| Literature DB >> 28506265 |
Akashi Andrew Rurangirwa1,2, Ingrid Mogren3, Laetitia Nyirazinyoye4, Joseph Ntaganira5, Gunilla Krantz6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Rwanda, a majority of pregnant women visit antenatal care (ANC) services, however not to the extent that is recommended. Association between socio-demographic or psychosocial factors and poor utilization of antenatal care services (≤2 visits during the course of pregnancy irrespective of the timing) among recently pregnant women in Rwanda were investigated.Entities:
Keywords: Antenatal care utilization; Recently delivered women; Rwanda
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28506265 PMCID: PMC5430598 DOI: 10.1186/s12884-017-1328-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ISSN: 1471-2393 Impact factor: 3.007
Socio-demographic and psychosocial characteristics of study population by number and timing of antenatal care visits (n = 921)
| Characteristics | Total | ≤2visits | ≥3visits |
| ≤2visitsa
| ≥4visitsb
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age groups ( | |||||||
| 15–30 | 632(68.8) | 72(59.0) | 560(70.3) | 0.01 | 194(61.2) | 438(72.8) | 0.0001 |
| 31–46 | 287(31.2) | 50(41.0) | 237(29.7) | 123(38.8) | 164(27.2) | ||
| Number of people in the household ( | |||||||
| 0–6 | 748(81.6) | 86(70.5) | 662(83.3) | 0.001 | 244(77.2) | 504(83.9) | 0.01 |
| 7 or more | 169(18.4) | 36(29.5) | 133(16.7) | 72(22.8) | 97(16.1) | ||
| Relationship with household head ( | |||||||
| Not wife | 166(18.1) | 42(34.4) | 124(15.6) | 0.0001 | 74(33.3) | 92 (15.3) | 0.003 |
| Wife | 753(81.9) | 80(65.6) | 673(84.4) | 243(76.7) | 510(84.7) | ||
| Sex of the house hold head ( | |||||||
| Female | 70(7.7) | 17(14.0) | 53(6.7) | 0.005 | 33(10.5) | 37(6.2) | 0.02 |
| Male | 844(92.3) | 104(86.0) | 740(93.3) | 282(89.5) | 562(93.8) | ||
| Marital status ( | |||||||
| Single, divorced, widowed, separated | 145(15.8) | 37(30.3) | 108(13.6) | 0.0001 | 69(21.8) | 76(12.6) | 0.0001 |
| Married or cohabitating | 774(84.2) | 85(69.7) | 689(86.4) | 248(78.2) | 526(87.4) | ||
| Ever attended school ( | |||||||
| Yes | 829(90.8) | 105(86.1) | 724(91.5) | 0.05 | 285(90.2) | 544(91.1) | 0.64 |
| No | 84(9.2) | 17(13.9) | 67(8.5) | 31(9.8) | 53(8.9) | ||
| Highest attained level of education ( | |||||||
| Incomplete primary school | 416(50.1) | 59(55.7) | 357(49.3) | 167(58.2) | 249(45.9) | ||
| Complete primary school or vocational training | 219(26.4) | 21(19.8) | 198(27.3) | 0.24 | 64(22.3) | 155(28.5) | 0.003 |
| Secondary school or university | 195(23.5) | 26(24.5) | 169(23.3) | 56(19.5) | 139(25.6) | ||
| Occupation ( | |||||||
| Skilled work, civil servant, student | 119(13.1) | 16(13.2) | 103(13.1) | 40(12.8) | 79(13.3) | ||
| Non skilled work | 528(58.2) | 66(54.5) | 462(58.8) | 0.62 | 186(59.6) | 342(57.5) | 0.82 |
| Not employed, other occupation | 260(28.7) | 39(32.2) | 221(28.1) | 86(27.6) | 174(29.2) | ||
| Social support ( | |||||||
| Yes | 733(79.8) | 87(71.3) | 646(81.1) | 0.01 | 253(79.8) | 480(79.7) | 0.97 |
| No | 186(20.2) | 35(28.7) | 151(18.9) | 64(20.2) | 122(20.3) | ||
| Partner Characteristics | |||||||
| Husband age ( | |||||||
| ≤ 40 | 667(86.1) | 61(72.6) | 606(87.7) | 0.0001 | 196(78.1) | 471(89.9) | 0.0001 |
| 41–70 | 108(13.9) | 23(27.4) | 85(12.3) | 55 (21.9) | 53(10.1) | ||
| Husband ever attended school( | |||||||
