| Literature DB >> 26013564 |
Frances Ampt1,2, Myo Myo Mon3, Kyu Kyu Than4,5, May May Khin6, Paul A Agius7,8, Christopher Morgan9,10,11, Jessica Davis12, Stanley Luchters13,14,15.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that increasing male involvement in maternal and newborn health (MNH) may improve MNH outcomes. However, male involvement is difficult to measure, and further research is necessary to understand the barriers and enablers for men to engage in MNH, and to define target groups for interventions. Using data from a peri-urban township in Myanmar, this study aimed to construct appropriate indicators of male involvement in MNH, and assess sociodemographic, knowledge and attitude correlates of involvement.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26013564 PMCID: PMC4445797 DOI: 10.1186/s12884-015-0561-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ISSN: 1471-2393 Impact factor: 3.007
Indicators of male involvement in the composite index
| Indicator of male involvement | Rationale for inclusion | Limitations | Binary variable | Score in index |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accompanying female partner to ANC at least once during the most recent pregnancy | Most common definition of involvement used in the literature | Anecdotally, husband would rarely join wife in the consultation in Myanmar; instead may wait in the waiting room or outside* | 1: Participant sometimes, mostly or always accompanied their wife to ANC | 1 |
| Broad meaning of ‘accompany’; non-specific measure of involvement | 0: Never accompanied | |||
| Father’s presence at the most recent childbirth | Common indicator in the literature | Broad meaning of ‘presence’; non-specific measure of involvement | 1: Present | 1 |
| 0: Not present | ||||
| Presence in the room during labour is culturally inappropriate in Myanmar,* but presence nearby allows husband to support his wife and newborn in other ways | ||||
| Discussion of partner’s most recent pregnancy and birth with a health care provider | May indicate a greater depth of involvement and a greater readiness to assist | May indicate a male-dominant approach to pregnancy care | 1: Discussion between participant and provider | 1 |
| Not seen elsewhere in the literature | 0: No discussion (or participant doesn’t recall, n = 1) | |||
| Shared decision-making regarding antenatal and delivery care provider with their partner during the last pregnancy | Reflective of inter-spousal communication, which is an important component of involvement and impacts on MNH outcomes | Subject to recall and social desirability biases | 1: Both participant and wife made the decision | 1 |
| Doesn’t describe the extent or depth of communication within couples | 0: Participant, wife, older family members or others made the decision | |||
| Shared contraceptive decision-making with partner | Inter-spousal communication in the context of contraceptive use is well examined in the literature and associated with positive family planning outcomes | 1 |
*Personal communication, Burnet Institute Myanmar, 2013
Attitude statements reflecting the role of men
| Domain of expectations for the role of men | Attitude statement |
|---|---|
| Direct assistance with pregnancy and child rearing | Husbands do not need to help with child care |
| Knowledge to facilitate involvement | Husbands do not need to know the danger signs during pregnancy and childbirth |
| Husbands do not need to have contraceptive knowledge | |
| Inter-spousal communication and shared decision-making | Contraceptive decision making depends only on wife |
| Men should tell their wives if they have contracted an STI | |
| Men should not disclose to their wives they have contracted HIV infection |
Sociodemographic, knowledge and attitude characteristics of survey respondents, and levels of male involvement in MNH by indicator: N = 203
