| Literature DB >> 26229190 |
Étienne V Langlois1, Malgorzata Miszkurka2, Maria Victoria Zunzunegui2, Abdul Ghaffar1, Daniela Ziegler3, Igor Karp4.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the socioeconomic, geographical and demographic inequities in the use of postnatal health-care services in low- and middle-income countries.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26229190 PMCID: PMC4431556 DOI: 10.2471/BLT.14.140996
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bull World Health Organ ISSN: 0042-9686 Impact factor: 9.408
Fig. 1Flowchart for the selection of studies on potential determinants of the use of postnatal care in low- and middle-income countries
Characteristics of studies included in the systematic review on the use of postnatal care services in low- and middle-income countries
| Study | Country, year | Design | Qualitya | Setting | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abbas and Walker (1986) | Jordan, 1979 | Cross-sectional national population census, with multi-stage random cluster sampling | 1 765 | Low | At the time of the study, 72% of women in rural areas lived more than 5 km from a maternal and child health clinic. The corresponding values for women in the three main cities and other urban areas were 7% and 10%, respectively. Most women (53%) reported that they had not received any education on pregnancy or child health |
| Abel Ntambue et al. (2012) | Democratic Republic of the Congo, 2010 | Cross-sectional study | 1 762 | Low | Study based in the city of Lubumbashi – the administrative centre of Katanga province and the second most populated city in the country. At the time of the study, the city had an estimated population of 1 415 835 and was divided into health-care zones that were mainly urban and where almost all health services were operational and easily accessible |
| Agha (2011) | Pakistan, 2008–2009 | Quasi-experimental before-and-after study, with no control group. Intervention: voucher scheme for obstetric services | 1 423 | Moderate | Study area was DG Khan city – a small city located in southern Punjab, in one of the poorest districts of Pakistan |
| Agha and Carton (2011) | Pakistan, 2011 | Cross-sectional representative household survey | 2 018 | Moderate | At the time of the study, financial barriers to use of maternal health services remained substantial in rural areas of Jhang district, Pakistan. About 38% of women who did not have their last birth in a health facility cited the high cost of care as the reason for not doing so |
| Amin et al. (2010) | Bangladesh, 2003–2006 | Cross-sectional household survey | 1 212 | Moderate | Study in 128 rural villages in three of the six divisions of Bangladesh: Chittagong, Dhaka and Rajshahi. Study villages were outside the catchment areas of nongovernmental health centres and could be considered remote. None of the villages was served by a health service |
| Anson (2004) | China, 1996–1999 | Cross-sectional representative household survey | 4 273 | Moderate | Survey of 288 villages in the rural northern province of HeBei. At the time of the study, privatization of rural health services and the costs of unauthorized births presented considerable barriers to the use of maternal care services The share of public funding for maternal health services had declined considerably and this had led to increases in out-of-pocket expenditure |
| Anwar et al. (2008) | Bangladesh, 2006 | Cross-sectional community survey | 2 164 | Moderate | Survey in rural and periurban areas. The mean distance between home and the nearest government hospital was 6.2 km. Government services were provided free of charge |
| Babalola and Fatusi (2009) | Nigeria, 2000–2005 | Cross-sectional nationally representative household survey in 36 states | 2 148 | Moderate | Nigeria's maternal mortality ratio is higher than the regional average and there is wide regional disparity in health status among Nigeria's diverse and multi-ethnic settings |
| Baqui et al. (2008) | India, 2001 –2005 | Quasi-experimental clustered before-and-after study with control group. Intervention: community nutrition and health government programme facilitated by CARE-India | 14 952 | Moderate | Study in two districts of rural Uttar Pradesh –India’s largest state and one of the most disadvantaged. Barriers remain with regards to accessibility and cost of services |
| Chakraborty et al. (2002) | Bangladesh, 1992–1993 | Cohort study with multi-stage random sampling | 1 020 | Moderate | In Bangladesh, four out of five women experience at least one morbidity during their index pregnancy and puerperium |
| Chatterjee and Paily (2011) | India, 2005–2006 | Cross-sectional nationally representative family health survey | 131 596 | Low | At the time of the study, only 20.3% of expenditure on health came from the government and 77.4% came from the patients’ pockets. There was very little insurance coverage available for maternity services in India, particularly in rural areas and user fees remain the norm for postnatal services |
| Dhaher et al. (2008) | West Bank and Gaza Strip, 2006 | Cross-sectional study | 264 | Moderate | Study based in three clinics located in the three largest cities in the West Bank: northern Jenin, central Ramallah and southern Hebron. Clinics provide most of the reproductive health services and are referral clinics for surrounding villages and camps |
