| Literature DB >> 25246073 |
Francis Levira1, Lauren Gaydosh, Astha Ramaiya.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health professionals and public health experts in maternal and newborn health encourage women to deliver at health facilities in an effort to reduce maternal and newborn mortality. In the existing literature, there is scant information on how migration, family members and community influence facility delivery. This study addresses this knowledge gap using 10 years of longitudinal surveillance data from a rural district of Tanzania.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25246073 PMCID: PMC4190333 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-329
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ISSN: 1471-2393 Impact factor: 3.007
Figure 1Trends in community rates of facility delivery in RHDSS, 2001 –2010.
Figure 2Proportion of facility deliveries in RHDSS, 2001 – 2010.
Figure 3Facility based delivery differential in RHDSS, 2001–2010.
Logistic regression analysis on the determinants of facility delivery in Rufiji-Model: 1-2
| Model 1* | Model 2** | |
|---|---|---|
| n = 19,992 | n = 19,992 | |
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |
|
| ||
| Mother’s age | 0.96(0.93-0.99) | 0.93(0.9-0.97) |
| Mother’s age2 | 1(1) | 1(1) |
| Parity | 0.89(0.87-0.91) | 0.89(0.87-0.92) |
| Education level | ||
|
| ref | ref |
|
| 1.03(0.96-1.1) | 1.16(1.07-1.25) |
|
| 1.48(1.16-1.88) | 1.75(1.35-2.27) |
| Female migrants | ||
|
| ref | ref |
|
| 1.31(1.23-1.4) | 1.2(1.11-1.29) |
| Occupation | ||
|
| ref | ref |
|
| 1.72(1.55-1.91) | 1.56(1.39-1.76) |
|
| 1.61(1.4-1.84) | 1.53(1.31-1.79) |
| Distance from facility | 0.93(0.92-0.94) | 0.98(0.97-0.99) |
| Multiple birth | ||
|
| ref | ref |
|
| 1.6(1.32-1.94) | 1.5(1.22-1.84) |
| Marital status | ||
|
| ref | ref |
|
| 0.99(0.92-1.06) | 1.01(0.93-1.1) |
| Season | ||
|
| ref | ref |
|
| 0.89(0.83-0.95) | 0.9(0.84-0.97) |
| Economic status | ||
|
| ref | ref |
|
| 1.21(1.1-1.33) | 1.13(1.02-1.26) |
|
| 1.45(1.32-1.59) | 1.32(1.19-1.47) |
|
| 1.96(1.77-2.17) | 1.59(1.42-1.78) |
|
| 3.55(3.12-4.04) | 2.66(2.3-3.07) |
| Previous place of delivery | ||
|
| ref | ref |
|
| 0.38(0.34-0.42) | 0.41(0.36-0.46) |
|
| 0.32(0.29-0.35) | 0.51(0.45-0.56) |
| Previous pregnancy outcome | ||
|
| ref | ref |
|
| 1.68(1.51-1.87) | 1.77(1.57-2.01) |
|
| 1.87(1.41-2.48) | 1.92(1.42-2.6) |
|
| ||
| Female community years of schooling | 0.72(0.52-0.99) | |
| Community asset index | 2.37(1.88-2.98) | |
| Female mean age of community | 1.17(1.03-1.32) | |
|
| ||
| Region [SE] | 0.58(0.44-0 .75) | |
| Mother [SE] | 0.52(0.42-0.65) |
Ref = Reference category/comparison group.
SE = Standard error of random variance.
*Simple logistic regression with individual level variable.
**Multilevel logistic regression model with individual and community level variables and random effects variables for mother and village.
Logistic regression analysis on the determinants of facility delivery in Rufiji-Model: 3-4
| Model 3* | Model 4** | |
|---|---|---|
| (n = 2240) | n = 910 | |
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |
|
| ||
| Mother’s age | 0.84(0.74-0.96) | 1.03(0.84-1.25) |
| Mother’s age2 | 1(1–1.01) | 1(1) |
| Parity | 0.87(0.77-0.97) | 0.83(0.7-0.98) |
| Education level | ||
|
| ref | ref |
|
| 1.22(0.97-1.55) | 0.98(0.68-1.4) |
|
| 1.61(0.86-3.03) | 0.41(0.13-1.29) |
| Female migrants | ||
|
| ref | ref |
|
| 1.2(0.96-1.5) | 1.28(0.9-1.83) |
| Occupation | ||
| Famers | ref | ref |
|
| 1.41(1.05-1.89) | 1.44(0.84-2.49) |
|
| 1.12(0.8-1.58) | 2.6(0.88-7.71) |
| Distance from facility | 0.97(0.94-1) | 0.94(0.9-0.99) |
| Multiple birth | ||
|
| ref | ref |
|
| 1.37(0.72-2.6) | 0.46(0.17-1.21) |
| Marital status | ||
|
| ref | ref |
|
| 1(0.78-1.27) | 1.05(0.68-1.6) |
| Season | ||
|
| ref | ref |
|
| 0.92(0.73-1.15) | 0.85(0.6-1.23) |
| Economic status | ||
|
| ref | ref |
|
| 1.39(0.99-1.93) | 1.63(0.95-2.8) |
|
| 1.41(1.02-1.96) | 1.08(0.65-1.79) |
|
| 1.51(1.07-2.13) | 1.5(0.88-2.57) |
|
| 2.09(1.37-3.19) | 2.97(1.41-6.27) |
| Previous place of delivery | ||
|
| ref | ref |
|
| 0.67(0.43-1.03) | 0.99(0.45-2.18) |
|
| 0.57(0.4-0.79) | 0.53(0.34-0.83) |
| Previous pregnancy outcome | ||
|
| ref | ref |
|
| 1.43(0.91-2.25) | 0.9(0.4-2.06) |
|
| 0.7(0.26-1.86) | 5.59(1.11-28.23) |
| Sister’s previous facility delivery | ||
|
| ref | ref |
|
| 1.29(1.15-1.45) | |
| Number of previous sisters-in-law facility delivery | 1.7(1.35-2.13) | |
|
| ||
| Female community years of schooling | 0.78(0.53-1.16) | 0.67(0.46-0.97) |
| Community asset index | 1.93(1.45-2.57) | 2.13(1.51-3.01) |
| Female mean age of community | 1.17(0.99-1.39) | 1.28(1.09-1.52) |
|
| ||
| Region [SE] | 0.55(0.38-0.80) | 0.34(0.15-0 .79) |
| Mother [SE] | 0.35(0.09-1.37) | 0.28(0–8.9) |
Ref = Reference category/comparison group.
SE = Standard Error of random variance.
*Multilevel logistic regression model with random effects for mother and village with sister variable.
**Multilevel logistic regression model with random effects for mother and village with sisters and sister-in-law variables.