| Literature DB >> 29666654 |
Jones Asafo Akowuah1, Peter Agyei-Baffour2, Dadson Awunyo-Vitor1.
Abstract
Access to quality healthcare still remains a major challenge in the efforts at reversing maternal morbidity and mortality. Despite the availability of established maternal health interventions, the health of the expectant mother and the unborn child remains poor due to low utilisation of interventions. The study examined the socioeconomic determinants of antenatal care utilisation in peri-urban Ghana using pregnant women who are in their third trimester. Two-stage sampling technique was used to sample 200 pregnant women who were in their third trimester from the District Health Information Management System software. Well-structured questionnaire was the instrument used to collect data from respondents. Descriptive statistics and inferential statistics including binary logit regression model were used to analyse the data with the help of SPSS and STATA software. The results showed varying utilisation levels of ANC. From the regression result, age, household size, and occupational status were identified as the important socioeconomic determinants of antenatal care utilisation among the respondents. The important system factors which influence antenatal care utilisation by the respondents are distance to ANC, quality of service, and service satisfaction. The study concludes that socioeconomic and health system factors are important determinants of antenatal care utilisation. Stepping up of interventions aimed at improving the socioeconomic status and addressing health system and proximity challenges could be helpful in improving antenatal care utilisation by pregnant women in Ghana.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29666654 PMCID: PMC5832169 DOI: 10.1155/2018/1673517
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Trop Med ISSN: 1687-9686
| Variables | Description | Expected sign |
|---|---|---|
|
| Age of respondents | + |
|
| Household size of respondents | + |
|
| Occupational status of respondents | + |
|
| Primary education | +, − |
|
| Secondary/SHS education | + |
|
| Vocational/technical education | − |
|
| Tertiary education | + |
|
| By car (as a means of utilising ANC) | +, − |
|
| Others (any others means of utilising ANC) | − |
|
| Asonomaso health centre | + |
|
| SakraWonoo health centre | + |
|
| Antoa health centre | − |
|
| Choice of facility for ANC services | − |
|
| Accessibility of ANC services | +, − |
|
| Satisfaction of ANC services; 1 = satisfied, 0 = not satisfied | + |
|
| Attitude of caregivers; 1 = satisfied, 0 = not satisfied | +, − |
|
| Quality of service ANC; 1 = satisfied, 0 = not satisfied | + |
Socioeconomic characteristics of respondents on ANC use.
| Variables | Frequency | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Age distribution | ||
| 15–20 | 19 | 9.5 |
| 21–29 | 108 | 54.5 |
| 30–39 | 51 | 25.5 |
| 40–49 | 22 | 11 |
| Mean household size | 3.25 | - |
| Employed | 176 | 88 |
| Unemployed | 24 | 12 |
| Had no formal education | 12 | 6 |
| Had primary education | 10 | 5 |
| Had middle/JHS education | 60 | 30 |
| Had secondary/SHS education | 59 | 29.5 |
| Had vocational/technical education | 31 | 15.5 |
| Had tertiary education | 28 | 14 |
| Had NHIS card | 153 | 76.5 |
| Did not have NHIS card | 47 | 23.5 |
| Mamponteng facility users | 79 | 39.5 |
| Asonomaso facility users | 67 | 33.5 |
| Sakrora Wonoo facility users | 27 | 13.5 |
| Antoa facility users | 27 | 13.5 |
Regression of ANC factors for the selected health facilities.
| Dependent variable: utilisation (regular and irregular) dummy | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Independent Variables | Coef ( | Std. Err. |
| Marg. Eff. ( | Std. Err. |
|
|
| ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Age | 1.42 | 0.38 | 3.71 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 8.22 |
| HH size | 2.83 | 1.01 | 2.81 | 0.08 | 0.02 | 3.62 |
| Occupational status dummy | 5.15 | 2.61 | 1.98 | 0.11 | 0.03 | 3.42 |
|
| ||||||
| Primary | −4.31 | 2.36 | −1.83 | −0.10 | 0.05 | −1.97 |
| Secondary/SHS | −3.81 | 1.62 | −2.35 | −0.09 | 0.03 | −2.81 |
| Vocational/technical | −2.57 | 1.83 | −1.40 | −0.06 | 0.04 | −1.42 |
| Tertiary | −1.60 | 2.04 | −0.78 | −0.03 | 0.04 | −0.78 |
|
| ||||||
| By car | −2.53 | 1.49 | −1.70 | −0.07 | 0.03 | −2.05 |
| Others | −1.63 | 4.72 | −0.35 | −0.04 | 0.12 | −0.37 |
|
| ||||||
| Asonomaso | −4.46 | 1.88 | −2.37 | −0.11 | 0.03 | −3.47 |
| Sakra Wonoo | −5.84 | 2.61 | −2.23 | −0.16 | 0.05 | −2.87 |
| Antoa | −0.60 | 2.02 | −0.30 | −0.01 | 0.04 | −0.29 |
|
| ||||||
| Insurance status dummy | 0.37 | 1.55 | −0.24 | −0.01 | 0.05 | −0.24 |
| Choice of facility dummy | −0.92 | 1.03 | −0.89 | −0.03 | 0.03 | −0.94 |
| Accessibility dummy | −1.49 | 1.44 | −1.03 | −0.04 | 0.04 | −1.04 |
| Satisfaction dummy | −8.51 | 2.68 | −3.17 | −0.27 | 0.04 | −7.51 |
| Attitude dummy | 2.56 | 1.78 | 1.44 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 1.89 |
| Quality of service dummy | 4.30 | 1.83 | 2.35 | 0.10 | 0.04 | 3.72 |
|
| −37.81 | 10.07 | −3.75 | |||
| LR chi2( | ||||||
| Pseudo | ||||||
| Log likelihood = − | ||||||
NB. ∗, ∗∗, and ∗∗∗ represent significance at 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively; source: Field Survey, 2015.