| % of institutional deliveries | 59.9% | 71.2% |
Abbreviations: RH, Regional Hospital; DH, District Hospital; CSPS, Health and Social Promotion Centres; MC, military clinic; PC, private health centre.
*Statistical directory 2010 Ministry of Health - General Secretariat, General Direction for Information and Health Statistics in Burkina Faso.
Socio-demographic characteristics of women interviewed in the two study groups
| | ||
|---|---|---|
| | N(%) | N(%) |
| | | |
| ≤ 16 yrs | 11 (4.1%) | 26 (4.4%) |
| 17-34 yrs | 241 (89.6%) | 514 (86.1%) |
| ≥ 35 yrs | 17 (6.3%) | 57 (9.5%) |
| | | |
| Primiparous | 68 (25.58%) | 161 (26.88%) |
| 2-4 | 144 (53.53%) | 345 (57.60%) |
| ≥ 5 | 57 (21.19%) | 93 (15.53%) |
| | | |
| Peul | 75 (27.8%) | 480 (80%) |
| Gurma | 1 (0.4%) | 70 (11.7%) |
| Mossi | 81 (30%) | 22 (3.7%) |
| Fulsé | 66 (24.4%) | 0 (0%) |
| Bella | 5 (1.9%) | 21 (3.5%) |
| Other | 42 (15.6%) | 7 (1.2%) |
| | | |
| Monogamous | 208 (77%) | 490 (81.8%) |
| Polygamous | 62 (23%) | 101 (16.9%) |
| Other | 0 (0%) | 8 (1.4%) |
| | | |
| None | 245 (91.1%) | 494 (82.6%) |
| Literate | 14 (5.2%) | 61 (10.2%) |
| Primary | 7 (2.6%) | 31 (5.2%) |
| Secondary (and +) | 3 (1.1%) | 12 (2.0%) |
| | | |
| Farming | 253 (94.1%) | 493 (82.7%) |
| Housewife | 11 (4.1%) | 75 (12.6%) |
| Other | 5 (1.8%) | 28 (4.7%) |
| | | |
| (from lowest to highest) | ||
| Q1 | 44 (16.30%) | 130 (21.67%) |
| Q2 | 33 (12.22%) | 141 (23.50%) |
| Q3 | 57 (21.11%) | 117 (19.50%) |
| Q4 | 55 (20.37%) | 119 (19.83%) |
| Q5 | 81 (30%) | 93 (15.50%) |
| | | |
| 0-5 km | 185 (68.5%) | 353 (59.0%) |
| 6-10 km | 60 (22.2%) | 152 (25.4%) |
| 11-15 km | 14 (5.2%) | 53 (8.9%) |
| >16 km | 11 (4.1%) | 40 (6.7%) |
Characteristics of the three-dimension principal component analysis (factorial loading of selected items and Cronbach’s alpha values on each dimension)
| | | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| | ||||
| | | |||
| Care provider-patient interaction | The midwife or nurse showed up nicely for me. | 0.701 | | |
| She/he was available to me. | 0.683 | | | |
| She/he answered all my questions. | 0.684 | | | |
| She/he explained the labour process and/or childbirth. | 0.699 | | | |
| She/he was attentive to me and my requests. | 0.611 | | | |
| She/he stayed with me during labour and/or childbirth. | 0.586 | | | |
| She/he showed significant human qualities. | 0.658 | | | |
| Quality of nursing care services | I felt confident and safe with her or him. | | 0.630 | |
| The midwife or nurse was attentive to my baby. | | 0.653 | | |
| She/he reassured me about my concerns. | | 0.661 | | |
| She/he was concerned about my pain. | | 0.641 | | |
| The midwife or nurse made sure that my baby and I were doing well. | | 0.772 | | |
| Quality of care was better than anticipated. | | 0.589 | | |
| Environment to quality of birth to delivery environment | I was comfortably installed. | | | 0.682 |
| The delivery room was clean and hygiene was satisfactory. | | | 0.770 | |
| The temperature in the delivery room was satisfactory. | 0.748 | |||
Estimates and significance of covariates in the multivariate linear regressions with each separate satisfaction index as outcome
| | ||||||
| Intervention/control | 0.232 | 0.436 | 0.138 | 0.506 | 0.185 | 0.131 |
| Age reproductive group | 0.264 | 0.428 | -0.176 | 0.449 | 0.173 | 0.205 |
| Number of children | -0.086 | 0.153 | 0.082 | 0.051 | 0.052 | 0.038* |
| Ethnic group | 0.008 | 0.946 | 0.066 | 0.416 | -0.009 | 0.844 |
| Matrimonial status | 0.142 | 0.603 | 0.044 | 0.819 | 0.062 | 0.582 |
| Educational level completed | 0.204 | 0.274 | 0.455 | 0.000** | 0.288 | 0.000** |
| Occupation | 0.152 | 0.314 | -0.075 | 0.479 | -0.046 | 0.461 |
| Wealth quintiles | -0.343 | 0.007** | 0.275 | 0.002** | -0.072 | 0.165 |
| Distance to nearest health facility | 0.077 | 0.333 | -0.151 | 0.006** | -0.051 | 0.120 |
Abbreviations: Index 1, care provider-patient interaction; Index 2, quality of nursing care services; Index 3, environment to quality of birth to delivery.
Significance level *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
Characteristics of average satisfaction and comparison tests between intervention and control groups.
| | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Delivery care fee | Very poor | Wealthy | Comparison test (T test) | Very poor | Wealthy | Comparison test (T test) |
| Nurses with caring attitudes and behaviours | 18.48 | 17.45 | 0.842 | 17.23 | 17.87 | 0.108 |
| Nursing care services | 17.93 | 16.85 | 0.451 | 17.29 | 16.68 | 0.929 |
| Delivery environment | 9.64 | 8.88 | 0.722 | 9.26 | 9.21 | 0.617 |
Figure 1Frequency of very dissatisfied and satisfied women among the poorest and the wealthiest ones, for each group (control/intervention) and each dimension. a. Most dissatisfied women and wealth. Frequency of very dissatisfied women (lowest quintile of satisfaction Q1) in the poorest and wealthiest wealth quintile for each group (control/intervention) and each dimension. b. Most satisfied women and wealth. Frequency of very satisfied women (highest quintile of satisfaction Q5) in the poorest and wealthiest wealth quintile for each group (control/intervention) and each dimension. Footnote. Histograms in grey and black corresponded to the poorest wealth quintile and wealthiest wealth quintile, respectively. Abbreviations: C, control health district of Djibo (with fees); I, Intervention health district of Sebba and Dori (without fees). Significance level on comparison of *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.