| Literature DB >> 27778292 |
Saturnin Bertrand Nguenda Anya1, Atanase Yene2.
Abstract
This paper seeks to identify the determinants of the choice of treatment of pregnant women in Cameroon. Theoretically, the methodology is based on a discrete choice model with random utility. Empirically, the econometric specification is a Nested Multinomial Logit Model. The data used comes from the Demographic Health Survey (DHS) organized in 2011 by the National Institute of Statistics. The results reveal that uneducated women or those having only a primary education prefer to meet the traditional midwives than seek modern maternal health services. Moreover, the absence of a paid job for the pregnant woman, the large size of the household, Islamic or animist religion, poverty, high costs of healthcare and transportation are constraints which make the pregnant woman to prefer the services of traditional midwives to modern services of maternal health. The use of modern healthcare services by pregnant women in Cameroon can therefore be improved by at least two means: firstly, by improving on the level of education of women and economically empowering them. Secondly, in a context where the costs of healthcare services are paid directly by the pregnant women themselves or by their families, it is important to put in place health insurance schemes in order to guarantee proper follow-up of pregnant women until delivery as well as taking care of complicated cases.Entities:
Keywords: Choice of treatment; Maternal health; Nested multinomial logit model; Pregnant women
Year: 2016 PMID: 27778292 PMCID: PMC5078135 DOI: 10.1186/s13561-016-0127-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Health Econ Rev ISSN: 2191-1991
Fig. 1Choice of maternal health services. Source: Authors
Means and Standard deviations of explanatory variables
| Variables | Mean | Standard deviation |
|---|---|---|
| AGE | ||
| 15-25 years | 0,3280 | 0,4672 |
| 26-29 years | 0,4413 | 0,4965 |
| 30-49 years | 0,2302 | 0,4209 |
| Level of education | ||
| No education | 0,2968 | 0,4568 |
| Primary education | 0,4297 | 0,4950 |
| Secondary | 0,2524 | 0,4344 |
| Higher | 0,0211 | 0,1436 |
| Occupation | ||
| Paid employment | 0,7704 | 0,4205 |
| Employment not remunerated | 0,2296 | 0,4205 |
| Area of Residence | ||
| Rural | 0,5554 | 0,4969 |
| Urbain | 0,4446 | 0,4969 |
| Religion | ||
| Catholic | 0,3439 | 0,4750 |
| Protestant | 0,3380 | 0,4730 |
| Moslem | 0,2344 | 0,4236 |
| Animist | 0,0302 | 0,1711 |
| Other Christian | 0,0228 | 0,1492 |
| Matrimonial status | ||
| Single | 0,0374 | 0,0189 |
| Married | 0,7172 | 0,4503 |
| Cohabitation | 0,1342 | 0,3409 |
| Widow | 0,0552 | 0,2282 |
| divorced | 0,0374 | 0,1897 |
| Size of household | ||
| 1-4 | 0,2338 | 0,4232 |
| 5-10 | 0,4 811 | 0,4933 |
| 11 and more | 0,3 297 | 0,3360 |
| State of previous pregnancy | ||
| Complicated | 0,03 | 0,178 4 |
| Noncomplicated | 0,97 | 0,1778 |
| Index of wealth | ||
| Very poor | 0,2111 | 0,4080 |
| Poor | 0,2392 | 0,4266 |
| Average | 0,2212 | 0,4150 |
| Rich | 0,1860 | 0,3891 |
| Very rich | 0,14 00 | 0,350 0 |
| Cost of care | ||
| 100-1000 | 0,2 78 0 | 0,1323 |
| 1005-10000 | 0,3 83 0 | 0,0909 |
| 10005 and more | 0,36 19 | 0,0436 |
| Cost of transport | ||
| 0-100 | 0, 24 11 | 0, 4906 |
| 150-400 | 0,41 7 0 | 0, 2654 |
| 500 and more | 0, 33 12 | 0, 5699 |
| Insurance | ||
| Ensured | 0,0298 | 0,4122 |
| Not assured | 0,9702 | 0,7701 |
| Quality of the care | ||
| Bad | 0,5841 | 0,227 8 |
| Good | 0,4159 | 0,49 45 |
Source: Author using data from [21]
Results of the estimates of the nested multinomial logit model (marginal effects)
| Traditional midwife | Public | Private denominational | Private profit seeking | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | Dy/dx | P>/Z/ | Dy/dx | P>/Z/ | Dy/dx | P>/Z/ | Dy/dx | P>/Z| |
|
| ||||||||
| Age 15-25 years | ref. | ref. | ||||||