| Dhakal et al. (2007) | Nepal, 2006 | Cross-sectional study | 150 | Moderate | The study was conducted in two Village Development Committee (VDC) areas of Kathmandu district. These were slightly more developed than a typical VDC in Nepal |
| Halder et al. (2007) | Bangladesh, 2004 | Cross-sectional study, with multi-stage cluster sampling | 4 838 | Moderate | Although reproductive health services had been expanded in the two decades prior to the study, such services were available largely to the women in urban centres. Use of such services remained very low among the poor and in underserved rural areas |
| Iyoke et al. (2011) | Nigeria, 2007–2008 | Cross-sectional study | 371 | Low | Study based in two main tertiary hospitals in the south-eastern city of Enugu: University of Nigeria Teaching Hospital and Enugu State Teaching Hospital. At the time of the study, the estimated population of Enugu was 635 451 and most residents were civil servants or traders |
| Jat et al. (2011) | India, 2007–2008 | Cross-sectional study – a nationwide household survey following a multi-stage stratified systematic sampling design | 15 782 | Moderate | At the time of the study, only 26.7% of Indians in Madhya Pradesh state resided in urban areas and the state was one of the poorest six states of India. About 38% of the state’s population was living below the poverty line in 2004–2005. In 2008, there were 270 community health centres, 1149 primary health centres and 8834 health sub-centres in the state. These provided preventive and curative health-care services in rural areas. The state also had a huge network of private health-care facilities, although these were mainly concentrated in urban areas |
| Kabakian-Khasholian and Campbell (2005) | Lebanon, 2000–2001 | Randomized controlled trial. Intervention versus placebo | 378 | High | At the time of the study, Lebanon lacked an organized health-care system and the public health-care sector only played a minor role. Four private hospitals – two in Beirut and two in the Bekaa region – were selected. All were privately owned and one in Beirut was a teaching hospital. These hospitals are located in urban areas but attract women from the suburbs of Beirut and from surrounding villages in the Bekaa. Similar to other facilities in Lebanon, postpartum practices in these hospitals are characterized by a short postpartum hospital stay and an absence of home follow-up |
| Liu et al. (2011) | China, 2005 | Cross-sectional study with multi-stage random sampling | 14 112 | Moderate | Study based in western China, where most areas are mountainous with poor economic conditions and health services, and scarce information is available on the use of maternal health-care services |
| Mahabub-Ul-Anwar et al. (2006) | Bangladesh, 2004 | Cross-sectional survey | 848 | Low | Study based in rural areas where the government provides reproductive health services through its Health and Family Welfare Centres. At the time of the study, more than 60% of the population of these areas did not have access to basic health care and more than 80% of women received no postnatal care. In theory, the rural population had free access to primary health care, family planning and reproductive health services. However, the non-availability of service providers at government facilities in rural areas was a major problem. In the private health sector, the poor were not protected by any subsidized pricing structure |
| Matijasevich et al. (2009) | Brazil, 2004 | Cohort study | 3 497 | High | The study was based in the southern city of Pelotas, when the city had a population of about 340 000 – 93% of them living in the urban area. Brazil’s publicly funded health-care system offers free access to postnatal care for every woman |
| Mistry et al. (2009) | India, 1998–1999 | Cross-sectional study, with multi-stage sampling design | 11 648 | Moderate | Study based in rural villages, most of which had low economic status and poor public health infrastructures |
| Mullany et al. (2007) | Nepal, 2003–2004 | Randomized controlled trial | 442 | High | Study based in an urban area |
| Mullany et al. (2008) | Myanmar, 2006–2007 | Cross-sectional population-based sample with two-stage cluster sampling | 2 252 | Low | At the time of the study, about 560 000 individuals had been internally displaced within Shan, Karenni, Karen and Mon states, along Myanmar’s eastern border. Myanmar has one of the world’s least functioning health systems and within the conflict zones, there is practically no functioning public health sector and the performance indicators for obstetric care are even lower than national mean values |
| Okafor (1991) | Nigeria, 1988–1989 | Cross-sectional study | 498 | Moderate | Study based in 25 communities in the Udi local government area, when the area had a general hospital, a cottage hospital and six maternity centres. The surveyed women resided in rural towns |
| Rahman et al. (2011) | Bangladesh, 2007 | Cross-sectional study, with stratified, multi-stage cluster sampling | 10 996 | Moderate | At the time of the study, two thirds of the young mothers in Bangladesh lived in rural areas, more than one in six were uneducated and over three quarters were in unpaid jobs |
