| Literature DB >> 28347311 |
Jodie Dionne-Odom1, Andrew O Westfall2, Tobias O Apinjoh3, Judith Anchang-Kimbi4, Eric A Achidi3, Alan T N Tita5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Malaria in pregnancy is common in sub-Saharan Africa where it contributes to perinatal morbidity and mortality. Use of insecticide-treated bed nets and intermittent preventive therapy with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine during pregnancy are effective but underutilized interventions to prevent infection. Factors associated with bed net ownership and usage, and use of prophylaxis among recently pregnant women in Cameroon were investigated.Entities:
Keywords: Bed nets; Cameroon; Malaria in pregnancy; Malaria prevention; Sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine (SP)
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28347311 PMCID: PMC5368905 DOI: 10.1186/s12936-017-1786-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Characteristics of women with pregnancy in the past 5 years (n = 7647)
| Characteristic | N (%) |
|---|---|
| Demographics | |
| Age-median (IQR) | 26.6 (22.0–32.4) |
| Age of husband/partner-median (IQR) (n = 6417)a | 35.9 (29.7–43.4) |
| Relationship status | |
| Married | 5248 (68.6) |
| Living with partner | 1286 (16.8) |
| Widowed, divorced, or separated | 482 (6.3) |
| Never in union | 631 (8.3) |
| Polygamy (n = 7639) | |
| Monogamous | 4603 (60.3) |
| Polygamous | 1605 (21) |
| Don’t know | 317 (4.2) |
| Not married | 1114 (14.6) |
| Education level | |
| None | 2020 (26.4) |
| Primary school | 2910 (38.1) |
| Secondary school or higher | 2717 (35.5) |
| Education level of partner (n = 7281) | |
| None | 1508 (20.7) |
| Primary school | 2238 (30.7) |
| Secondary school or higher | 2903 (39.9) |
| Never married | 632 (8.7) |
| Literacy (n = 7477) | |
| Literate | 3790 (50.7) |
| Illiterate | 3687 (49.3) |
| Wealth quintile | |
| 1st (poorest) | 1606 (21) |
| 2nd | 1585 (20.7) |
| 3rd | 1542 (20.2) |
| 4th | 1540 (20.1) |
| 5th (wealthiest) | 1374 (18) |
| Religion (n = 7555) | |
| Christian (catholic or protestant) | 5015 (66.4) |
| Muslim | 1890 (25) |
| Other/none | 650 (8.6) |
| Location of home | |
| Urban | 3472 (45.4) |
| Rural | 4175 (54.6) |
| Own a method of transportation (bicycle, motorcycle or car) (n = 7635) | |
| Yes | 3066 (40.2) |
| No | 4569 (59.8) |
| HIV status (n = 3544) | |
| Positive | 177 (5) |
| Negative | 3367 (95) |
| Currently pregnant | |
| Yes | 1061 (13.9) |
| No | 6586 (86.1) |
| Parity | |
| 1–2 | 3101 (40.5) |
| 3–4 | 2117 (27.7) |
| 5+ | 2429 (31.8) |
| Number of children <5 in the household | |
| 0 | 472 (6.2) |
| 1–2 | 4941 (64.6) |
| 3+ | 2234 (29.2) |
| Current contraceptive use | |
| Modern method | 1161 (15.2) |
| Traditional method | 665 (8.7) |
| None | 5821 (76.1) |
| Employment in the past 12 months (n = 7645) | |
| Yes | 5657 (74) |
| No | 1988 (26) |
| Antenatal care | |
| Visited a health facility in the past 12 months (n = 7637) | |
| Yes | 5058 (66.2) |
| No | 2579 (33.8) |
| Antenatal care provider (at least once) (n = 7582) | |
| Physician | 1714 (22.6) |
| Nurse | 4254 (56.1) |
| Auxiliary nurse | 507 (6.7) |
| None | 1107 (14.6) |
| Antenatal care location (n = 7489) | |
| Hospital | 2975 (39.7) |
| Health centre | 3366 (44.9) |
| Home | 41 (0.6) |
| No ANC visits | 1107 (14.8) |
| Timing of initial ANC visit (n = 7609) | |
| First trimester | 2620 (34.4) |
| Second trimester | 3489 (45.9) |
| Third trimester | 393 (5.2) |
| No ANC visits | 1107 (14.5) |
| Number of ANC visits during pregnancy (n = 7565) | |
| 0 | 1107 (14.6) |
| 1–2 | 580 (7.7) |
| 3 | 1122 (14.8) |
| 4+ | 4756 (62.9) |
| Delivery location (n = 7580) | |
| Health facility | 4952 (65.3) |
| Home | 2628 (34.7) |
| Malaria prophylaxis in pregnancy | |