| Sociodemographic characteristics | |
|---|---|
| Respondent’s age in years: median (IQR) | 32 (27–38) |
| Wife’s age in years: median (IQR) | 30 (24–34) |
| Education: n (%) | |
| Illiterate | 4 (2 %) |
| Primary/basic literacy | 47 (23 %) |
| Middle school | 83 (41 %) |
| High school/university | 69 (34 %) |
| Wife’s education: n (%) | |
| Illiterate | 6 (3 %) |
| Primary/basic literacy | 54 (27 %) |
| Middle school | 68 (34 %) |
| High school/university | 75 (37 %) |
| Employment: n (%) | |
| Unemployed | 2 (1 %) |
| Odd jobs or daily wager | 109 (54 %) |
| Private or government employee or own business | 79 (39 %) |
| Other | 13 (7 %) |
| Wife’s employment: n (%) | |
| Unemployed | 139 (68 %) |
| Odd jobs or daily wager | 18 (9 %) |
| Private or government employee or own business | 36 (18 %) |
| Other | 10 (5 %) |
| Number of children: median (IQR) | 2 (1–3) |
| Household income (USD/month)*: n (%) | |
| ≤100 | 95 (47 %) |
| >100 | 108 (53 %) |
| Religion: n (%) | |
| Buddhist | 194 (96 %) |
| Muslim | 7 (3 %) |
| Other | 2 (1 %) |
| Knowledge of MNH and attitudes towards male involvement | |
| Knowledge score: median (IQR) | 8 (6–10) |
| Favourable attitude to male role in MNH: n (%) | 78 (38 %) |
| Indicators of male involvement: n (%) | |
| Accompanied wife to ANC | 166 (82 %) |
| Present at the place of childbirth | 177 (87 %) |
| Discussed pregnancy with a health provider | 55 (27 %) |
| Shared decision regarding health care provider | 123 (61 %) |
| Shared decision regarding contraception | 141 (69 %) |
* Equivalent to 100,000 Myanmar kyats
Factors associated with male involvement in MNH: Proportional-odds regression models showing unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios, 95 % confidence intervals and probability values (n=203)*
| Independent variable | Unadjusted OR | 95 % CI† | p-value | Adjusted OR | 95 % CI† | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sociodemographic factors | ||||||
| Respondent’s age | 0.99 | 0.97 – 1.02 | 0.616 | 0.99 | 0.96 - 1.02 | 0.481 |
| Respondent’s wife’s age | 1.00 | 0.97 – 1.03 | 0.893 | 1.02 | 0.98 - 1.06 | 0.348 |
| Education | ||||||
| Up to primary | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| Middle school | 1.33 | 0.80 – 2.21 | 0.240 | 0.72 | 0.42 – 1.24 | 0.237 |
| High school/ university | 3.26 | 2.02 – 5.27 | <0.001 | 1.10 | 0.57 - 2.12 | 0.780 |
| Wife’s education | ||||||
| Up to primary | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| Middle school | 1.53 | 0.86 – 2.73 | 0.130 | 1.43 | 0.91 – 2.25 | 0.116 |
| High school/university | 4.36 | 2.80 – 6.80 | <0.001 | 3.39 | 1.90 – 6.15 | <0.001 |
| Number of children | 0.81 | 0.65- 1.01 | 0.057 | 0.78 | 0.63 – 0.95 | 0.016 |
| Household income (USD/month) | ||||||
| ≤100 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| >100 | 1.20 | 0.64 – 2.24 | 0.527 | 1.20 | 0.62 – 2.31 | 0.591 |
| Knowledge of MNH | ||||||
| Knowledge score | 1.20 | 1.11 – 1.29 | <0.001 | 1.18 | 1.10 – 1.27 | <0.001 |
| Overall attitude to male role in MNH (attitude scale) | ||||||
| Unfavourable | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| Favourable | 1.92 | 1.16 – 3.17 | 0.016 | 1.44 | 0.93 – 2.23 | 0.105 |
* Multivariable model cut-points: k1 = 0.47, k2 = 2.13, k3 = 4.13
† Sandwich variance estimation used to provide appropriate standard errors for village clustering
Fig. 1Plots of predicted marginal probabilities of each of the four levels of male involvement by wife’s level of education. The red dashed line represents the base level probability of male involvement at the specified level. Whiskers represent 95 % confidence intervals around each probability estimate
Fig. 2Plots of predicted marginal probabilities of each of the four levels of male involvement by level of knowledge of MNH
Fig. 3Plots of predicted marginal probabilities of each of the four levels of male involvement by number of children