| Rai et al. (2012) | Nigeria, 2003–2008 | Cross-sectional study, with equal-probability systematic sampling | 2 434 | Moderate | At the time of the study, 23% of female Nigerians aged 15–19 years had begun childbearing. Hardly any married women in Nigeria used modern methods of contraception. Over two thirds had their first pregnancy when aged less than 18 years and 46% of women aged 20–49 years had been married by the time they reached 18 years |
| Ram and Singh (2006) | India, 1998–2002 | Cross-sectional household survey | 11 454 | Moderate | Study set in Uttar Pradesh, where, at the time of the study, around 90% of deliveries were conducted at home and nearly half the deliveries were only assisted by family or friends |
| Sarma and Rempel (2007) | India, 1995–1996 | Cross-sectional, nationally representative household survey | 16 592 | Moderate | At the time of the study, distance to the nearest source of postnatal care consistently had a negative effect on a woman’s registration for – and use of – such care. Access to a bus service was an important positive determinant for the use of maternal health-care services in rural areas |
| Sharma et al. (2007) | Nepal, 1996–2001 | Quasi-experimental before-and-after study with no control group but representative samples of the Nepalese population | 7 788 | Moderate | The Safe Motherhood Programme was implemented in Nepal in 1997. It was launched as a priority programme during the 1997–2002 plan period, with the aim of increasing women’s access to health care and raising their status |
| Singh et al. (2012) | India, 2007–2008 | Cross-sectional nationwide household survey following a multi-stage stratified systematic sampling design | 93 416 | Moderate | At the time of the study, infant mortality rates in most Indian states appeared to be stabilizing rather than falling. Overall, there were 212 maternal deaths per 100 000 live births but levels of maternal mortality varied widely across the states. Although pregnant women were offered cash incentives to give birth in a health facility, there was no similar scheme in place to promote postnatal care |
| Singh et al. (2012) | India, 2005–2006 | Cross-sectional study with representative samples from all 29 states | 3 599 | Moderate | In 2005, the Indian government launched the National Rural Health Mission to improve health-system performance and people’s health status in rural areas. A conditional cash-transfer scheme was also launched to promote institutional deliveries among women in rural areas |
| Stupp et al. (1994) | Belize, 1991 | Cross-sectional area-probability household survey with two stages of selection | 979 | Moderate | In rural areas of Belize, the tropical terrain and lack of roads – especially all-weather roads – reduce access to health care for rural women. Some ethnic groups may be particularly disadvantaged because they mainly live in rural settings |
| Tang and Li (2008) | China, 1998–2003 | Cross-sectional study with stratified cluster sampling | 462 | Low | The study was based in poor regions of Sichuan province |
| Titaley et al (2009) | Indonesia, 2002–2003 | Cross-sectional survey with systematic stratified random sampling | 15 553 | Low | Study conducted in 26 of Indonesia’s 30 provinces |
| Zere et al. (2010) | Namibia, 2006–2007 | Cross-sectional study | 9 804 | Low | Namibia has one of the highest levels of income inequality in the world. At the time of the study, almost all Namibian women paid for delivery – mainly in cash but also in kind. However, 85% each paid less than the equivalent of 7.0 United States dollars |
a Studies were considered to be of high, moderate and low quality if there was judged to be a very low, low and high risk of bias in the results, respectively.
Socioeconomical determinants for the use of postnatal care services in low- and middle-income countries
| Study | Adjusted | Comparison groups | Odds ratioa |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abel Ntambue et al. (2012) | No | Woman’s occupation, with housewife used as reference | Estimated, for use of PNC for no more than 7 days after the birth, for salesperson (0.8; 95% CI: 0.1–1.1), agricultural worker (0.6; 95% CI: 0.1–1.0) and public service worker (0.8; 95% CI: 0.4–1.3). The corresponding estimates for use of PNC for no more than 28 days after the birth were 0.9 (0.6–1.2), 0.7 (0.2–1.1) and 0.9 (0.7–1.4), respectively. The corresponding estimates for use of PNC for no more than 42 days were 1.0 (0.8–1.3), 0.8 (0.5–1.2) and 1.1 (0.7–1.6), respectively |
| Woman’s level of education, with secondary used as reference | Estimated – for the non-use of PNC for the first 7 days after the birth – for primary (1.1; 95% CI: 0.8–1.6) and university (1.0; 95% CI: 0.7–1.5) levels. The corresponding estimates for the non-use of PNC for the first 28 days after the birth were 1.1 (0.8–1.5) and 1.0 (0.8–1.4), respectively. The corresponding estimates for the non-use of PNC for the first 42 days after the birth were 1.2 (0.9–1.5) and 1.4 (1.0–1.9), respectively | ||
| Agha (2011) | Yes | Wealth quintiles, with the fifth/poorest quintile used as reference | Estimated for fourth (1.31; NS), third (2.24; |
| Exposure to voucher scheme versus no exposure | 4.98 ( | ||
| Woman’s level of education, with none used as reference | Estimated for primary (1.73; | ||
