| Literature DB >> 26049085 |
Seung-Ah Choe1, Jinseob Kim1, Saerom Kim1, Yukyung Park1, Siril Michael Kullaya2, Chang-yup Kim3.
Abstract
There is a known high disparity in access to perinatal care services between urban and rural areas in Tanzania. This study analysed repeated cross-sectional (RCS) data from Tanzania to explore the relationship between antenatal care (ANC) visits, facility-based delivery and the reasons for home births in women who had made ANC visits. We used data from RCS Demographic and Health Surveys spanning 20 years and a cluster sample of 30 830 women from ∼52 districts of Tanzania. The relationship between the number of ANC visits (up to four) and facility delivery in the latest pregnancy was explored. Regional changes in facility delivery and related variables over time in urban and rural areas were analysed using linear mixed models. To explore the disconnect between ANC visits and facility deliveries, reasons for home delivery were analysed. In the analytic model with other regional-level covariates, a higher proportion of ANC (>2-4 visits) and exposure to media related to an increased facility delivery rate in urban areas. For rural women, there was no significant relationship between the number of visits and facility delivery rate. According to the fifth wave result (2009-10), the most frequent reason for home delivery was 'physical distance to facility', and a significantly higher proportion of rural women reported that they were 'not allowed to deliver in facility'. The disconnect between ANC visits and facility delivery in rural areas may be attributable to physical, cultural or familial barriers, and quality of care in health facilities. This suggests that improving access to ANC may not be enough to motivate facility-based delivery, especially in rural areas.Entities:
Keywords: Antenatal care; facility delivery; repeated cross-sectional study
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26049085 PMCID: PMC4779143 DOI: 10.1093/heapol/czv054
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Health Policy Plan ISSN: 0268-1080 Impact factor: 3.344
Figure 1.Proportion of women with ANC visits > 2 or 4 and those delivered in health facility, nationwide (TDHS 1991–2010).
Comparison of maternal age, number of children, percentage of ANC, media exposure, education, nulliparity and facility delivery, urban and rural area
| Period regional indicators | Time 1 (1991–92) | Time 2 (1996) | Time 3 (1999) | Time 4 (2004–05) | Time 5 (2009–10) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Urban | Rural | Urban | Rural | Urban | Rural | Urban | Rural | Urban | Rural | ||||||
| Maternal age (years) | 26.5 ± 0.3 | 27.8 ± 0.1 | < 0.01 | 26.2 ± 0.2 | 28.1 ± 0.1 | <0.01 | 25.7 ± 0.3 | 27.9 ± 0.2 | <0.01 | 26.2 ± 0.2 | 27.9 ± 0.1 | <0.01 | 26.7 ± 0.2 | 28.4 ± 0.1 | <0.01 |
| Number of live birth | 3.1 ± 0.1 | 3.6 ± 0.0 | <0.01 | 2.9 ± 0.1 | 3.6 ± 0.0 | <0.01 | 2.5 ± 0.1 | 3.5 ± 0.1 | <0.01 | 2.7 ± 0.1 | 3.5 ± 0.0 | <0.01 | 2.6 ± 0.1 | 3.6 ± 0.0 | <0.01 |
| % of ANC ≥ 1 | 99.1 | 95.7 | <0.01 | 99.7 | 97.2 | <0.01 | 99.5 | 96.9 | 0.01 | 97.3 | 96.9 | 0.57 | 99.0 | 97.9 | 0.07 |
| % of ANC ≥ 2 | 71.3 | 71.9 | 0.77 | 64.1 | 70.5 | <0.01 | 59.6 | 70.4 | <0.01 | 62.3 | 73.2 | <0.01 | 62.3 | 70.5 | <0.01 |
| % of ANC ≥ 3 | 69.3 | 67.1 | 0.25 | 61.8 | 66.7 | <0.01 | 57.1 | 64.3 | 0.01 | 58.1 | 65.7 | <0.01 | 55.5 | 58.6 | 0.06 |
| % of ANC ≥ 4 | 58.0 | 54.4 | 0.10 | 54.8 | 53.6 | 0.49 | 52.4 | 50.9 | 0.62 | 46.1 | 45.6 | 0.75 | 35.9 | 29.6 | <0.01 |
| Media exposure rate (%) | 77.5 | 38.4 | <0.01 | 74.4 | 34.6 | <0.01 | 50.7 | 20.5 | <0.01 | 86.2 | 57.5 | <0.01 | 82.6 | 53.3 | <0.01 |
| Secondary education rate (women) (%) | 8.1 | 1.2 | <0.01 | 11.5 | 1.6 | <0.01 | 13.3 | 2.3 | <0.01 | 15.4 | 2.1 | <0.01 | 20.3 | 3.8 | <0.01 |
| Secondary education rate (partner) (%) | 14.7 | 4.7 | <0.01 | 20.5 | 5.3 | <0.01 | 17.0 | 3.7 | <0.01 | 21.6 | 5.0 | <0.01 | 27.1 | 5.1 | <0.01 |
| Proportion of nulliparous women (%)(%) | 26.0 | 18.0 | <0.01 | 27.4 | 18.8 | <0.01 | 31.7 | 17.7 | <0.01 | 27.3 | 16.9 | <0.01 | 26.5 | 15.7 | <0.01 |
| Proportion of facility delivery (%) | 64.4 | 34.9 | <0.01 | 55.6 | 30.2 | <0.01 | 50.8 | 26.2 | <0.01 | 53.4 | 31.8 | <0.01 | 55.4 | 33.7 | <0.01 |
| Number of included regions | 12 | 42 | 43 | 52 | 50 | ||||||||||
ANC, antenatal care.
