| Literature DB >> 28910341 |
Markos Mezmur1, Kannan Navaneetham1, Gobopamang Letamo1, Hadgu Bariagaber1.
Abstract
Despite evidence that social contexts are key determinants of health, research into factors associated with maternal health service utilization in Ethiopia has often focused on individual and household factors. The downside is that this underestimates the importance of taking contextual factors into account when planning appropriate interventions in promoting safe motherhood in the country. The purpose of this study is to fill this knowledge gap drawing attention to the largely unexplored contextual factors affecting the uptake of skilled attendance at delivery in a nationally representative sample. Data for the study comes from two rounds of the Ethiopian Demographic and Health Surveys (EDHS) conducted in the year 2005 and 2011. Analysis was done using a two-level multivariable multilevel logistic regression model with data from 14, 242 women who had a live birth in the five years preceding the surveys clustered within 540 (in the year 2005) and 624 (in the year 2011) communities. The results of the study point to multiple levels of measured and unmeasured factors affecting the uptake of skilled delivery care in the country. At community level, place of residence, community level of female education and fertility significantly predict the uptake of skilled delivery care. At individual and household level, maternal age, birth order, maternal education, household wealth and access to media predict the uptake of such service. Thus, there is a need to consider community contexts in the design of maternal health programs and employ multi-sectorial approach to addressing barriers at different levels. For example, improving access and availability of skilled delivery care should eventually enhance the uptake of such services at community level in Ethiopia. At individual level, efforts to promote the uptake of such services should constitute targeted interventions paying special attention to the needs of the youth, the multiparous, the less educated and women in the poorest households.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28910341 PMCID: PMC5598994 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184688
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Conceptual framework of the study.
Description and measurement of exposure variables.
| Community level of female education | Aggregate values of community level female education measured by the proportion of women with a minimum of primary level of education derived from data on respondent’s level of education categorized as: “<25% = Low”, “25%-50% = Moderate” and “50% = High education communities.” |
| Community level of poverty | Aggregate values of community level poverty measured by proportion of households in the poorest wealth quintile derived from data on wealth index categorized as: “<25% = Low”, 25%-50% = Moderate” and “>50% = High poverty communities.” |
| Community level of health service utilization | Aggregate values of community level of health service utilization measured by the proportion of women who had visited health facility in the past 12 months derived from the family planning module of DHS data categorized as: “<50% = Low” and “> 50% = High health service utilization communities.” |
| Community level of fertility | Aggregate values of community level of fertility derived from data on children ever born categorized as: “<2.5 = Low” and “>2.5 = High fertility communities” taking the mean value to fertility at national level. |
| Community level of modern contraceptive prevalence | Aggregate values of community level of modern contraceptive prevalence measured by proportion of women who are currently using modern contraceptive categorized as: “<50% = Low” and “>50% = High contraceptive prevalence communities.” |
| Type of place of residence | The variable place of residence recorded as rural and urban in the dataset was retained without change. |
| Age Group | Re-coded in four categories with values of 0 for 15–19, 1 for 20–29, 2 for 30–39 and 3 for 40–49. |
| Birth Order | Re-coded with a value of 0 for first order birth, 1 for second order birth, 2 for third order birth, and 3 for birth order four and above. |
| Ethnic Origin | Re-coded in four groups with a value of 0 for Oromo, 1 for Amhara, 2 for Tigre and 3 for other ethnic Ethiopian categories as most of the groups in this category are small in number. |
| Religion | Re-coded in three categories with a value of 0 for Orthodox, 1 for Muslim and other religious groups (combining protestant, catholic, traditional and the other religious categories as most women in this category are small in number). |
| Maternal Education | Re-coded in three groups with a value of 0 for no education, 1 for primary education and 2 for secondary and above combining secondary and higher education categories together. |
| Maternal Occupation | Re-coded in five categories with a value of 0 for not working combining it with domestic household work category, 1 for sales and services combining it with professional/technical/managerial categories, 3 for skilled manual, 4 for unskilled manual and agricultural laborers combining it with agricultural self-employed categories. |
| Media Access | A composite variable created combining whether a respondent reads newspaper, magazine, listen to radio and watch TV with a value of 0 for no access if a women lacks access to all the three media; 1 for medium access if a woman has access to either of the three media; and 3 for high access to media if a woman has access to more than one media at least once a week. |
| Wealth Index | The datasets contained wealth index that was created using principal components analysis (PCA) coded 1 for “poorest”, 2 for “poorer”, 3 for “Middle”, 4 for “Richer” and 5 for “Richest.” |
Patterns of uptake of skilled delivery care by women's characteristics: Bivariate analysis.