| Agha and Carton (2011) | Yes | Wealth quintiles, with the first/poorest quintile used as reference | Estimated for second (1.85; |
| Woman’s level of education, with none used as reference | Estimated for less than primary (1.23; NS), completed primary (1.39; NS), middle (1.90; | ||
| Amin et al. (2010) | Yes | Wealth quintiles, with the first/poorest quintile used as reference | Estimated for second (3.36; 95% CI:1.20–9.39), third (2.58; 95% CI: 0.73–9.06), fourth (7.42; 95% CI: 1.61–34.29) and fifth (34.93; 95% CI: 6.30–193.64) quintiles |
| Credit group member versus non-member | 1.53 (95% CI: 0.64–3.67) | ||
| Woman’s level of education, with none used as reference | Estimated for 1–5 years (0.60; 95% CI: 0.25–1.42) or longer (2.14; 95% CI: 0.93–4.93) in education | ||
| Partner’s level of education, with none used as reference | Estimated for 1–5 years (0.94; 95% CI: 0.42–2.08) or longer (0.34; 95% CI: 0.11–1.04) in education | ||
| Partner’s occupation, with agriculture used as reference | Estimated for unskilled labour (1.18; 95% CI: 0.40–3.52) and skilled occupations (0.97; 95% CI: 0.36–2.65) | ||
| Anson (2004) | Yes | Household per-capita income | 1.01 (NS) |
| Woman’s years of schooling | 1.10 ( | ||
| Woman’s occupation, categorized as white-collar or other, with “other” used as reference | 2.17 ( | ||
| Anwar et al. (2008) | Yes | Asset quintile, with first/lowest used as reference | Estimated for second (1.24; 95% CI: 0.89–1.72), third (0.97; 95% CI: 0.69–1.37), fourth (1.16; 95% CI: 0.81–1.65) and fifth (1.54; 95% CI: 1.05–2.25) quintiles |
| Woman’s level of education, with none used as reference | Estimated for 1–4 (1.25; 95% CI: 0.89–1.76), 5–9 (0.90; 95% CI: 0.65–1.24) and more (1.19; 95% CI: 0.75–1.87) years of education | ||
| Husband’s level of education, with none used as reference | Estimated for 1–4 (1.38; 95% CI: 0.99–1.92), 5–9 (1.06; 95% CI: 0.79–1.42) and more (1.32; 95% CI: 0.90–1.92) years of education | ||
| Babalola and Fatusi (2009) | Yes | Household socioeconomic status, with very poor used as reference | Estimated for poor (1.01; NS), moderately rich (1.69; |
| Woman’s level of education, with none used as reference | Estimated for primary (1.65; | ||
| Baqui et al. (2008) | No | Wealth quintiles, with effect on home visits for PNC investigated | Change in absolute concentration index calculated for intervention (−0.2253; 95% CI: −0.2894 to −0.1612) and comparison (0.0104; 95% CI: −0.0761 to 0.0969) districts |
| Chakraborty et al. (2002) | Yes | Economic status, with good versus poor used as reference | Postnatal care by doctor/nurse/family-welfare visitor |
| Mother’s education, with some versus none used as reference | Postnatal care by doctor/nurse/family-welfare visitor | ||
| Husband’s occupation, with business/service versus other used as reference | Postnatal care by doctor/nurse/family-welfare visitor | ||
| Women’s gainful employment, with yes versus no used as reference | Postnatal care by doctor/nurse//family-welfare visitor | ||
| Dhaher et al. (2008) | Yes | Level of education of woman and husband, with education of both above secondary level used as reference | Estimated for couples in which only the man (0.9; 95% CI: 0.3–2.2) or woman (95% CI: 1.5; 0.6–3.4) or neither individual (1.9; 95% CI: 0.8–4.5) was educated above secondary level |
| Dhakal et al. (2007) | Yes | Woman’s occupation, with farmer used as reference | Estimated for housewife (6.28; 95% CI: 2.00–19.69) and other (3.06; 95% CI: 0.27–34.64) occupations |
| Husband’s occupation, with farmer used as reference | Estimated for males who have worked abroad and/or in the formal sector (0.83; 95% CI: 0.27–2.53) and for other non-farmers (0.15; 95% CI: 0.03–0.85) | ||
| Woman’s level of education, with illiterate used as reference | Estimated for primary (1.25; 95% CI: 0.45–3.42) and secondary (6.49; 95% CI: 2.5–17.2) levels | ||
| Husband’s level of education, with illiterate used as reference | Estimated for primary (1.32; 95% CI: 0.28–6.92) and secondary (6.33; 95% CI: 1.55–29.95) levels | ||
| Halder et al. (2007) | Yes | Wealth index quintiles, with the first/poorest used as reference | Estimated for second (1.223; NS), third (1.107; NS), fourth (1.723; |
| Woman’s level of education, with none used as reference | Estimated for primary (1.445; | ||
| Partner’s occupation, with farmer used as reference | Estimated for agricultural and non-agricultural labourers (1.299; | ||
| Halder et al. (2007) | Yes | Wealth index quintiles, with the first/poorest used as reference | Estimated for second (1.223; NS), third (1.107; NS), fourth (1.723; |
| Iyoke et al. (2011) | No | Income group, categorized as income earner or other, with other used as reference | 8.40 ( |
| Woman’s level of education, with primary or less used as reference | Estimated for secondary (0.75), tertiary (1.38) and post-tertiary (1.23) education, with an overall | ||
| Jat et al. (2011) | Yes | Socioeconomic status, with the poorest used as reference | Estimated for the poor (0.99; 95% CI: 0.85–1.14), moderately rich (1.13; 95% CI: 0.95–1.35), rich (1.03; 95% CI: 0.84–1.26) and richest (1.50; 95% CI: 1.16–1.93) |
| Woman’s poverty index, categorized as holders or non-holders of a below-the-poverty-line ration card, with the holders used as reference | 0.88 (95% CI: 0.79–0.98) | ||
