| Literature DB >> 26819242 |
Collins O F Zamawe1,2, Masford Banda3, Albert N Dube4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mass media is critical in disseminating public health information, improving health knowledge and changing health behaviours. However, most of the mass media public health interventions do not sufficiently engage the local people; they are externally determined. Due to this, very little is known about the effects of locally instigated mass media promotion. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the impact of a community driven mass media campaign called Phukusi la Moyo (tips of life) on the utilisation of maternal health care services.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26819242 PMCID: PMC4730729 DOI: 10.1186/s12884-016-0816-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ISSN: 1471-2393 Impact factor: 3.007
Characteristics of the participants and bivariate results (n = 3439)
| Variable | n (%) | Exposure to PLM program |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No (%) | Yes (%) | ||||||
| Total | 3439 | (100.0) | 1349 | (39.2) | 2090 | (60.8) | |
| Age (years) | |||||||
| 15–19 | 224 | (6.5) | 102 | (45.5) | 122 | (54.5) | <0.003* |
| 20–29 | 1628 | (47.3) | 590 | (36.2) | 1038 | (63.8) | |
| 30–39 | 1183 | (34.4) | 480 | (40.6) | 703 | (59.4) | |
| 40–49 | 404 | (11.8) | 177 | (43.8) | 227 | (56.2) | |
| Education | |||||||
| None | 529 | (15.4) | 261 | (49.3) | 268 | (50.7) | <0.001* |
| Primary school | 2463 | (71.6) | 964 | (39.1) | 1499 | (60.9) | |
| Secondary school | 447 | (13.0) | 124 | (27.7) | 323 | (72.3) | |
| Marital status | |||||||
| Never married | 99 | (2.9) | 53 | (53.5) | 46 | (46.5) | <0.001* |
| Currently married | 3094 | (90.0) | 1180 | (38.1) | 1, 914 | (61.9) | |
| Formerly married | 246 | (7.2) | 116 | (47.1) | 130 | (52.9) | |
| Occupation | |||||||
| Farmers | 2559 | (74.4) | 1033 | (40.4) | 1526 | (59.6) | <0.001* |
| Self employed | 514 | (15.0) | 159 | (30.9) | 355 | (69.1) | |
| Casual worker | 273 | (7.9) | 119 | (43.6) | 154 | (56.4) | |
| Others | 93 | (2.7) | 38 | (40.9) | 55 | (59.1) | |
| Women’s group member | |||||||
| No | 2341 | (68.1) | 1090 | (46.6) | 1251 | (53.4) | <0.001* |
| Yes | 1098 | (31.9) | 259 | (23.6) | 839 | (76.4) | |
| Used contraceptives | |||||||
| No | 529 | (15.4) | 267 | (50.5) | 262 | (49.5) | <0.001* |
| Yes | 2910 | (84.6) | 1082 | (37.2) | 1828 | (62.8) | |
| Utilised antenatal health care services | |||||||
| No | 54 | (1.6) | 35 | (64.8) | 19 | (35.2) | <0.001* |
| Yes | 3385 | (98.4) | 1314 | (38.8) | 2071 | (61.2) | |
| Sleeping under bed-nets during pregnancy | |||||||
| No | 710 | (20.6) | 365 | (51.4) | 345 | (48.6) | <0.001* |
| Yes | 2729 | (79.4) | 984 | (36.1) | 1745 | (63.9) | |
| Delivered at health facility | |||||||
| No | 271 | (7.9) | 116 | (42.8) | 155 | (57.2) | 0.209** |
| Yes | 3168 | (92.1) | 1233 | (38.9) | 1935 | (61.1) | |
| Utilised postnatal health care services | |||||||
| No | 469 | (13.6) | 233 | (49.7) | 236 | (50.3) | <0.001* |
| Yes | 2970 | (86.4) | 1116 | (37.6) | 1854 | (62.4) | |
PLM phukusi la moyo
*Significant (p < 0.05); **Not significant (p > 0.05)
Fig. 1Sources of maternal health information (multiple responses)
Exposure to the PLM campaign and the utilisation of maternal health care services (logistic model) (n = 3439)
| Outcome variables | OR | (95 % CI) |
| AOR | (95 % CI) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Used contraceptives | ||||||
| No (Rc) | 1.00 | |||||
| Yes | 1.72 | (1.43–2.07) | <0.001* | 1.61 | (1.32–1.96) | <0.001* |
| Utilised antenatal care services | ||||||
| No (Rc) | 1.00 | |||||
| Yes | 2.90 | (1.65–5.10) | <0.001* | 2.62 | (1.45–4.73) | 0.001 |
| Slept under bed-net | ||||||
| No (Rc) | 1.00 | |||||
| Yes | 1.88 | (1.59–2.22) | <0.001* | 1.65 | (1.39–1.97) | <0.001* |
| Delivered at a health facility | ||||||
| No (Rc) | 1.00 | |||||
| Yes | 1.17 | (0.91–1.51) | 0.209** | 1.11 | (0.85–145) | 0.44** |
| Utilised postnatal care services | ||||||
| No (Rc) | 1.00 | |||||
| Yes | 1.64 | (1.35–1.99) | <0.001* | 1.59 | (1.29–1.95) | <0.001* |
OR Odds ratio
AOR Adjusted odds ratio
CI Confidence interval
Rc Reference category
*Significant (p < 0.05)
**Not significant (p > 0.05)