| Have a bed net at home for sleeping (n = 7644) | |
| Yes | 2580 (33.7) |
| No | 5064 (66.3) |
| Slept under a bed net on the night prior to the survey | |
| Yes | 1291 (16.9) |
| No | 6357 (83.1) |
| Took any malaria prophylaxis medication (n = 7608) | |
| Yes | 4686 (61.6) |
| No | 2922 (38.4) |
| Malaria prophylaxis medication received (n = 7742)b | |
| Sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine (SP) | 3321 (42.9) |
| Quinine | 691 (8.9) |
| Artemether–lumefantrine | 285 (3.7) |
| Amodiaquine | 258 (3.3) |
| Chloroquine | 123 (1.6) |
| Other medication | 242 (3.1) |
| None/don’t know | 2822 (36.5) |
| Number of SP doses received (n = 7492) | |
| 0 | 4189 (55.9) |
| 1 | 1262 (16.8) |
| 2 | 1072 (14.3) |
| 3+ | 969 (12.9) |
| Source of malaria prophylaxis medication (n = 3242) | |
| ANC clinic | 3170 (97.8) |
| Other medical clinic | 32 (1) |
| Other source | 40 (1.2) |
Data adjusted for weighting, clustering and stratification
a Numbers in parenthesis show the denominator for each variable due to missing data
b More than one response allowed
Multivariable logistic regression models to determine factors associated with use of malaria prophylaxis tools in pregnancy
| Characteristic | Bed net ownership (n = 7235) | Bed net usage (n = 7239) | Use of any prophylaxis medication (n = 7226) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adjusted OR (95% CI) | Adjusted OR (95% CI) | Adjusted OR (95% CI) | |
| Age | |||
| Per 10 years | 1 (0.9–1.1) | 1.1 (0.9–1.2) | 1.1 (1–1.2) |
| Education | |||
| None | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Primary | 1.2 (1–1.4) | 1.5 (1.1–2.1) | 1.3 (1.05–1.6) |
| Secondary | 0.9 (0.7–1.2) | 1.1 (0.7–1.8) | 1.5 (1.1–2.1) |
| Literacy | |||
| No | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 1.2 (1.02–1.5) | 1.4 (1.1–1.8) | 1.4 (1.1–1.7) |
| Wealth quintile (lowest to highest) | |||
| 1st | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| 2nd | 1 (0.8–1.2) | 1 (0.7–1.3) | 1.1 (0.9–1.4) |
| 3rd | 0.9 (0.8–1.2) | 0.9 (0.7–1.3) | 1.1 (0.8–1.3) |
| 4th | 1 (0.7–1.2) | 0.9 (0.6–1.2) | 1.2 (1–1.6) |
| 5th | 1 (0.8–1.3) | 1 (0.7–1.4) | 1 (0.7–1.3) |
| Religion | |||
| Muslim | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Christian | 0.9 (0.8–1.1) | 1.2 (1–1.6) | 0.8 (0.6–0.95) |
| Other/none | 0.8 (0.7–1.1) | 0.9 (0.7–1.4) | 0.7 (0.5–0.98) |
| Parity | |||
| 1–2 | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| 3–4 | 1 (0.8–1.2) | 1 (0.9–1.3) | 1.2 (1.02–1.4) |
| 5+ | 1 (0.8–1.3) | 1 (0.8–1.3) | 1 (0.8–1.2) |
| # Children under five at home | |||
| 0 | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| 1–2 | 1.9 (1.5–2.5) | 2.3 (1.6–3.3) | 1.1 (0.8–1.4) |
| 3+ | 2.3 (1.7–3.1) | 2 (1.3–3) | 1.1 (0.8–1.4) |
| Relationship status | |||
| Married | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Living with partner | 0.8 (0.7–1) | 0.9 (0.7–1.1) | 0.8 (0.7–0.97) |
| Widowed, divorced or separated | 0.8 (0.6–1) | 0.6 (0.4–0.8) | 0.8 (0.6–1.1) |
| Never in union | 0.8 (0.7–1) | 0.9 (0.7–1.1) | 0.7 (0.6–0.9) |
| Transportation | |||
| No | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 1.2 (1.1–1.4) | 1 (0.8–1.1) | 1 (0.9–1.2) |
| Current contraception | |||
| None | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Traditional | 1.2 (1.01–1.5) | 1.2 (0.9–1.5) | 1.1 (0.9–1.4) |
| Modern | 1 (0.8–1.2) | 1 (0.8–1.2) | 1 (0.9–1.2) |
| Visited health facility in past year | |||
| No | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 1.1 (1–1.3) | 1.1 (0.9–1.3) | 1.3 (1.1–1.5) |
| Total ANC visits | |||
| 0 | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| 1–2 | 1.4 (1.03–1.8) | 2 (1.4–2.8) | 10.3 (7.2–14.6) |
| 3 | 1.3 (1.1–1.7) | 1.8 (1.2–2.6) | 14.6 (10.6–20.2) |
| 4+ | 1.6 (1.3–1.9) | 2 (1.4–2.8) | 17.8 (13–24.5) |
