| Literature DB >> 27141984 |
Betty Kwagala1, Olivia Nankinga1, Stephen Ojiambo Wandera2, Patricia Ndugga1, Allen Kabagenyi1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is limited research on how the empowerment of women and intimate partner violence (IPV) are associated with skilled birth attendance (SBA) among rural women in Uganda. Therefore, the aim of this paper was to investigate the association between women's empowerment, their experience of IPV and SBA in rural Uganda.Entities:
Keywords: Africa; Empowerment; Intimate Partner Violence; Rural; Skilled Birth Attendance
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27141984 PMCID: PMC4855711 DOI: 10.1186/s12978-016-0167-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Reprod Health ISSN: 1742-4755 Impact factor: 3.223
Distribution of women by their demographics, socio-economic factors, their partners’ characteristics and skilled birth attendance during the recent delivery
| % of women | Frequency | % SBA |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age group | 0.449 | |||
| 15–19 | 6.1 | 53 | 64.2 | |
| 20–29 | 52.6 | 451 | 55.9 | |
| 30–39 | 31.5 | 271 | 53.8 | |
| 40–49 | 9.7 | 84 | 47.7 | |
| Region | 0.210 | |||
| Central | 20.9 | 179 | 63.5 | |
| Eastern | 29.4 | 252 | 57.6 | |
| Northern | 22.0 | 189 | 48.9 | |
| Western | 27.7 | 238 | 50.6 | |
| Wealth Index | <0.001 | |||
| Poorest | 24.2 | 208 | 39.7 | |
| Poorer | 25.2 | 216 | 50.5 | |
| Middle | 23.2 | 199 | 54.5 | |
| Rich | 27.4 | 235 | 72.9 | |
| Women’s Education level | <0.001 | |||
| None | 18.7 | 160 | 38.7 | |
| Primary | 63.5 | 544 | 53.5 | |
| Secondary+ | 17.9 | 153 | 77.3 | |
| Religion | 0.540 | |||
| Catholic | 43.1 | 369 | 55.2 | |
| Protestant | 28.1 | 241 | 56.2 | |
| Muslim | 11.7 | 100 | 59.5 | |
| Pentecostal and others | 17.2 | 147 | 49.4 | |
| Sex of a household head | 0.370 | |||
| male | 84.4 | 724 | 54.2 | |
| female | 15.6 | 134 | 59.2 | |
| Number of children ever born | <0.001 | |||
| 1 | 11.9 | 102 | 77.6 | |
| 2–4 | 42.2 | 362 | 55.3 | |
| 5+ | 45.9 | 394 | 48.9 | |
| Attended ANC four or more times | <0.001 | |||
| No | 51.2 | 439 | 44.8 | |
| Yes | 48.8 | 418 | 65.7 | |
| Participates in decision making in any of the four issues | 0.630 | |||
| No | 15.6 | 134 | 57.9 | |
| Yes | 84.4 | 724 | 54.4 | |
| Economically empowered - owns house or land or earns cash | 0.003 | |||
| No | 14.1 | 121 | 70.2 | |
| Yes | 85.9 | 737 | 52.5 | |
| Access to health facility is a big problem | 0.015 | |||
| No | 31.5 | 271 | 62.0 | |
| Yes | 68.5 | 587 | 51.7 | |
| Can refuse sex and ask partner to use condom | 0.001 | |||
| No | 33.5 | 287 | 46.6 | |
| Yes | 66.5 | 571 | 59.2 | |
| Experienced intimate partner violence | 0.085 | |||
| No | 47.1 | 404 | 59.4 | |
| Yes | 52.9 | 454 | 51.0 | |
| Partner’s age | 0.524 | |||
| 16–29 | 30.9 | 265 | 58.6 | |
| 30–39 | 39.4 | 338 | 53.6 | |
| 40+ | 29.8 | 255 | 53.0 | |
| Partner’s education level | <.001 | |||
| None | 11.1 | 95 | 33.7 | |
| Primary | 61.2 | 525 | 50.7 | |
| Secondary+ | 27.7 | 238 | 72.8 | |
| Partner drinks alcohol | 0.187 | |||
| No | 52.4 | 449 | 58.2 | |
| Yes | 47.6 | 408 | 51.4 | |
| Total | 100.0 | 858 | 55.0 |
Logistic regression of skilled birth attendance for the women’s recent birth and their empowerment, socio-economic and partner’s factors (DHS 2011)
| Model (1) | Model (2) | Model (3) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | OR | 95 % CI | OR | 95 % CI | OR | 95 % CI |
| Participates in decision making in any of the four issues (rc = no) | 0.93 | [0.49–1.76] | 1.07 | [0.61–1.88] | 1.09 | [0.62–1.92] |
| Economically empowered - owns house or land or earns cash (rc = no) | 0.48** | [0.27–0.83] | 0.49* | [0.28–0.86] | 0.51* | [0.29–0.88] |
| Can refuse sex and ask partner to use condom (rc = no) | 1.64** | [1.21–2.22] | 1.28 | [0.91–1.81] | 1.26 | [0.89–1.78] |
| Experienced intimate partner violence in 12 months (rc = no) | 0.71 | [0.47–1.08] | 0.86 | [0.57–1.30] | 0.86 | [0.57–1.29] |
| Access to health facility is a big problem due to distance & finances (rc = no) | 0.72 | [0.51–1.02] | 0.98 | [0.67–1.43] | 0.97 | [0.66–1.43] |
| Attended ANC four or more times (rc = no) | 2.01*** | [1.39–2.90] | 1.93*** | [1.34–2.79] | ||
| Wealth index (rc = poorest) | ||||||
| Poorer | 1.46 | [0.89–2.41] | 1.33 | [0.79–2.26] | ||
| Middle | 1.51 | [0.87–2.60] | 1.40 | [0.80–2.46] | ||
| Rich | 2.84*** | [1.58–5.12] | 2.59** | [1.41–4.76] | ||
| Women’s education level (rc = none) | ||||||
| Primary | 1.37 | [0.86–2.19] | 1.17 | [0.70–1.95] | ||
| Secondary or higher | 2.54** | [1.36–4.74] | 1.86 | [0.94–3.65] | ||
| Number of children ever born (rc = 1) | ||||||
| 2–4 | 0.38** | [0.21–0.71] | 0.40** | [0.22–0.74] | ||
| 5+ | 0.37** | [0.20–0.70] | 0.40** | [0.21–0.75] | ||
| Partner’s education level (rc = none) | ||||||
| Primary | 1.52 | [0.84–2.74] | ||||
| Secondary or higher | 2.31* | [1.18–4.50] | ||||
| Observations | 897 | 897 | 897 |
* p < 0.05- ** p < 0.01-
*** p < 0.001; rc = reference category
OR Odds Ratios
CI confidence interval
Model 1- Considered main predictor variables
Model 2- added women’s factors
Model 3- added partners’ education