| Woman’s level of education, with illiterate used as reference | Estimated for primary (1.00; 95% CI: 0.86–1.15), middle (1.17; 95% CI: 0.99–1.37) and higher (1.39; 95% CI: 1.14–1.70) levels | ||
| Woman’s occupation, with unemployed used as reference | Estimated for agricultural workers (0.92; 95% CI: 0.81–1.04) and professional, service or production workers (0.97; 95% CI: 0.77–1.23) | ||
| Husband’s level of education, with illiterate used as reference | Estimated for primary (1.03; 95% CI: 0.87–1.21), middle (0.98; 95% CI: 0.83–1.15) and higher (1.14; 95% CI: 0.96–1.35) levels | ||
| Kabakian-Khasholian and Campbell (2005) | Yes | Intervention: information booklet in Arabic, covering the correct breastfeeding position; maternal health problems; importance of the postnatal check-up at 6 weeks after the birth, father’s role in the postnatal period and family planning | Relative risk estimated to be 2.8 (95% CI: 2.2– 3.4) |
| Woman’s level of education, with below secondary used as reference | Relative risks estimated for secondary (1.8; 95% CI: 1.1– 2.5) and university (2.7; 95% CI: 2.1– 3.4) levels | ||
| Liu et al. (2011) | Yes | Wealth index, categorized as: poor, middle or rich, with poor used as reference | Estimated for the middle (1.28; 95% CI: 1.01–1.63) and rich (1.36; 95% CI: 1.03–1.80) categories |
| Woman’s level of education, with primary used as reference | Estimated for secondary (1.00; 95% CI: 0.85–1.18) and high school (1.13; 95% CI: 0.85–1.49) levels | ||
| Husband’s level of education, with primary used as reference | Estimated for secondary (0.89; 95% CI: 0.76–1.06) and high school (0.75; 95% CI: 0.48–1.16) levels | ||
| Mahabub-Ul-Anwar et al. (2006) | No | Wealth group quintile, with first/poorest used as reference | Estimated for the second (1.01), third (1.34), fourth (1.47) and fifth (2.31) quintiles |
| Matijasevich et al. (2009) | Yes | Family income quintiles, with the fifth/richest used as reference | Estimated for the first (2.61; 95% CI: 1.85–3.66), second (2.17; 95% CI: 1.55–3.05), third (2.02; 95% CI: 1.44–2.82) and fourth (1.51; 95% CI: 1.07–2.13) quintiles, with an overall |
| Insurance scheme, categorized as public or private, with private used as reference | 3.08 (1.99–4.79) | ||
| Woman’s years of schooling, with over 9 years used as reference | Estimated for 0–4 (2.64; 95% CI: 2.01–3.48) and 5–8 (2.04; 95% CI: 1.64−2.54) years, with an overall | ||
| Mistry et al. (2009) | Yes | Woman’s standard of living, categorized as low, medium or high, with low used as reference | Estimated for the medium (1.21; 95% CI: 1.06–1.39) and high (1.84; 95% CI: 1.49–2.28) categories |
| Woman’s employment status, categorized as currently employed or unemployed, with unemployed used as reference | 0.93 (95% CI: 0.82–1.06) | ||
| Woman’s years of education | 1.07 (95% CI: 1.06–1.09) | ||
| Partner’s years of education | 1.00 (95% CI: 0.98–1.01) | ||
| Mullany et al. (2007) | Yes | Intervention: antenatal health education sessions on birth preparedness and use of maternal health care, with non-intervention group used as reference | Relative risks estimated for a couples group (1.29; 95% CI: 1.04–1.60) and a women-only group (1.03; 95% CI: 0.82–1.31) |
| Okafor (1991) | Yes | Woman’s years of education | 1.10 ( |
| Rahman et al. (2011) | Yes | Woman’s wealth index, with poorest used as reference | Estimated – in a comparison of skilled PNC versus unskilled or no such care – for the poor (1.11; 95% CI: 0.67–1.51), middle (1.43; 95% CI: 1.11–2.06), richer (1.61; 95% CI: 1.34–1.97) and richest (2.12; 95% CI: 1.68–2.58). In a comparison of PNC on 1 or 2 days with more days of PNC, the corresponding values were 1.24 (0.83–1.86), 1.75 (0.94–1.82), 1.84 (1.23–2.76) and 2.08 (1.68–2.58), respectively |
| Woman’s level of education, with none used as reference | Estimated – in a comparison of skilled PNC versus unskilled or no such care – for incomplete (1.33; 95% CI: 0.78–1.49) and complete primary (1.41; 95% CI: 0.81–1.68), incomplete secondary (1.53; 95% CI: 1.12–2.00) and higher (2.03; 95% CI: 1.42–2.86) levels. In a comparison of PNC on 1 or 2 days with more days of PNC, the corresponding values were 1.07 (0.82–1.62), 1.17 (0.94–1.45), 1.51 (1.11–2.06) and 1.84 (1.23–2.76), respectively | ||
| Woman’s occupation, categorized as paid job or unpaid job, with unpaid used as reference | Estimated – in a comparison of skilled PNC versus unskilled or no such care – as 1.22 (95% CI: 0.91–1.44). In a comparison of PNC on 1 or 2 days with more days of PNC, the corresponding value was 1.14 (0.83–1.56) | ||
| Husband’s occupation, with manual labour used as reference | Estimated – in a comparison of skilled PNC versus unskilled or no such care – for agricultural workers and the self-employed (1.02; 95% CI: 0.84–1.77), professional, technical and managerial workers (2.22; 95% CI: 1.62–2.81) and other occupations (1.93; 95% CI: 1.23–2.67). In a comparison of PNC on 1 or 2 days with more days of PNC, the corresponding values were 1.11 (0.85–1.56), 1.61 (1.32–1.97) and 1.14 (0.83–1.56), respectively | ||
| Rai et al. (2012) | Yes | Wealth quintile, with first/poorest used as reference | Estimated for second (0.976; 95% CI: 0.705–1.352), third (1.310; 95% CI: 0.908–1.889), fourth (1.453; 95% CI: 0.907–2.326) and fifth (1.465; 95% CI: 0.688–3.121) quintiles |