| Individual and Household Characteristics | Year 2005 | Total | Year 2011 | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Percent | Number | Percent | |||
| 15–19 | 28 | 7 | 430 | 37 | 9 | 394 |
| 20–29 | 312 | 9 | 3414 | 592 | 15 | 3933 |
| 30–39 | 118 | 5 | 2555 | 238 | 9 | 2720 |
| 40–49 | 45 | 5 | 867 | 45 | 6 | 784 |
| Total | 503 | 7 | 7266 | 912 | 12 | 7831 |
| 1st order birth | 197 | 17 | 1162 | 344 | 26 | 1346 |
| 2nd order birth | 126 | 12 | 1082 | 214 | 16 | 1335 |
| 3rd order birth | 60 | 6 | 1000 | 146 | 13 | 1109 |
| Birth order 4+ | 120 | 3 | 4021 | 208 | 5 | 4041 |
| Total | 503 | 7 | 7265 | 912 | 12 | 7831 |
| No education | 155 | 3 | 5717 | 246 | 5 | 5242 |
| Primary | 128 | 11 | 1188 | 404 | 18 | 2236 |
| Secondary or higher | 220 | 61 | 360 | 263 | 74 | 354 |
| Total | 503 | 7 | 7265 | 913 | 12 | 7832 |
| Not working | 300 | 6 | 5008 | 399 | 12 | 3484 |
| Sales and Services | 153 | 25 | 623 | 315 | 21 | 1464 |
| Skilled manual | 14 | 12 | 113 | 100 | 17 | 558 |
| Unskilled manual and Agri workers | 34 | 2 | 1509 | 87 | 4 | 2251 |
| Total | 501 | 7 | 7253 | 901 | 12 | 7757 |
| Other Ethnic Ethiopians | 137 | 6 | 2171 | 190 | 8 | 2303 |
| Amhara | 185 | 9 | 2116 | 385 | 17 | 2230 |
| Oromo | 141 | 6 | 2495 | 261 | 10 | 2739 |
| Tigray | 40 | 9 | 467 | 72 | 14 | 516 |
| Total | 503 | 7 | 7249 | 908 | 12 | 7788 |
| Orthodox | 309 | 10 | 3233 | 556 | 17 | 3264 |
| Muslim | 94 | 4 | 2375 | 197 | 8 | 2563 |
| Other religions | 100 | 6 | 1658 | 158 | 8 | 1913 |
| Total | 503 | 7 | 7266 | 911 | 12 | 7740 |
| Poorest | 12 | 1 | 1514 | 35 | 2 | 1725 |
| Poorer | 23 | 2 | 1545 | 47 | 3 | 1688 |
| Middle | 30 | 2 | 1584 | 55 | 3 | 1605 |
| Richer | 74 | 5 | 1446 | 116 | 8 | 1490 |
| Richest | 365 | 31 | 1178 | 660 | 50 | 1325 |
| Total | 504 | 7 | 7267 | 913 | 12 | 7833 |
| No access | 117 | 3 | 4558 | 112 | 4 | 3150 |
| Moderate access | 293 | 11 | 2567 | 500 | 12 | 4112 |
| High access | 91 | 82 | 111 | 301 | 54 | 554 |
| Total | 501 | 7 | 7236 | 913 | 12 | 7816 |
Patterns of uptake of skilled delivery care by community characteristics: Bivariate analysis.
| Community Characteristics | Year 2005 | Total | Year 2011 | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Percent | Number | Percent | |||
| Urban | 301 | 46 | 620 | 638 | 54 | 1187 |
| Rural | 202 | 3 | 6646 | 294 | 5 | 6716 |
| Total | 503 | 7 | 7266 | 932 | 12 | 7903 |
| <25% | 58 | 2 | 3990 | 24 | 1 | 1674 |
| 25%–49% | 109 | 5 | 2246 | 132 | 4 | 3393 |
| >50% | 336 | 32 | 1029 | 777 | 27 | 2837 |
| Total | 503 | 7 | 7265 | 933 | 12 | 7904 |
| >50% | 7 | 1 | 859 | 15 | 1 | 1081 |
| 25.0–48.4% | 9 | 1 | 1394 | 57 | 3 | 1702 |
| <24.1% | 484 | 10 | 4981 | 860 | 17 | 5106 |
| Total | 500 | 7 | 7234 | 932 | 12 | 7889 |
| Low utilization areas | 140 | 3 | 4227 | 288 | 6 | 4782 |
| High utilization areas | 363 | 12 | 3039 | 644 | 21 | 3121 |
| Total | 503 | 7 | 7266 | 932 | 12 | 7903 |
| Low fertility areas | 395 | 19 | 2107 | 759 | 27 | 2813 |
| High fertility areas | 108 | 2 | 5159 | 173 | 3 | 5090 |
| Total | 503 | 7 | 7266 | 932 | 12 | 7903 |
| Low contraceptive areas | 112 | 3 | 4490 | 182 | 5 | 3976 |
| High contraceptive areas | 391 | 14 | 2776 | 750 | 19 | 3927 |
| Total | 503 | 7 | 7266 | 932 | 12 | 7903 |
Community level clustering in uptake of skilled delivery care by survey year 2005 and 2011.
