| Literature DB >> 26244461 |
Tajudeen O Oyewale1, Thandisizwe R Mavundla.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An understanding of the predictive effect of socioeconomic characteristics (SECs) of women on maternal healthcare service utilisation is essential in order to maximise maternal health benefits and outcomes for the newborn.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26244461 PMCID: PMC6091667 DOI: 10.4102/curationis.v38i1.1272
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Curationis ISSN: 0379-8577
FIGURE 1Pattern of exclusion of pregnant women from maternal healthcare services in Nigeria.
Contextual maternal healthcare services to reduce maternal deaths.
| Pathway to reduce maternal death | Contextual maternal healthcare services in this study |
|---|---|
| Reduce number of pregnancies. | Contraceptive services. |
| Reduce number of complications. | Antenatal care (ANC). |
| Reduce likelihood that a complication will result in death. | Skilled delivery care at birth and Postnatal care (PNC). |
Source: McCarthy, J., 1997, ‘The conceptual framework of the PMM network’, International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 59(Suppl 2), S15–S21
Classification of variables in bivariate and multivariate analysis and their respective values.
| Variable | Value |
|---|---|
| Contraceptive services | 0 = Used modern contraceptive methods |
| 1 = Did not use modern contraceptive methods | |
| Antenatal care (ANC) service | 0 = Received ANC from skilled medical providers |
| 1 = Did not receive ANC from skilled medical providers | |
| Delivery care | 0 = Had skilled attendants at birth |
| 1 = Did not have skilled attendants at birth | |
| Postnatal care (PNC) services | 0 = Receive PNC from medical personnel at any time after delivery |
| 1 = Did not receive PNC from medical personnel | |
| Age | 1 = Adolescent (younger than 20 years) |
| 2 = Young adult (20–34 years) | |
| 3 = Adult (35 years and older) | |
| Education | 0 = None / Primary education (also if primary education was not completed) |
| 1 = Secondary education (also if secondary education was not completed) | |
| 2 = Post-secondary education | |
| Birth order | 1 = Once |
| 2 = More than once | |
| Residence | 0 = Rural |
| 1 = Urban | |
| Income group | 1 = Lower |
| 2 = Average | |
| 3 = Higher | |
| Insurance status | 0 = Not covered (No) |
| 1 = Covered (Yes) | |
Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents (N = 384).
| Characteristics | Distribution | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Adolescent (younger than 20 years) | 16 | 4.2 |
| Young adult (20–34 years) | 295 | 76.8 |
| Adult (35 years and older) | 73 | 19 |
| None / Primary Education | 25 | 6.5 |
| Secondary | 107 | 27.9 |
| Post-secondary education | 252 | 65.6 |
| Single | 35 | 9.1 |
| Married | 333 | 86.7 |
| Divorced | 3 | 0.8 |
| Widow | 13 | 3.4 |
| None | 87 | 22.7 |
| 1–2 children | 182 | 47.4 |
| 3–4 children | 102 | 26.6 |
| 5 children or more | 13 | 3.4 |
| Urban | 331 | 86.2 |
| Rural | 53 | 13.8 |
| Hausa | 122 | 31.8 |
| Ibo | 111 | 28.9 |
| Yoruba | 93 | 24.2 |
| Others | 58 | 15.1 |
| 1 birth | 153 | 39.8 |
| 2 or more births | 231 | 60.2 |
Cross-tabulation of maternal healthcare service utilisation against selected socioeconomic characteristics (SEC) of respondents.
| Maternal Healthcare Service | Age (%) | Birth Order (%) | Education Level (Percentage) | Location of Residence (Percentage) | Insurance Coverage (%) | Income Group (%) | |||||||||
| < 20 years | 20–34 years | 35 years and older | 1 Birth | >1 Birth | None / Primary | Secondary | Post-Secondary | Urban | Rural | Covered | Not Covered | Lower | Average | Higher | |
| Used modern contraceptive methods ( | 1.0 | 81.9 | 17.1 | 38.2 | 61.8 | 2 | 16.6 | 81.4 | 94.5 | 5.5 | 27.6 | 72.4 | 68.3 | 13.1 | 18.6 |
| Did not use modern contraceptive methods ( | 7.6 | 71.4 | 21.1 | 41.6 | 58.4 | 11.4 | 40 | 48.6 | 77.3 | 22.7 | 19.5 | 80.5 | 80.5 | 9.7 | 9.7 |
| Received ANC from medical skilled providers ( | 0.7 | 79.3 | 20 | 28.5 | 71.5 | 5.1 | 26.8 | 68.1 | 86.1 | 13.9 | 26.4 | 73.6 | 73.9 | 10.5 | 15.6 |
| Did not receive ANC from medical skilled providers ( | 15.7 | 68.6 | 15.7 | 77.5 | 22.5 | 11.2 | 31.5 | 57.3 | 86.5 | 13.5 | 14.6 | 85.4 | 75.3 | 14.6 | 10.1 |
| Had skilled attendants at birth ( | 0.8 | 80.3 | 18.9 | 31.7 | 68.3 | 4.4 | 25.7 | 69.9 | 88.0 | 12.0 | 29.7 | 70.3 | 71.9 | 10.8 | 17.3 |
| Did not have skilled attendants at birth ( | 10.4 | 70.4 | 19.3 | 54.8 | 45.2 | 10.4 | 31.9 | 57.8 | 83.0 | 17.0 | 12.6 | 87.4 | 78.5 | 12.6 | 8.9 |
| Received PNC from medical personnel ( | 0.8 | 81.2 | 18 | 32.2 | 67.8 | 4.1 | 25.3 | 70.6 | 87.8 | 12.2 | 29.4 | 70.6 | 72.2 | 10.6 | 17.1 |
| Did not receive PNC from medical personnel ( | 10.1 | 69.1 | 20.9 | 53.2 | 46.8 | 10.8 | 32.4 | 56.8 | 83.5 | 16.5 | 13.7 | 86.3 | 77.7 | 12.9 | 9.4 |
Inequality in maternal healthcare service utilisation against income group of respondents.