| Woman’s work status, with not working used as reference | Estimated for working at home (1.112; 95% CI: 0.828–1.492) and away from home (1.132; 95% CI: 0.809–1.584) | ||
| Woman’s level of education, with none used as reference | Estimated for primary but below middle (1.534; 95% CI: 1.067–2.206) and for secondary and above (1.116; 95% CI: 0.706–1.765) | ||
| Husband’s level of education, with none used as reference | Estimated for primary but below middle (1.405; 95% CI: 0.990–1.993) and for secondary and above (1.638; 95% CI: 1.137–2.361) | ||
| Ram and Singh (2006) | Yes | Standard of living index, categorized as low, medium or high, with low used as reference | Estimated for medium (1.232; |
| Respondent’s level of education, categorized as literate or illiterate, with illiterate used as reference | 0.971 (NS) | ||
| Sarma and Rempel (2007) | Yes | Woman’s level of education, with illiterate used as reference | Estimated for rural women who had achieved primary (1.277; |
| Sharma et al. (2007) | Yes | Household economic status, categorized as possessing household durable goods or services or otherwise, with otherwise used as reference | 1.30 ( |
| Woman’s employment, with not employed used as reference | Estimated for manual workers (0.63; NS), agricultural workers and the self-employed (0.53; | ||
| Woman’s level of education, with none used as reference | Estimated for primary (0.96; NS) and higher (1.83; | ||
| Singh et al. (2012) | Yes | Concentration index | Estimated for home (0.027; |
| Singh et al. (2012) | Yes | Wealth quintile, with poorest used as reference | Estimated for poorer (1.021; 95% CI: 0.841–1.239), middle (1.183; 95% CI: 0.956–1.464), richer (1.360; 95% CI: 1.038–1.783) and richest (2.741; 95% CI: 1.729–4.347) |
| Woman’s level of education, with illiterate used as reference | Estimated for literate but below primary (1.417; 95% CI: 1.112–1.806), primary (1.588; 95% CI: 1.309–1.927) middle (1.912; 95% CI: 1.501–2.434) and higher (1.917; 95% CI: 1.399–2.627) levels | ||
| Husband’s level of education, with illiterate used as reference | Estimated for literate but below primary (1.059; 95% CI: 0.804–1.394), primary (1.286; 95% CI: 1.042–1.587), middle (1.070; 95% CI: 0.855–1.339) and higher (1.026; 95% CI: 0.811–1.297) levels | ||
| Stupp et al. (1994) | Yes | Woman’s years of education, with 1–7 used as reference | Estimated for 8 (1.37; |
| Woman’s working status, categorized as currently working or not working, with not working used as reference | 1.30 ( | ||
| Tang and Li (2008) | No | Annual family per capita income, with a value of less than 1000 yuan used as reference | Estimated for 1000–2999 (1.59), 3000–5000 (1.49) and more than 5000 (1.59) yuan |
| Woman’s level of education, with “illiterate or semi-literate” used as reference | Estimated for primary school (1.19), junior high school (1.40), high school (1.75) and higher (1.34) levels | ||
| Zere et al. (2010) | No | Household wealth index | Concentration index estimated to be 0.0835 (95% CI: 0.0823–0.0847) |
CI: confidence interval; NS: not significant; PNC: postnatal care.
a Unless another association measure is indicated. Odds ratios were estimated for the use of postnatal care services unless indicated otherwise.
Fig. 2Odds ratio for the association between socioeconomic status and use of postnatal care services; quintile 5 versus quintile 1 (reference)
Fig. 3Odds ratio for the association between socioeconomic status and use of postnatal care services; quintile 4 versus quintile 1 (reference)
Fig. 4Odds ratio for the association between socioeconomic status and use of postnatal care services; quintile 3 versus quintile 1 (reference)
Fig. 5Odds ratio for the association between socioeconomic status and use of postnatal care services; quintile 2 versus quintile 1 (reference)
Socioeconomic inequities in postnatal care coverage
| Country, source of data | Value for postnatal care within 2 days of birth | |
|---|---|---|
| Concentration index | Slope index of inequality (percentage points) | |
| Bangladesh (DHS 2007) | 0.371 | 50.0 |
| Benin (DHS 2006) | 0.100 | 49.5 |
| Cambodia (DHS 2010) | 0.152 | 54.9 |
| Democratic Republic of the Congo (DHS 2007) | 0.114 | 49.2 |
| Haiti (DHS 2005) | 0.382 | 66.3 |
| Kenya (DHS 2008) | 0.244 | 67.0 |
| Liberia (DHS 2007) | 0.195 | 54.1 |
| Madagascar (DHS 2008) | 0.202 | 53.3 |
| Malawi (DHS 2010) | 0.053 | 25.7 |
| Mali (DHS 2006) | 0.206 | 58.0 |
| Nepal (DHS 2006) | 0.414 | 54.7 |
| Niger (DHS 2006) | 0.526 | 59.5 |
| Sierra Leone (DHS 2008) | 0.106 | 27.2 |
| Uganda (DHS 2006) | 0.195 | 51.5 |
| United Republic of Tanzania (DHS 2010) | 0.189 | 60.6 |
| Zimbabwe (DHS 2005) | 0.146 | 60.1 |
| Azerbaijan (DHS 2006) | 0.080 | 42.3 |
| Bolivia (DHS 2008) | 0.143 | 65.5 |
| Congo (DHS 2005) | 0.086 | 46.3 |
| Egypt (DHS 2008) | 0.133 | 56.7 |
| Ghana (DHS 2008) | 0.196 | 70.9 |
| India (DHS 2005) | 0.338 | 77.3 |
| Indonesia (DHS 2007) | 0.208 | 66.5 |
| Lesotho (DHS 2009) | 0.168 | 61.7 |
| Nigeria (DHS 2008) | 0.392 | 83.6 |
| Pakistan (DHS 2006) | 0.281 | 64.9 |
| Peru (DHS 2004) | 0.131 | 67.8 |
| Philippines (DHS 2008) | 0.189 | 64.0 |
| Sao Tome and Principe (DHS 2008) | 0.048 | 25.3 |
| Swaziland (DHS 2006) | 0.105 | 49.8 |
| Zambia (DHS 2007) | 0.241 | 70.8 |
DHS: Demographic and Health Survey.
