| Literature DB >> 28298198 |
Saji S Gopalan1, Ashis Das2, Natasha Howard3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fragile and conflict-affected situations (FCS) in Asia and the Middle-East contribute significantly to global maternal and neonatal deaths. This systematic review explored maternal and neonatal health (MNH) services usage and determinants in FCS in Asia and the Middle-East to inform policy on health service provision in these challenging settings.Entities:
Keywords: Asia; Care-seeking; Fragile and conflict-affected; Maternal and neonatal health; Middle-East; Service usage
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28298198 PMCID: PMC5353776 DOI: 10.1186/s12905-017-0379-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Womens Health ISSN: 1472-6874 Impact factor: 2.809
Conceptual definitions
| Concept | Definition |
|---|---|
| Asia | The largest continent in the world, occupying the eastern part of the Eurasian landmass and its adjacent islands, and bordered by the Ural Mountains, Arctic, Pacific and Indian Oceans, and Mediterranean and Red Seas. |
| Middle East | A term referring, generally, to the geographical area and countries between the Black Sea to the north and the Arabian Sea to the south, including Iran and Egypt (e.g. Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Israel/Palestine, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Yemen) [ |
| Fragile and conflict-affected situation (FCS | The World Bank Harmonised List of Fragile Situations (FY14) was used, as it is accepted by several development banks and agencies [ |
| Health services usage | Use of health services and supplies, it is commonly measured in terms of patterns or rates per unit of population at risk during a specified time-period [ |
| Maternal services | Any preventive and curative services related to pregnancy, childbirth and the postpartum period [ |
| Newborn services | Any preventive and curative postnatal services during the first 28 days after birth, including early breastfeeding within an hour of birth, exclusive breastfeeding, treating illnesses and symptoms, and newborn vaccination [ |
Methodological quality assessment criteria adapted from MMAT
| Assessment criteria | Indicators |
|---|---|
| Scientific rigor of data collection, analysis and reporting of qualitative studies | Are the sources of qualitative data (i.e. informants, observations, documents) relevant to address the research question? |
| Is the process for analysing qualitative data relevant to address the research question? | |
| Is appropriate consideration given to how findings relate to the context (e.g. setting in which data were collected? | |
| Is appropriate consideration given to how findings relate to researchers’ influence (e.g. through their interactions with participants)? | |
| Scientific rigour of data collection, analysis and reporting of quantitative studies | Is the sampling strategy relevant to address the quantitative research question (quantitative aspect of the mixed methods question)? |
| Is the sample representative of the population under study? | |
| Is there an acceptable response rate (e.g. 60% or above)? | |
| Are the statistical methods used appropriate for measurement? | |
| Was there any recall bias in reporting data? |
Fig. 1Flow chart of study selection
Study characteristics and quality score, ordered by country and year
| Author (year) | Country | Design | Sample | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Newbrander et al. (2013) [ | Afghanistan | Qualitative | 30 IDIs and 29 FGDs with community members in 5 districts | 6/9 |
| Rahmani and Brekke (2013) [ | Afghanistan | Qualitative | 12 IDIs with pregnant/recently-delivered women and 15 IDIs with providers in 2 provinces | 6/9 |