| Utilisation of maternal health service | Concentration index (CI) |
|---|---|
| Used modern contraceptive methods. | 0.059† |
| Received ANC from skilled medical providers. | 0.016† |
| Had skilled attendants at birth. | 0.030† |
| Receive PNC from medical personnel. | 0.028† |
†, concentration index is positive; ANC, antenatal care; PNC, postnatal care.
FIGURE 2The Lorenz curve of income and the direct maternal healthcare expenditure concentration curve.
Predictors of utilisation of maternal healthcare services in Abuja Municipal Areas Council, Abuja, Nigeria (Logistic regression model).
| Variable | Contraceptive services | Antenatal care service | Delivery care service | Postnatal care service | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odds Ratio – Exp β (95% CI) | Odds Ratio – Exp β (95% CI) | Odds Ratio – Exp β (95% CI) | Odds Ratio – Exp β (95% CI) | |||||
| Younger than 20 years | 0.256 | 1.00 | 0.000 | 1.00 | 0.009 | 1.00 | 0.004 | 1.00 |
| 20–34 years | 0.157 | 0.32 (0.07 – 1.56) | 0.000 | 0.023 (0.00 – 0.15) | 0.003 | 0.1 (0.02 – 0.46) | 0.003 | 0.1 (0.02 – 0.46) |
| 35 years and older | 0.297 | 0.42 (0.08 – 2.17) | 0.000 | 0.03 (0.01 – 0.23) | 0.015 | 0.13 (0.03 – 0.68) | 0.026 | 0.16 (0.03 – 0.81) |
| None / Primary | 0 | 1.00 | 0.021 | 1.00 | 0.130 | 1.00 | 0.058 | 1.00 |
| Secondary | 0.191 | 0.45 (0.14 – 1.48) | 0.006 | 0.19 (0.06 – 0.61) | 0.047 | 0.38 (0.15 – 0.99) | 0.026 | 0.34 (0.13 – 0.89) |
| Post-secondary | 0.001 | 0.14 (0.05 – 0.44) | 0.017 | 0.26 (0.08 – 0.78) | 0.063 | 0.42 (0.17 – 1.05) | 0.019 | 0.33 (0.13 – 0.83) |
| Rural | - | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | 1.00 |
| Urban | 0.008 | 0.35 (0.16 – 0.76) | 0.067 | 2.43 (0.94 – 6.30) | 0.493 | 1.27 (0.64 – 2.53) | 0.338 | 1.4 (0.70 – 2.79) |
| Lower | 0.313 | 1.00 | 0.251 | 1.00 | 0.196 | 1.00 | 0.224 | 1.00 |
| Average | 0.295 | 0.69 (0.35 – 1.38) | 0.220 | 1.71 (0.73 – 4.02) | 0.568 | 1.23 (0.61 – 2.47) | 0.403 | 1.34 (0.67 – 2.68) |
| Higher | 0.21 | 0.66 (0.35 – 1.26) | 0.362 | 0.67 (0.28 – 1.60) | 0.107 | 0.55 (0.27 – 1.14) | 0.171 | 0.61 (0.30 – 1.24) |
| Once | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| More than once | 0.849 | 0.96 (0.61 – 1.51) | 0.000 | 0.1 (0.06 – 0.19) | 0.000 | 0.41 (0.26 – 0.65) | 0.000 | 0.43 (0.27 – 0.69) |
| Not covered | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | |
| Covered | 0.574 | 1.16 (0.69 – 1.96) | 0.272 | 0.66 (0.31 – 1.39) | 0.007 | 0.43 (0.23 – 0.79) | 0.016 | 0.48 (0.27 – 0.87) |
| 0.000 | 34.03 | 0.000 | 54.77 | 0.001 | 19.26 | 0.001 | 20.17 | |
| Total number of cases | 384 | 384 | 384 | 384 | ||||
| Model chi-square ( | 65.85 | 106.96 | 52.94 | 50.72 | ||||
| Model significance ( | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||||
| -2 log likelihood | 465.98 | 308.84 | 445.04 | 451.97 | ||||
CI, confidence interval.