Data source: adapted from Countdown to 2015. Maternal, newborn & child survival. Building a future for women and children. The 2012 report.
Geographical determinants for the use of postnatal care services in low- and middle-income countries
| Study | Adjusted | Comparison groups | Odds ratioa |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abbas and Walker (1986) | No | Place of residence categorized as urban or rural, with rural used as reference | Estimated – for the non-use of PNC – as 1.40 |
| Agha (2011) | Yes | Travel time to nearest health facility, categorized as no more than 5 minutes or more than 5 minutes, with the longer time used as reference | 1.81 ( |
| Agha and Carton (2011) | Yes | Travel time to nearest health facility, categorized as no more than 15 minutes or more than 15 minutes, with the longer time used as reference | 1.13 (NS) |
| Anson (2004) | Yes | Distance to county hospital | 0.99 ( |
| Anwar et al. (2008) | Yes | Distance to hospital, categorized as more than 5 km or 0–5 km, with 0–5 km used as reference | 1.21 (95% CI: 0.98–1.50) |
| Babalola and Fatusi (2009) | Yes | Place of residence categorized as urban or rural, with rural used as reference | 1.63 ( |
| Chakraborty et al. (2002) | Yes | Distance to health facility, categorized as at least 1 km or less than 1 km, with less than 1 km used as reference | Estimated for care provided by doctor, nurse or family welfare visitor (0.659; 95% CI: 0.277–1.567) and care provided by other individual (1.111; 95% CI: 0.744–1.658) |
| Chatterjee and Paily (2011) | No | Place of residence categorized as urban or rural, with rural used as reference | 3.83 |
| Halder et al. (2007) | Yes | Place of residence categorized as urban or rural, with rural used as reference | 1.176 (NS) |
| Jat et al. (2011) | Yes | Place of residence categorized as urban or rural, with rural used as reference | 0.94 (95% CI: 0.78–1.11) |
| Liu et al. (2011) | Yes | Altitude of residence above sea level, with no more than 500 m used as reference | Estimated for 501–1500 (0.49; 95% CI: 0.25–0.97) and more than 1500 m (0.54; 95% CI: 0.30–0.98) |
| Mistry et al. (2009) | Yes | Distance to health facility, with less than 2 km used as reference | Estimated for 2–5 (0.80; 95% CI: 0.67–0.95) and at least 6 km (0.64; 95% CI: 0.50–0.83) |
| Mullany et al. (2008) | No | Forced displacement or relocation in prior 12 months or otherwise, with otherwise used as reference | 0.40 (95% CI: 0.13–1.28) |
| Okafor (1991) | Yes | Distance from service | 0.99 ( |
| Rahman et al. (2011) | Yes | Place of residence, categorized as urban or rural, with urban used as reference | Estimated as 0.77 (95% CI: 0.53–0.84) in a comparison of skilled PNC versus unskilled or no such care and as 0.52 (95% CI: 0.42–0.65) in a comparison of PNC on 1 or 2 days with more days of PNC |
| Distance to health facility, with less than 1 km used as reference | Estimated as 1.23 (95% CI: 0.91–1.72). in a comparison of skilled PNC versus unskilled or no such care and as 1.10 (95% CI: 0.84–1.43) in a comparison of PNC on 1 or 2 days with more days of PNC | ||
| Rai et al. (2012) | Yes | Place of residence categorized as urban or rural, with rural used as reference | 1.212 (95% CI: 0.861–1.706) |
| Ram and Singh (2006) | Yes | Distance to transport facility, categorized as 0–2 km or more than 2 km, with the longer distance used as reference | 0.947 (NS) |
| Sarma and Rempel (2007) | Yes | Distance to health facility, with less than 2 km used as reference | Estimated for 2–5 (0.777; |
| Availability of bus service in rural areas, with none available used as reference | 1.178 ( | ||
| Sharma et al. (2007) | Yes | Place of residence categorized as urban or rural, with rural used as reference | 1.24 |
| Singh et al. (2012) | Yes | Region of residence, with south used as reference | Estimated for north (0.219; 95% CI: 0.165–0.291), central (0.089; 95% CI: 0.070–0.113), east (0.157; 95% CI: 0.127–0.193), north-east (0.068; 95% CI: 0.043–0.107) and west regions (0.309; 95% CI: 0.238–0.400). |
| Stupp et al. (1994) | Yes | Place of residence categorized as rural or not rural, with not rural used as reference | 0.83 (NS) |
| Titaley et al. (2009) | ND | Place of residence, categorized as urban or rural, with urban used as reference | Estimated – for non-use of PNC – as 2.00 (95% CI: 1.54–2.60) |
CI: confidence interval; ND: not determined; NS: not significant; PNC: postnatal care.
a Unless another association measure is indicated. Odds ratios were estimated for the use of postnatal care services unless indicated otherwise.