| Delivery location | |||
| Home | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Facility | 1 (0.8–1.2) | 1.3 (1.1–1.7) | 1 (0.8–1.2) |
Multivariable logistic regression models were adjusted for weighting, clustering and stratification. All variables in the table were included in the model
Ref referent value, SP sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine, OR odds ratio
Multivariable logistic regression models to determine factors associated with the use of higher doses of sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine (SP) for malaria prophylaxis in pregnancy (n = 7121)
| Characteristic | 0 vs 1+ doses of SP | 0–1 vs 2+ doses of SP | 0–2 vs 3+ doses of SP |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adjusted OR (95% CI) | Adjusted OR (95% CI) | Adjusted OR (95% CI) | |
| Age | |||
| Per 10 years | 1 (0.9–1.2) | 1.1 (0.9–1.2) | 1.1 (0.9–1.3) |
| Education | |||
| None | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Primary | 1.3 (1.04–1.7) | 1.1 (0.9–1.3) | 1.1 (0.8–1.5) |
| Secondary | 1.3 (0.9–1.8) | 1 (0.8–1.3) | 1.4 (0.9–2) |
| Literacy | |||
| No | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 1.3 (1.04–1.5) | 1.3 (1.1–1.6) | 1 (0.7–1.3) |
| Wealth quintile (lowest to highest) | |||
| 1st | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| 2nd | 1.1 (0.9–1.4) | 1.1 (0.9–1.5) | 0.8 (0.6–1.1) |
| 3rd | 1.1 (0.8–1.3) | 1.2 (0.9–1.5) | 0.9 (0.7–1.3) |
| 4th | 1 (0.8–1.4) | 1.1 (0.8–1.5) | 1 (0.7–1.4) |
| 5th | 0.8 (0.6–1.1) | 1.2 (0.9–1.5) | 1.2 (0.8–1.7) |
| Religion | |||
| Muslim | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Christian | 0.8 (0.6–1.1) | 0.9 (0.7–1.1) | 0.9 (0.7–1.2) |
| Other/none | 0.9 (0.7–1.3) | 0.8 (0.6–1.1) | 0.9 (0.6–1.4) |
| Parity | |||
| 1–2 | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| 3–4 | 0.9 (0.8–1.1) | 0.8 (0.7–.98) | 0.9 (0.7–1.1) |
| 5+ | 0.8 (0.7–1) | 0.7 (0.6–0.9) | 0.8 (0.6–1.1) |
| # Children under five at home | |||
| 0 | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| 1–2 | 1 (0.8–1.3) | 0.9 (0.7–1.2) | 0.8 (0.6–1.1) |
| 3+ | 1.1 (0.9–1.5) | 1 (0.7–1.3) | 0.9 (0.6–1.2) |
| Relationship status | |||
| Married | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Living with partner | 0.6 (0.5–0.7) | 0.7 (0.6–0.8) | 0.7 (0.6–0.9) |
| Widowed, divorced or separated | 0.8 (0.6–0.96) | 0.9 (0.7–1.1) | 1 (0.8–1.4) |
| Never in union | 0.7 (0.5–0.8) | 0.6 (0.5–0.8) | 0.7 (0.5–0.9) |
| Transportation | |||
| No | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 1 (0.8–1.1) | 1 (0.9–1.2) | 1 (0.9–1.2) |
| Current contraception | |||
| None | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Traditional | 1.2 (0.9–1.4) | 1 (0.8–1.2) | 1.2 (0.9–1.5) |
| Modern | 1 (0.8–1.2) | 1 (0.8–1.2) | 1 (0.7–1.3) |
| Visited health facility in past year | |||
| No | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 1.2 (1.05–1.4) | 1 (0.8–1.1) | 0.9 (0.7–1.1) |
| Number of antenatal clinic visits | |||
| 0 | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| 1–2 | 19.4 (11–34.4) | 10.2 (5.3–19.5) | 3.5 (1.4–8.5) |
| 3 | 30.5 (17.8–52.4) | 24.8 (12.9–47.8) | 18.9 (8.8–40.3) |
| 4+ | 37.4 (22.1–63.2) | 33.1 (17.8–61.8) | 25.4 (12.3–52.5) |
| Delivery location | |||
| Home | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Facility | 1 (0.9–1.3) | 1 (0.8–1.2) | 0.9 (0.7–1.2) |
Multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for weighting, clustering and stratification. All of the variables in the table were included in the model
Ref referent level, SP sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine, OR odds ratio
Fig. 1Odds ratios from univariate (orange) and multivariable (blue) logistic regression models (adjusted for weighting, clustering and stratification) by outcome