| Hirose et al. (2011) [ | Afghanistan | Cross-sectional | 411 paired couples surveyed at 1 regional hospital | 7/9 |
| Mayhew et al. (2008) [ | Afghanistan | Cross-sectional | 9917 recently-delivered (2 years) women surveyed in 33 provinces | 5/9 |
| Khorrami et al. (2008) [ | Afghanistan | Cross-sectional | 292 women inpatients with obstetric complaints surveyed at 1 hospital | 5/9 |
| Najem and Al-Deen (2011) [ | Iraq | Cross-sectional | 251 primipara postnatal mothers surveyed at 1 hospital | 4/9 |
| Siziya et al. (2009) [ | Iraq | Secondary survey | 22,980 recently-delivered (1 year) MICS participants | 8/9 |
| Sharma et al. (2014) [ | Nepal | Cross-sectional | 240 recently-delivered (1 year) women surveyed in 1 district. | 5/9 |
| Choulagai et al. (2013) [ | Nepal | Cross-sectional | 2481 recently-delivered (1 year) women surveyed in 3 districts | 7/9 |
| Karkee et al. (2013) [ | Nepal | Prospective cohort | 700 pregnant women in 1 district | 7/9 |
| Shrestha et al. (2012) [ | Nepal | Cross-sectional | 732 married reproductive-age women | 6/9 |
| Ulak et al. (2012) [ | Nepal | Cross-sectional | 352 mothers of infants attending vaccination | 6/9 |
| Devkota and Bhatta (2011) [ | Nepal | Cross-sectional | 71 mothers of newborns | 4/9 |
| Dhakal et al. (2011) [ | Nepal | Cross-sectional | 150 recently-delivered women | 7/9 |
| Dhaher et al. (2008) [ | Palestine | Cross-sectional | 264 postpartum outpatient women | 7/9 |
| Giacaman et al. (2007) [ | Palestine | DHS survey | 2158 women residing in the West Bank and Gaza Strip | 7/9 |
| Kempe et al. (2013) [ | Yemen | Mixed-methods | 220 women with childbirth experience in urban/rural areas | 7/12 |
| Basaleem (2012) [ | Yemen | Mixed-methods | 1678 women surveyed and 11 FGDs with men and women | 9/12 |
Maternal and neonatal service usage, ordered by service type and % usage
| Service | Study | Outcome | % usage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Antenatal care (ANC) | Basaleem (2012) [ | Professional ANC | 97.7% |
| ANC in 1st trimester | 60% | ||
| Choulagai et al. (2013) [ | 4+ ANC | 57% | |
| Devkota and Bhatta (2011) [ | At least one ANC | 71.8% | |
| Skilled birth attendance (SBA) | Basaleem (2012) [ | SBA usage | 50% |
| Choulagai et al. (2013) [ | SBA usage | 48% | |
| Dhakal et al. (2011) [ | SBA usage | 31% | |
| Mayhew et al. (2008) [ | SBA usage | 13% | |
| Kempe et al. (2013) [ | TBA usage (untrained) | 71 (32%) | |
| TBA usage (trained) | 10 (5%) | ||
| No one attended delivery | 30 (14%) | ||
| Attended by medical doctor | 37 (17%) | ||
| Attended by nurse-midwife | 29 (13%) | ||
| Facility-based delivery (FBD) | Devkota and Bhatta (2011) [ | Facility-based delivery | 8.5% |
| Giacaman et al. (2006) [ | Facility-based delivery | 96.5% | |
| Delivered in govt hospital | 56.4% | ||
| Delivered in private hospital | 28.3% | ||
| Karkee et al. (2013) [ | Facility-based delivery | 85% | |
| Postnatal care (PNC) | Basaleem (2012) [ | Received any PNC | 20% |
| Dhaher et al. (2008) [ | Received any PNC | 36.6% | |
| Dhakal et al. (2011) [ | Received any PNC | 34% | |
| Received any within 48 h of birth | 19% | ||
| Received from a hospital | 78% | ||
| Received from a trained physician | 65% | ||
| Received from a nurse | 20% | ||
| Received from another health-worker | 16% | ||
| Newborn care | Devkota and Bhatta (2011) [ | Breastfed within 1 h of delivery | 7% |
| Najem and Al-Deen (2011) [ | Breastfed within 1 h of delivery | 7% | |
| Never breastfed | 13.5% | ||
| Ulak et al. (2012) [ | Breastfed within 1 h of delivery | 57% | |
| Devkota and Bhatta (2011) [ | Did not seek health services for newborn complications | 70.4% | |
| Did not vaccinate newborn | 35.2% |
Factors affecting maternal and neonatal service usage, ordered by service type and outcome