Fig. 6Odds ratio for the association between place of residence and use of postnatal care services
Demographical determinants for the use of postnatal care services in low- and middle-income countries
| Study | Adjusted | Comparison groups | Odds ratioa |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abel Ntambue et al. (2012) | No | Woman’s marital status, with married used as reference | Estimated for the non-use of PNC within 7 (2.8; 95% CI: 0.9–14.1), 28 (1.7; 95% CI: 0.8–3.5) or 42 days of the birth (1.3; 95% CI: 0.8–2.3) |
| Anwar et al. (2008) | Yes | Woman’s religion, categorized as Muslim or other, with Muslim used as reference | 0.87 (95% CI: 0.57–1.33) |
| Babalola and Fatusi (2009) | Yes | Woman’s ethnic group, with Hausa used as reference | Estimated for Yoruba (1.57; NS), Igbo (2.10; |
| Dhakal et al. (2007) | No | Woman’s ethnic group, with Brahmin-Chhetri used as reference | Estimated for Tamang (0.15; 95% CI: 0.05–0.44) and other groups (1.03; 95% CI: 0.31–3.38). |
| Iyoke et al. (2011) | No | Woman’s marital status, with single used as reference | 1.40 ( |
| Jat et al. (2011) | Yes | Proportion of population in woman’s district of residence considered tribal, with a value of more than 50% used as reference | Estimated for 26–50% (0.60; 95% CI: 0.26–1.35) and 0–25% (0.52; 95% CI: 0.23–1.16) |
| Woman’s caste, with scheduled tribe used as reference | Estimated for scheduled (0.85; 95% CI: 0.70–1.03) and other castes (0.92; 95% CI: 0.77–1.08) | ||
| Woman’s religion, with Hindu used as reference | Estimated for Muslim (0.81; 95% CI: 0.63–1.03) and other (1.46; 95% CI: 0.75–2.83) | ||
| Liu et al. (2011) | Yes | Woman’s ethnic group, categorized as Han or minority, with minority used as reference | 0.92 (95% CI: 0.74–1.15) |
| Matijasevich et al. (2009) | Yes | Woman’s skin colour, categorized as black/mixed or white, with white used as reference | 1.37 (95% CI: 1.16–1.63) |
| Mistry et al. (2009) | Yes | Woman’s social group, with “other” used as reference | Estimated for scheduled caste (0.98; 95% CI: 0.83–1.16), scheduled tribe (0.64; 95% CI: 0.52–0.79) and other so-called backward classes (0.95: 95% CI: 0.82–1.09) |
| Woman’s religion, with Hindu used as reference | Estimated for Muslim (1.10; 95% CI: 0.90–1.35) and other (1.11; 95% CI: 0.90–1.37) | ||
| Mullany et al. (2008) | No | Woman’s ethnic group, with Karen or Karenni used as reference | Estimated for Shan or Mon (8.38; 95% CI: 4.12–17.03) |
| Rahman et al. (2011) | Yes | Woman’s religion, categorized as Muslim or non-Muslim, with non-Muslim used as reference | Estimated as 0.77 (95% CI: 0.61–1.34) in a comparison of skilled PNC versus unskilled or no such care and as 0.72 (95% CI: 0.66–1.03) in a comparison of PNC on 1 or 2 days with more days of PNC |
| Rai et al. (2012) | Yes | Woman’s religion, categorized as Muslim or Christian, with Christian used as reference | 2.008 (95% CI: 1.239–3.252) |
| Woman’s ethnic group, with Igbo or Yoruba used as reference | Estimated for Hausa, Fulani or Kanuri (0.585; 95% CI: 0.250–1.371) and other groups (95% CI: 0.904; 0.408–2.003) | ||
| Ram and Singh (2006) | Yes | Woman’s social group, with scheduled caste or scheduled tribe used as reference | Estimated for other so-called backward classes (1.039; NS) and other ethnicities (1.081; NS) |
| Woman’s religion, categorized as Muslim or Hindu, with Hindu used as reference | 1.164 (NS) | ||
| Sarma and Rempel (2007) | Yes | Woman’s caste, categorized as either upper caste or scheduled caste or tribe, with upper caste used as reference | Estimated separately for rural (1.026; NS) and urban areas (0.960; NS) |
| Sharma et al. (2007) | Yes | Woman’s religion, with Hindu used as reference | Estimated for Buddhist (0.25; |
| Singh et al. (2012) | Yes | Woman’s religion, with Hindu used as reference | Estimated for Muslim (0.877; 95% CI: 0.686–1.121) and other (0.918; 95% CI: 0.618–1.365) |
| Woman’s social group, with other used as reference | Estimated for scheduled castes (0.693; 95% CI: 0.555–0.865), scheduled tribes (0.706; 95% CI: 0.545–0.915) and other so-called other backward classes (0.584; 95% CI: 0.481–0.709) | ||
| Stupp et al. (1994) | Yes | Woman’s origins, categorized as immigrant or native, with native used as reference | 1.31 (NS) |
| Woman’s religion, categorized as Catholic or non-Catholic, with non-Catholic used as reference | 0.97 (NS) | ||
| Woman’s ethnicity and language, with Creole used as reference | Estimated for Spanish-speaking (0.64, |
CI: confidence interval; NS: not significant; PNC: postnatal care.
a Unless another association measure is indicated. Odds ratios were estimated for the use of postnatal care services unless indicated otherwise.