| Yes | 667(87.0) | 69(84.1) | 598(87.3) | 0.42 | 212(85.1) | 455(87.8) | 0.29 |
| No | 100(13.0) | 13(15.9) | 87(12.7) | 37(14.9) | 63(12.2) | ||
| Highest level of education ( | |||||||
| Incomplete primary school | 283(42.9) | 31(45.6) | 252(42.6) | 91(42.9) | 192(43.0) | ||
| Complete primary school or vocational training | 248(37.6) | 28(41.2) | 220(37.2) | 0.32 | 92(43.4) | 156(34.9) | 0.02 |
| Secondary school or university | 128(19.4) | 9(13.2) | 119(20.1) | 29(13.7) | 99(22.1) | ||
| Husband’s occupation ( | |||||||
| Skilled work, civil servant, student | 174(22.6) | 14(17.1) | 160(23.3) | 55(22.2) | 119(22.8) | ||
| Non skilled work | 343(44.5) | 33(40.2) | 310(45.1) | 0.11 | 122(49.2) | 221(42.3) | 0.15 |
| Not employed or other occupation | 253(32.9) 253 | 35(42.7) | 218(31.7) | 71(28.6) | 182(34.9) | ||
| Total household monthly income ( | |||||||
| < 17500FRW | 258(30.0) | 35(31.3) | 223(29.8) | 103(35.0) | 155(27.3) | ||
| 17501-35999FRW | 240(28.0) | 24(21.4) | 216(28.8) | 0.24 | 75(25.5) | 165(29.1) | 0.06 |
| 36000 or more FRW | 363(42.0) | 53(47.3) | 310(41.4) | 116(39.5) | 247(43.6) | ||
| Household assets summary measure ( | |||||||
| Improved (≥1 item) | 715(78.7) | 91(74.6) | 624(79.3) | 0.23 | 247(78.7) | 468(78.7) | 0.99 |
| Poor (none of the items) | 194(21.3) | 31(25.4) | 163(20.7) | 67(21.3) | 127(21.3) | ||
P-value are from Chi-square test and show the relationship between categorical predictor variables and the first outcome variable (≤2 visits and ≥3visits) and the second outcome variable (≤2visitsa and ≥4visitsb)
a ≤ 2 visits plus 3 visits but none during the 1st trimester
b ≥ 4visits plus those with 3 visits of which at least one was done in the first trimester
Pregnancy related characteristics of the study population (n = 921)
| Variables |
| % |
|---|---|---|
| Pregnancies before the latest one ( | ||
| First time pregnancy | 288 | 32.4 |
| ≥ 2 pregnancies | 601 | 67.6 |
| Type of ANC facility visited ( | ||
| Health center or dispensary | 887 | 97.0 |
| District hospital | 12 | 1.3 |
| Referral hospital | 7 | 0.8 |
| Private clinic | 8 | 0.9 |
| Other | 1 | 0.1 |
| Responsible health care professional during first visit ( | ||
| Nurse/midwife | 822 | 91.3 |
| Doctor | 74 | 8.7 |
| Who accompanied pregnant woman during first visit to ANC clinic ( | ||
| Husband | 746 | 81.6 |
| Mother, family member or any other person | 19 | 2.1 |
| Community Health Worker | 45 | 4.9 |
| None | 104 | 11.4 |
| Time walking to ANC clinic ( | ||
| 5–30 min | 349 | 39.1 |
| 31–60 min | 267 | 29.9 |
| 1–2 h | 195 | 21.8 |
| 2–3 h | 68 | 7.6 |
| > 3 h | 13 | 1.5 |
| Place of delivery ( | ||
| At home or on the way to a health facility | 47 | 5.1 |
| Health center or dispensary | 582 | 63.3 |
| District hospital | 230 | 25.0 |
| Referral hospital | 50 | 5.4 |
| Private clinic | 10 | 1,1 |
| Did you attend ANC clinic during pregnancy? | ||
| Yes | 910 | 99.5 |
| No | 5 | 0.5 |
| Number of Antenatal care visits ( | ||
| 1 visit | 23 | 2.5 |
| 2 visits | 94 | 10.3 |
| 3 visits | 380 | 41.6 |
| 4 visits | 380 | 41.6 |
| ≥ 5 visits | 38 | 4.0 |
| Antenatal care (ANC) visits ( | ||
| ≤ 2 visits | 122 | 13.3 |
| ≥ 3 visits | 798 | 86.7 |
| Antenatal care (ANC) visits ( | ||
| ≤ 2 Visits + 3 visits but none during first trimester of pregnancy | 317 | 34.5 |
| ≥ 3 visits | 603 | 65.5 |