| Author (year), country | Outcomes | Determinants | Odds ratio or percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Skilled birth attendance | |||
| Choulagai et al. (2013) [ | SBA usage | Education | |
| Informally educated | OR 1.18 (CI0.92–1.51), | ||
| Wealth quintile | |||
| Q2 (poorer) | OR 1.08 (CI 0.81–1.43), | ||
| Knowledge | |||
| Knowledge of at least one danger sign | OR 1.31 (CI 1.08–1.58), | ||
| Distance | |||
| Staying ≤ 30 min from facility | OR 1.31 (CI 1.08–1.58), | ||
| ANC use | |||
| ≥ 4 ANC visits | OR 2.39 (CI 1.97–2.89), | ||
| Mayhew et al. (2008) [ | SBA usage | Wealth quintile | |
| Q2 (poorer) | OR 1.6 (CI 1.2–2.3), | ||
| Distance | |||
| Walking distance to clinic (31–60 min) | OR 0.7 (CI 0.6–0.8), | ||
| Education | |||
| Formally educated | OR 3.8 (CI 3.2–4.5), | ||
| Earlier been to this health facility | OR 1.7 (CI 1.3–2.1), | ||
| At least some basic EmONC equipment in facility | OR 1.0 (CI 0.7–1.3), | ||
| ≥ 1 Community health worker in catchment area | OR 0.7 (CI 0.6–0.95), | ||
| ≥ 1 female TBA in catchment area | OR 1.3 (CI 1.0–1.7), | ||
| ≥ 1 female doctor or midwife at health facility | OR 1.4 (CI 1.1–1.8), | ||
| User fees collected in facility | OR 0.8 (CI 0.6–0.96), | ||
| Antenatal care provided in facility | OR 1.1 (CI 0.8–1.5), | ||
| Siziya et al. (2009) [ | TBA usage | Wealth quintile | |
| Q2 (poorer) | OR 2.90 (CI 2.49–3.39), | ||
| Age | |||
| Women aged 25–34 years | AOR 1.22 (CI 1.08–1.39), | ||
| Education | |||
| Formally educated | OR 1.08 (CI 0.96–1.22), | ||
| Children | |||
| Having 1–2 children | AOR 0.72 (CI 0.59–0.87), | ||
| Facility-based delivery | |||
| Dhakal et al. (2011) [ | FBD | Age | |
| 25+ years | OR1.38 (CI 0.34–5.55), | ||
| Occupation | |||
| Housewife | OR 4.77 (CI 2.16–10.54), | ||
| Education | |||
| Educated up to primary level | OR 2.29 (CI 0.82–6.37), | ||
| ANC use | |||
| ≥ 1 ANC visit | OR 20.0 (CI 2.64–151.51), | ||
| Giacaman et al. (2006) [ | FBD | Client satisfaction | |
| Avoiding public facilities due to dissatisfaction | OR 2.77 (CI 1.89–4.05), | ||
| Financial reasons | |||
| Insurance or low cost for opting facility | OR 5.83 (CI 3.96–8.59), | ||
| Karkee et al. (2013) [ | FBD | Education | |
| Educated up to primary level | AOR 3.57 (CI 1.60–7.94), | ||
| ANC use | |||
| ≥ 4 ANC visits | AOR 2.15 (CI 1.25–3.69), | ||
| Distance | |||
| ≤ 30 min | OR 11.61 (CI 5.77–24.0), | ||
| Sharma et al. (2014) [ | FBD | Education | |
| Formally educated | OR 2.8 (CI 1.58–4.97), | ||
| Distance | |||
| < 60 min to facility | OR 3.12 (CI 1.61–0.04), | ||
| ANC use | |||
| Had antenatal visits | OR 5.82 (CI 2.95–11.5), | ||
| Shrestha et al. (2012) [ | FBD | Distance | |
| Residing in remote area | OR 2.81 (CI1.08–7.30), | ||
| Community | |||
| Newer community | OR 2.56 (CI 1.19–5.55), | ||
| Education | |||
| Formally educated | OR 2.66 (CI 1.18–6.01), | ||
| ANC use | |||
| No ANC visits | OR 5.53 (CI 2.12–14.4), | ||
| Emergency obstetric care | |||
| Hirose et al. (2011) [ | Delay in seeking EmONC | ANC use | |
| Lack of ANC | AOR 4.6 (CI 1.7–12.2), | ||
| Socio-cultural factors | |||
| Usage of traditional healer | AOR 3.2 (CI 1.2–8.5), | ||
| System factors | |||
| Absence of a midwife | AOR 2.2 (CI 1.1–4.5), | ||
| Khorrami et al. (2008) [ | Timely EmONC usage | Distance to facility | |
| < 100 miles |
| ||
| Mode of travel | |||
| Automobile |
| ||
| Cost as a limitation | |||
| Yes |
| ||
| Safety felt about care at this hospital | |||
| Moderately safe |
| ||
NB: CI is 95% confidence interval. AOR is adjusted odds ratio
Fig. 2Association of determinants with MNH care seeking. NB: ES is the estimated statistic (odds ratio); weight, assigned weights by study in the estimation of pooled estimate