| Literature DB >> 28532462 |
Andreea A Creanga1,2, Sara Gullo3, Anne K Sebert Kuhlmann4, Thumbiko W Msiska5, Christine Galavotti3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Malawi government encourages early antenatal care, delivery in health facilities, and timely postnatal care. Efforts to sustain or increase current levels of perinatal service utilization may not achieve desired gains if the quality of care provided is neglected. This study examined predictors of perinatal service utilization and patients' satisfaction with these services with a focus on quality of care.Entities:
Keywords: Malawi; Patient satisfaction; Perinatal health service utilization; Quality of care
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28532462 PMCID: PMC5440969 DOI: 10.1186/s12884-017-1331-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ISSN: 1471-2393 Impact factor: 3.007
Quality of care items used in our assessment of maternal and neonatal health services
| Quality of care items assessed | % |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Perception that facility is clean (%) |
|
| Perception that staff ensures patients’ privacy (%) |
|
| Perception that provider(s) is(are) always available (%) |
|
| Perception that staff provides high quality services (%) |
|
| Perception that unmarried women can access FP/RH services (%) |
|
| Time to reach closest facility (%) | |
| < 30 min |
|
| 30–59 min |
|
| 1–2 h |
|
| > 2 h |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6. Did anyone at the health facility discourage you from using family planning?a | 98.7 |
| 7. Did the health provider tell you that it was your decision whether you choose to use FP? | 98.7 |
| 8. Were you given all the information or explanations you needed? | 98.9 |
| 9. Were you treated with respect and dignity? | 99.1 |
| 10. Did you feel the information you shared during your visit would be kept confidential? | 99.3 |
| 11. Were you spoken to in a way that you could understand? | 99.4 |
| 12. Were you treated with kindness and understanding? | 99.5 |
| 13. Overall, did you feel it was your decision alone whether to use family planning? | 99.5 |
|
| |
|
|
|
| 2. The importance of going to a health facility for antenatal checks | 97.1 |
| 3. The importance of HIV testing during pregnancy | 98.6 |
| 4. How to create a birth plan to prepare for the birth of your child | 98.6 |
| 5. The importance of exclusive breastfeeding | 98.8 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6. Were you treated with kindness and understanding? | 94.7 |
| 7. Were you spoken to in a way you could understand? | 94.7 |
| 8. Were you given the information or explanations you needed? | 94.8 |
| 9. Did the health provider check on you and your baby for any problems prior to discharge? | 95.1 |
| 10. Were you treated with respect and dignity? | 95.8 |
| 11. Did you have confidence and trust in the staff caring for you during your labor and childbirth? | 96.9 |
| 12. Was the labor or delivery room you were in clean? | 98.0 |
|
| |
|
|
|
| 2. Did the provider give you breastfeeding support and counseling? | 95.4 |
| 3. Did the provider counsel you on methods to avoid or delay another pregnancy? | 97.9 |
Note: Bolded items were chosen for inclusion in regression analyses. aItems were reverse coded; “no” responses are reported here
Women’s socio-demographic characteristics and their perceptions regarding the closest health facility to their residence: Malawi, 2012
| Characteristics |
|
|---|---|
| Women’s socio-demographic | |
| Age (median (range); years) | 25 (15–48) |
| Parity (%) | |
| 1 | 26.4 |
| 2 | 21.1 |
| 3–4 | 33.4 |
| ≥ 5 | 19.1 |
| Religion (%) | |
| Catholic | 23.5 |
| Presbyterian | 13.1 |
| Other Christian | 58.8 |
| Other | 4.6 |
| Ngoni ethnicity (%) | |