| 26-30 years | -0,052229 | 0,978 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 31-49 years | -0,077863** | 0,034 | - | |||||
| Level education | - | - | - | - | - | |||
| No education | 0,716561*** | 0,002 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Primary education | 0,277552* | 0,073 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Secondary | -0, 8183958** | 0,016 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Higher | ref. | ref . | - | |||||
| Occupation | - | - | - | - | - | |||
| Remunerated employment | -0,1025579** | 0.033 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Employment not remunerated | ref. | ref . | - | |||||
| Religion | - | - | - | - | - | |||
| Catholic | -0,1585394 | 0,446 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Protestant | -0,446 | 0,210 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Moslem | 0,431396* | 0,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Animist | 0, 394046 * | 0,903 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Other Christian religions | ref. | ref. | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| State of last pregnancy | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| Complicated | -0,4353877** | 0.032 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Non complicated | ref . | ref . | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Matrimonial statute | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| Single | 0,7689184*** | 0,001 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Married | -0,4279708** | 0,010 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Cohabitation | -0,1742246 | 0,302 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Widowed/Divorced | Ref. | ref. | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Size of the household | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| 1-4 | ref. | ref. | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 5-10 | 0,4580059** | 0.014 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 11 and more | 0,527099*** | 0.001 | - | |||||
| Index of wealth | - | - | - | - | - | |||
| Very poor | 0,430192*** | 0,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Poor | 0,285039*** | 0,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Average | -0,458281*** | 0.006 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Rich | -0,380440** | 0,088 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Very rich | ref. | ref . | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Type of modern healthcare services chosen | ||||||||
| Cost care (FCFA) | ||||||||
| 5000-30000 | - | - | ref. | ref. | ref. | ref . | ref . | ref. |
| 30005-100000 | - | - | - 0,0726** | 0,025 | -0,085*** | 0.003 | -0,0222* | 0,098 |
| 100005 and more | - | - | - 0,26486*** | 0,000 | -0,177*** | 0,000 | -0,009** | 0,023 |
| Cost of transport (FCFA) | ||||||||
| 0-100 | - | - | ref. | ref. | ref. | ref. | ref. | ref. |
| 150-400 | - | - | -0,70673** | 0,024 | -0,50480 | 0,711 | 0,0155 0 | 0,260 |
| 500 and more | - | - | -0,781356** | 0,032 | -0,56054* | 0,093 | 0,5403*** | 0,000 |
| Insurance | ||||||||
| Ensured | - | - | 0,455742*** | 0,001 | 0,8821*** | 0.000 | 0,7683*** | 0,000 |
| Not assured | - | - | ref. | ref. | ref. | ref. | ref. | ref. |
| Quality of the care | ||||||||
| Good | - | - | 0,51071** | 0,032 | 0,570*** | 0,000 | 0,6287* | 0,0820 |
| Bad | - | ref. | ref. | ref. | ref. | ref. | ref. | |
| Place of Residence | - | |||||||
| Rural | - | - | -0,304343** | 0,032 | -0,1095* | 0,079 | -0,0023 | 0.540 |
| Urban | - | - | ref. | ref. | ref. | ref. | ref. | ref. |
|
| 4,465*** | 0.000 | ||||||
Number of individuals = 4485; Wald chi2(124) = 2837.126; Log Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 likelihood = -5366.5916
Source: Author using data from [21]. Note: indication of level of significance: ***p ≺ 0.01, **p ≺ 0.05, *p ≺ 0.1 ref.: reference class = traditional midwife, for level 1