All the calculations were done with weighted value. All continuous variables are presented as mean ± standard error.
Result of with three mixed regression models for facility delivery rate in the district, urban and rural area (TDHS, 1991–2010)
| Covariates | Urban | Rural | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |
| Time point | 1.01 | 1.01 | 1.02 | 0.96 | 0.96 | 0.96 |
| Mean maternal age | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 1.10 | 1.10 | 1.11 |
| Mean number of total live birth | 1.08 | 1.08 | 1.07 | 0.74 | 0.74 | 0.73 |
| Secondary education rate (women) | 0.99 | 1.02 | 1.02 | 0.93 | 0.90 | 0.88 |
| Secondary education rate (partner) | 0.98 | 0.94 | 0.94 | 1.10 | 1.13 | 1.15 |
| Media exposure rate | 1.03 | 1.05 | 1.04 | 1.03 | 1.03 | 1.03 |
| Proportion of nulliparous women | 1.07 | 1.06 | 1.05 | 1.26 | 1.26 | 1.27 |
| ANC ≥ 4 visits | 1.05 | 1.05 | 1.05 | 0.93 | 0.94 | 0.94 |
| AR(1) | ||||||
| AIC | 23.2 | 17 | 17.9 | 67.1 | 60.9 | 64.6 |
*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. All values are rounded down to second decimals.
ANC, antenatal care.
Model 1 indicates the random coefficient model without exploring the error (random coefficient model); Model 2 explores the correlation structures within the district and Model 3 contains the covariance between and within the district.
aRisk ratio in timeframe, mean maternal age and mean number of total live birth means that increment of facility delivery rate with increment of the numbers by one.
bRisk ratio in secondary education rate, ANC visits, media exposure and nulliparous women mean that increment of facility delivery rate with increment of the proportion by 10%.
Adjusted risk ratio of facility-based delivery according to percentage of women who had >1–4 ANC visits in three models, urban and rural area (TDHS, 1991–2010)
| Percentage of women in the area | Urban | Rural | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |
| ANC ≥ 1 | 1.12 | 1.10 | 1.12 | 0.93 | 0.93 | 0.93 |
| ANC ≥ 2 | 1.14*** | 1.13*** | 1.14*** | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.92 |
| ANC ≥ 3 | 1.22*** | 1.11*** | 1.11*** | 0.94 | 0.92 | 0.92 |
| ANC ≥ 4 | 1.05 | 1.05 | 1.05 | 0.93 | 0.94 | 0.94 |
* P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.
ANC, antenatal care.
Model 1 indicates the random coefficient model without exploring the error (random coefficient model); Model 2 explores the correlation structures within the district and Model 3 contains the covariance between and within the district. Risk ratio means that increment of facility delivery rate with increment of percentage of >1–4 ANC by 10%. All risk ratios were adjusted for covariates (time points, mean maternal age, mean number of total live birth, secondary education of women and partner, proportion of media exposure and nulliparous women).
Figure 2.Proportion of women with ANC visits > 2 or 4 and those delivered in health facility, urban and rural area (TDHS 1991–2010).
Reasons of home delivery in women with ANC visit more than once (N = 2388), urban and rural area (TDHS, 2009–10)
| Q: Why didn’t you deliver in a health facility? (Multiple responses) | % urban women (weighted | % rural women (weighted | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Husband/family did not allow | 0.45 | 2.69 | 0.04 |
| Facility not open | 2.75 | 1.89 | 0.54 |
| Cost too much | 7.90 | 7.84 | 0.98 |
| Too far/no transportation | 33.17 | 42.93 | 0.09 |
| No female provider at the facilitya | 0.00 | 1.41 | 0.28 |
| Not necessary | 15.89 | 19.36 | 0.36 |
| Don’t trust facility/poor quality service | 1.83 | 1.57 | 0.83 |
| Not customary | 5.96 | 9.47 | 0.26 |
aPearson’s Chi-squared test with Yates’ continuity correction. All the calculations were done with weighted value.