| Yes | 88.7 |
| No | 11.3 |
| Marital status (%) | |
| Married/living together | 88.7 |
| Unmarried/divorced/widowed | 11.3 |
| Education (median (range); years) | 4 (0–8) |
| Reading level (%) | |
| Cannot read simple sentence | 29.5 |
| Reads part of sentence | 12.1 |
| Reads the entire sentence | 58.4 |
| Household wealth (quintiles; %) | |
| 1st (poorest) | 13.1 |
| 2nd | 26.1 |
| 3rd | 19.9 |
| 4th | 18.5 |
| 5th (richest) | 22.4 |
Notes: All data are weighted
FP/RH family planning/reproductive health
Indicators of maternal and neonatal health service utilization: Malawi, 2012
| Indicators |
| |
|---|---|---|
| Family planning | Ever use of FP (%) | 74.5 |
| Current usea of FP (%) | 52.8 | |
| Place where FP services last obtained (%) | ||
| Government facility | 84.8 | |
| Private/mission-based facility | 12.9 | |
| Other | 2.4 | |
| Antenatal care | Antenatal care use at last pregnancy (%) | 99.4 |
| Trimester when ANC initiated during last pregnancy (%) | ||
| 1st | 16.4 | |
| 2nd | 78.0 | |
| 3rd | 5.6 | |
| Number of ANC visits during last pregnancy (mean/std dev) | 3.7 (1.1) | |
| Delivery care | Last delivery occurred in a health facility (%) | 97.3 |
| Facility ownership at last deliveryb (%) | ||
| Government facility | 80.1 | |
| Private/mission-based facility | 19.9 | |
| Postnatal care | Postnatal care usec following last delivery (%) | 77.5 |
| Timing of 1st postnatal checkc (mean (std dev); weeks) | 3.1 (1.7) | |
| Number of postnatal checksc within 2 months postpartum (mean/std dev) | 3.1 (0.7) | |
FP family planning, ANC antenatal care
Notes: All data are weighted; aAmong the 1281 non-pregnant, fertile women; bOf those who delivered in a health facility; cMaternal and/or neonatal care given interest in contact with health care system following delivery
Indicators of quality of care and satisfaction with maternal & neonatal health services when last received: Malawi, 2012
| Indicators | ||
|---|---|---|
| Family planning | Respondent got the method she wanted (%) | 89.7 |
| Indexa of FP quality provision (mean/std dev) | 3.5 (0.8) | |
| Completely satisfied with last FP services received (%) | 87.6 | |
| Antenatal care | ANC from skilled provider (%) | 96.2 |
| Pregnancy danger signs were discussed (%) | 91.5 | |
| Completely satisfied with last ANC care received (%) | 88.2 | |
| Delivery care | Skilled birth attendant (%) | 97.5 |
| Time to first consult before delivery mean (std dev; hours) | 0.4 (2.1) | |
| Indexb of delivery service quality provision (mean/std dev) | 3.8 (1.2) | |
| Completely satisfied with last delivery care received (%) | 83.2 | |
| Postnatal care | Skilled provider at 1st postnatal checkc (%) | 93.0 |
| Postpartumc danger signs were discussed (%) | 90.4 | |
| Completely satisfied with last postnatal carec received (%) | 87.9 | |
FP family planning, ANC antenatal care
Notes: All data are weighted; aIndex constructed using 4 items: provider explained how to use chosen FP method, explained possible side effects, mentioned if method protects against HIV, and scheduled follow-up (range 0–4); bIndex constructed using 5 items: able to move around and choose the position that made her most comfortable, got the pain relief she wanted, not left alone by providers at a time when it worried her, provider(s) did not yell or humiliate the respondent in any way, and respondent felt involved in decision about her care (range 0–5); cMaternal and/or neonatal care given interest in contact with health care system following delivery
Predictors of maternal and neonatal health service utilization: Malawi, 2012
| Characteristics | Health service utilization (no = ref) -- OR (95% CI) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family planning | Antenatal care initiation in 1st trimester | Delivery care | Postnatal care | ||