| Model Term | Year 2005 | Year 2011 |
|---|---|---|
| Empty Model | (N = 6,538 Exc. = 6) | N = 7, 692 Exc. = 6) |
| Area variance | 5.043(0.428)*** | 5.226(0.408)*** |
| ICC | 0.605 | 0.613 |
| Model including all variables | (N = 6,455 Exc. = 89) | (N = 7,416 Exc. = 282) |
| Intercept | 0.086(0.035–0.213)*** | 0.183(0.080–0.418)*** |
| Variance Intercept | 0.937(0.515)*** | 0.898(0.126)*** |
| ICC | 0.221 | 0.214 |
| PCV (%) | 0.634 | 0.651 |
Effects of individual and household level factors in uptake of skilled delivery care by survey year.
| Model Term | 2005 Model | 2011 Model |
|---|---|---|
| N = 6,455 Exc. = 89 | (N = 7,416 Exc. = 282 | |
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI | |
| 0.086(0.035–0.213)*** | 0.183(0.080–0.418)*** | |
| 15–19 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| 20–29 | 1.293(0.820–2.307) | 1.972(1.220–3.188)** |
| 30–39 | 1.703(1.002–2.894)* | 2.303(1.352–3.922)** |
| 40–49 | 2.227(1.109–4.470)* | 2.299(1.238–4.272)** |
| 1st order birth | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| 2nd order birth | 0.431(0.311–0.596)*** | 0.573(0.427–0.769)*** |
| 3rd order birth | 0.360(0.243–0.533)*** | 0.417(0.303–0.572)*** |
| Birth order 4+ | 0.223(0.150–0.332)*** | 0.339(0.244–0.471)*** |
| No education | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| Primary education | 1.582(1.200–2.086)** | 1.797(1.431–2.257)*** |
| Secondary or higher | 2.937(2.018–4.275)*** | 4.423(3.093–6.325)*** |
| Not working | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| Sales & services | 1.578(1.173–2.121)** | 0.974(0.788–1.203) |
| Skilled manual | 1.285(0.737–2.238) | 1.060(0.722–1.556) |
| Unskilled manual & agri | 0.752(0.497–1.136) | 0.672(0.487–0.927)* |
| Other ethnic Ethiopians | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| Amhara | 0.775(0.548–1.096) | 1.076(0.792–1.461) |
| Oromo | 0.713(0.495–1.026) | 0.936(0.701–1.250) |
| Tigre | 0.745(0.403–1.379) | 0.585(0.372–0.918)* |
| Orthodox | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| Muslim | 0.902(0.657–1.240) | 0.796(0.606–1.045) |
| Other religions | 0.902(0.657–1.240) | 0.708(0.491–1.021) |
| Poorest | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| Poorer | 0.796(0.395–1.605) | 0.889(0.586–1.350) |
| Middle | 0.994(0.517–1.913) | 0.881(0.579–1.339) |
| Richer | 2.109(1.135–3.919)* | 1.281(0.858–1.914) |
| Richest | 3.581(1.945–6.594)*** | 2.121(1.403–3.207)*** |
| No access | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| Medium access | 1.248(1.054–1.936)* | 1.433(1.117–1.839)** |
| High access | 2.832(1.648–4.867)*** | 2.237(1.590–3.146)*** |
Note: Community level factors have been controlled in both the models
Effects of community level factors on the uptake of skilled delivery care by survey year.
| Model Term | 2005 Model | 2011 Model |
|---|---|---|
| (N = 6,455 Exc. = 89) | (N = 7,416 Exc. = 282) | |
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |
| 0.086(0.035–0.213)*** | 0.183(0.080–0.418)*** | |
| Urban | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| Rural | 0.340(0.196–0.591)*** | 0.169(0.116–0.247)*** |
| 24.5% | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| 25.0–48.7% | 1.898(1.181–3.049)** | 1.223(0.790–1.892) |
| >50% | 3.414(1.671–6.972)** | 1.744(1.086–2.800)* |
| >50% | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| 25.0–48.4% | 0.712(0.292–1.739) | 0.973(0.584–1.622) |
| <24.1% | 1.140(0.516–2.157) | 1.059(0.644–1.740) |
| Low utilization areas | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| High utilization areas | 1.302(0.951–1.783) | 1.225(0.921–1.613) |
| Low fertility areas | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| High fertility areas | 0.568(0.372–0.867)** | 0.605(0.435–0.842)** |
| Low contraceptive. use areas | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| High contraceptive. use areas | 0.858(0.592–1.244) | 1.328(0.967–1.825) |
Note: Individual and household level factors have been controlled in both the models.