Associations between socio-demographic and psychosocial characteristics and poor utilization of ANC services (n = 921)a
| n (%) with poor | ORb | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age groups (years) | |||
| 15–30 | 72 (11.4) | 1 | |
| 31–46 | 50 (17.4) | 1.64 | 1.11–2.42 |
| Number of people in the household | |||
| 1–6 | 86(11.5) | 1 | |
| ≥ 7 | 36 (21.3) | 2.08 | 1.35–3.21 |
| Pregnancies before the latest one | |||
| No pregnancy before | 29 (10.1) | 1 | |
| One or more pregnancies before | 87 (14.5) | 1.51 | 0.96–2.35 |
| Sex of the household head | |||
| Male | 104 (12.3) | 1 | |
| Female | 17 (24.3) | 2.28 | 1.27–4.09 |
| Relation with household head | |||
| Wife | 80 (10.6) | 1 | |
| Relationship other than wife | 42 (25.3) | 2.85 | 1.87–4.33 |
| Marital status | |||
| Married or cohabitating | 85 (11.0) | 1 | |
| Single, divorced, widowed, separated | 37(25.5) | 2.77 | 1.79–4.29 |
| Ever attended school | |||
| Yes | 105 (12.7) | 1 | |
| No | 17 (20.2) | 1.75 | 0.98–3.09 |
| Social support | |||
| Yes | 87 (11.9) | 1 | |
| No | 35 (18.8) | 1.72 | 1.12–2.65 |
| Time walking to ANC clinic | |||
| 1–60 min | 76 (12.3) | 1 | |
| > 1 h | 35 (12.7) | 1.03 | 0.67–1.58 |
| Husband’s age (years) | |||
| ≤ 40 | 61(9.1) | 1 | |
| 41–70 | 23 (21.3) | 2.69 | 1.58–4.57 |
| Household assets summary measure | |||
| Improved (≥1 item) | 91 (12.7) | 1 | |
| Poor (none of the items) | 31 (16.0) | 1.30 | 0.83–2.03 |
aPoor utilization of ANC services defined as ≤2visits during pregnancy
bValues are crude odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals that indicate the differences in risks of poor utilization of ANC services compared to reference category (
Associations between socio-demographic and psychosocial characteristics and poor utilization of antenatal care services (n = 921)a
| Variable | Poor utilization of antenatal care serviceb | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6c | |
| Age groups | ||||||
| 15–30 | 1 | |||||
| 31–46 | 1.64(1.11, 2.42) | 1.35(0.88, 2.06) | 1.82(1.17, 2.83) | 1.80(1.15, 2.80) | 1.76(1.13, 2.27) | 1.78(1.14, 2.78) |
| Number of people in the household | ||||||
| 1–6 | 1 | |||||
| 7 or more | 1.84(1.16, 2.93) | 1.45(0.91,2.31) | 1.45(0.91, 2.31) | 1.49(1.01, 2.39) | 1.50(0.93, 2.40) | |
| Marital status | ||||||
| Married or cohabitating | 1 | |||||
| Single, divorced, widowed, separated | 3.06(1.92, 4.89) | 3.06(1.92, 4.90) | 3.04(1.89, 4.86) | 2.99(1.83, 4.75) | ||
| Ever attended school | ||||||
| Yes | 1 | |||||
| No | 1.69(0.94, 3.03) | 1.63(0.90, 2.92) | 1.55(0.85, 2.84) | |||
| Social support | ||||||
| Yes | 1 | |||||
| No | 1.73(1.11, 2.69) | 1.71(1.09, 2.67) | ||||
| Assets in household, summary measure | ||||||
| Improved (≥1 higher standard item) | 1 | |||||
| Poor (none of higher standard item) | 1.12 (0.69, 1.79) | |||||
aSignificant variables were entered into the model one by one. Values are adjusted odds ratio and their 95% confidence intervals from multivariable logistic regression models that indicate the differences in risks of poor utilization of ANC services compared to reference category (1)
bPoor utilization of ANC services defined as ≤2visits during pregnancy
cFinal model with adjusted odds rations and their 95% confidence interval. Variables in the same model are adjusted for each other and for woman and husband’s occupation