| Ever use | Current use | ||||
| Socio-demographic | |||||
| Parity (3–4 = ref) | |||||
| 1 |
| 1.00 (0.74, 1.36) | 1.15 (0.77, 1.70) |
| 1.04 (0.73, 1.47) |
| 2 |
| 1.07 (0.77, 1.47) | 1.10 (0.73, 1.64) | 0.70 (0.31, 1.54) |
|
| ≥5 | 1.02 (0.65, 1.61) | 1.13 (0.81, 1.58) | 0.69 (0.43, 1.09) | 0.94 (0.39, 2.25) | 1.14 (0.78, 1.65) |
| Religion (Other Christian = ref) | |||||
| Catholic | 0.83 (0.60, 1.16) | 0.94 (0.71, 1.24) | 0.82 (0.56, 1.21) | 0.93 (0.40, 2.19) | 0.86 (0.62, 1.19) |
| Presbyterian | 0.97 (0.63, 1.50) |
| 1.21 (0.79, 1.85) | 0.66 (0.25, 1.76) | 0.83 (0.55, 1.24) |
| Other | 1.01 (0.54, 1.88) |
| 0.70 (0.31, 1.55) | 0.83 (0.18, 3.80) | 0.72 (0.38, 1.35) |
| Ngoni ethnicity (no = ref) | 0.75 (0.48, 1.19) | 0.85 (0.59, 1.25) | 0.70 (0.45, 1.09) | 0.76 (0.22, 2.62) |
|
| Married/living together (unmarried/divorced/widowed = ref) |
|
| 1.27 (0.76, 2.11) | 1.09 (0.39, 3.09) | 1.12 (0.73, 1.71) |
| Reading level (reads the entire sentence = ref) | |||||
| Cannot read simple sentence |
|
|
| 1.24 (0.59, 2.62) | 0.93 (0.69, 1.25) |
| Reads part of sentence |
| 1.15 (0.80, 1.66) | 1.10 (0.68, 1.78) |
| 1.13 (0.73, 1.75) |
| Household wealth (5th/richest = ref) | |||||
| 1st (poorest) | 0.89 (0.55, 1.45) | 0.69 (0.45, 1.04) | 0.79 (0.46, 1.37) |
| 0.78 (0.48, 1.25) |
| 2nd | 0.94 (0.62, 1.44) | 0.77 (0.55, 1.09) | 1.02 (0.65, 1.59) |
|
|
| 3rd | 1.04 (0.67, 1.62) | 0.84 (0.59, 1.20) | 1.01 (0.63, 1.61) |
| 0.86 (0.56, 1.32) |
| 4th | 1.02 (0.66, 1.59) | 0.89 (0.62, 1.28) | 1.00 (0.62, 1.60) |
| 0.93 (0.60, 1.44) |
| Closest facility to the woman’s residence | |||||
| Perception that staff provides high quality services (no = ref) | 1.00 (0.60, 1.68) | 1.18 (0.79, 1.77) | 1.34 (0.75, 2.39) | 2.04 (0.78, 5.29) | 1.54 (0.98, 2.43) |
| Perception that staff ensures patients’ privacy (no = ref) | 1.38 (0.79, 2.43) | 1.35 (0.82, 2.22) | 0.72 (0.39, 1.34) | 0.53 (0.12, 2.42) | 1.43 (0.80, 2.58) |
| Perception that provider(s) is always available (no = ref) | 0.88 (0.52, 1.47) | 1.01 (0.64, 1.58) | 0.88 (0.51, 1.52) | 1.65(0.52, 5.26) | 0.67 (0.40, 1.12) |
| Perception that facility is clean (no = ref) | 0.78 (0.32, 1.88) | 1.00 (0.51, 1.94) | 2.45 (0.84, 7.11) | n/a | 1.24 (0.58, 2.65) |
| Perception that unmarried women can access FP services |
|
| |||
| Time to reach closest facility (1–2 h = ref) | |||||
| <30 min |
| 1.25 (0.87, 1.80) | 0.84 (0.53, 1.36) | 1.39 (0.37, 5.31) |
|
| 30–59 min | 1.17 (0.84, 1.64) |
| 0.86 (0.60, 1.23) | 1.10 (0.49, 2.49) | 1.10 (0.80, 1.52) |
| >2 h | 0.96 (0.64, 1.45) | 1.01 (0.73, 1.41) |
| 0.75 (0.30, 1.86) | 0.74 (0.51, 1.08) |
Notes: Multivariate logistic regression models adjusted for all factors shown and for the complex survey design; bolded figures are statistically significant at p < 0.05; figures shown in italics are statistically significant at p < 0.10; n/a, covariate predicted outcome perfectly and was dropped from model
Predictors of women’s satisfaction with maternal and neonatal health services when last received: Malawi, 2012
| Characteristics | Complete satisfaction with services when last received (< complete satisfaction = ref) -- OR (95% CI) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family planning | Antenatal care | Delivery care | Postnatal care | |
| Socio-demographic | ||||
| Parity (3–4 = ref) | ||||
| 1 | 0.75 (0.41, 1.39) | 0.84 (0.51, 1.39) | 0.82 (0.52, 1.29) | 1.05 (0.62, 1.78) |
| 2 | 0.67 (0.39, 1.15) | 0.87 (0.51, 1.49) | 0.69 (0.43, 1.12) | 0.96 (0.55, 1.66) |
| ≥5 | 0.72 (0.41, 1.27) | 0.64 (0.39, 1.06) | 0.95 (0.57, 1.58) | 0.98 (0.56, 1.74) |
| Religion (Other Christian = ref) | ||||
| Catholic | 1.24 (0.70, 2.21) | 0.95 (0.59, 1.52) | 1.26 (0.82, 1.95) | 1.08 (0.66, 1.77) |
| Presbyterian |
|
| 0.70 (0.43, 1.14) | 0.85 (0.47, 1.51) |
| Other |
| 1.06 (0.42, 2.68) | 1.64 (0.69, 3.91) | 1.84 (0.61, 5.62) |
| Ngoni ethnicity (no = ref) |
|
|
|
|
| Married/living together (unmarried/divorced/widowed = ref) |
| 1.50 (0.91, 2.48) |
| 1.58 (0.91, 2.74) |
| Reading level (reads the entire sentence = ref) | ||||
| Cannot read simple sentence | 0.73 (0.45, 1.18) | 0.80 (0.52, 1.24) | 0.81 (0.54, 1.22) | 0.91 (0.58, 1.43) |
| Reads part of sentence | 0.85 (0.45, 1.59) |
| 0.66 (0.39, 1.10) | 1.05 (0.56, 2.00) |
| Household wealth (5th/richest = ref) | ||||
| 1st (poorest) | 0.73 (0.39, 1.38) | 0.76 (0.40, 1.44) | 0.73 (0.42, 1.26) |
|
| 2nd | 0.97 (0.54, 1.76) | 0.66 (0.38, 1.12) | 0.79 (0.47, 1.32) |
|
| 3rd | 1.15 (0.60, 2.17) | 0.83 (0.47, 1.47) | 0.66 (0.38, 1.14) | 0.82 (0.42, 1.57) |
| 4th | 1.22 (0.62, 2.38) | 1.21 (0.65, 2.25) | 0.73 (0.43, 1.24) | 0.89 (0.46, 1.74) |
| Closest facility to the woman’s residence | ||||
| Perception that staff provides high quality services (no = ref) | 1.06 (0.52, 2.15) |
|
| 1.54 (0.75, 3.14) |
| Perception that staff ensures patients’ privacy (no = ref) | 0.94 (0.39, 2.24) | 0.56 (0.25, 1.30) | 0.78 (0.42, 1.46) |
|
| Perception that provider(s) is always available (no = ref) | 1.33 (0.67, 2.68) |
| 1.31 (0.79, 2.16) | 0.99 (0.51, 1.92) |
| Perception that facility is clean (no = ref) |
| 1.91 (0.80, 4.57) |
|
|
| Perception that unmarried women can access FP services |
| |||
| Time to reach closest facility (1–2 h = ref) | ||||
| <30 min |
|
|
|
|
| 30–59 min | 0.83 (0.51, 1.36) |
| 1.02 (0.66, 1.58) | 1.10 (0.65, 1.87) |
| >2 h |
| 0.66 (0.38, 1.13) | 1.13 (0.69, 1.84) | 0.90 (0.49, 1.66) |
| Maternal health service utilization indicators | ||||
| Place where FP services last obtained (Government facility = ref)a
| 1.57 (0.77, 3.23) | |||
| Trimester when ANC initiated last pregnancy (2nd = ref) | ||||
| 1st | 1.05 (0.64, 1.73) | |||
| 3rd | 0.63 (0.30, 1.12) | |||
| Number of ANC visits last pregnancy | 0.94 (0.78, 1.12) | |||
| Facility ownership last delivery (Government facility = ref) | 1.36 (.086, 2.15) | |||
| Timing of 1st postnatal checkb (weeks) | 1.01 (0.89, 1.15) | |||
| Number of checks within 2 months postpartumb | 1.04 (0.77, 1.42) | |||
| Quality of services when last received | ||||
| Respondent got the FP method she wanted (no = ref) |
| |||
| Indexc of FP quality provision |
| |||
| ANC from skilled provider (no = ref) | 0.44 (0.14, 1.38) | |||
| Pregnancy danger signs were discussed (no = ref) | 1.29 (0.70, 2.36) | |||
| Skilled birth attendant (no = ref) | 0.51 (0.20, 1.33) | |||
| Time to first consult before delivery (hours) | 1.03 (0.95, 1.12) | |||
| Indexd of delivery service quality provision |
| |||
| Skilled provider at 1st postnatal checkb (no = ref) | 0.40 (0.14, 1.17) | |||
| Postpartumb danger signs were discussed (no = ref) |
| |||
FP family planning, ANC antenatal care
Notes: Results from multivariate logistic regression models adjusted for all factors shown and for the complex survey design; figures in bold are statistically significant at p < 0.05; figures shown in italics are statistically significant at p < 0.10; aAlso controlled for other place where family planning services were obtained; bMaternal and/or neonatal care given interest in contact with health care system following delivery; cIndex constructed using 4 items: provider explained how to use chosen FP method, explained possible side effects, mentioned if method protects against HIV, and scheduled follow-up (range 0–4); dIndex constructed using 5 items: able to move around and choose the position that made her most comfortable, got the pain relief she wanted, not left alone by providers at a time when it worried her, provider(s) did not yell or humiliate the respondent in any way, and respondent felt involved in decision about her care (range 0–5)