| Literature DB >> 29703248 |
Regis Hitimana1,2, Lars Lindholm3, Gunilla Krantz4, Manasse Nzayirambaho5, Jeanine Condo6, Jean Paul Semasaka Sengoma5,7, Anni-Maria Pulkki-Brännström3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the widespread use of antenatal care (ANC), its effectiveness in low-resource settings remains unclear. In this study, self-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was used as an alternative to other maternal health measures previously used to measure the effectiveness of antenatal care. The main objective of this study was to determine whether adequate antenatal care utilization is positively associated with women's HRQoL. Furthermore, the associations between the HRQoL during the first year (1-13 months) after delivery and socio-economic and demographic factors were explored in Rwanda.Entities:
Keywords: Antenatal care; HRQoL; Health-related quality of life; MaTHeR; Postnatal women; Social support; Wealth
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29703248 PMCID: PMC5921437 DOI: 10.1186/s41043-018-0142-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Health Popul Nutr ISSN: 1606-0997 Impact factor: 2.000
Distribution of women by socio-economic and demographic categories (N = 922)
| Variables | Number | Percent | [95% CI] |
|---|---|---|---|
| Residence | |||
| Rural | 706 | 76.7 | 73.8–79.3 |
| Urban | 215 | 23.3 | 20.7–26.2 |
| Age groups | |||
| 15–20 | 95 | 10.3 | 8.5–12.5 |
| 21–25 | 267 | 29.0 | 26.2–32.0 |
| 26–30 | 271 | 29.5 | 26.6–32.5 |
| 31–35 | 173 | 18.8 | 16.4–21.5 |
| 36–40 | 85 | 9.2 | 7.5–11.3 |
| > 40 | 29 | 3.1 | 2.2–4.5 |
| Education level | |||
| Some primary | 417 | 50.2 | 46.8–53.6 |
| Primary | 202 | 24.3 | 21.5–27.3 |
| Lower secondary or vocational | 112 | 13.5 | 11.3–15.9 |
| Upper secondary or higher education | 100 | 12.0 | 9.9–14.4 |
| Marital status | |||
| Married | 482 | 52.4 | 49.1–55.6 |
| Cohabitant | 292 | 31.7 | 28.8–34.8 |
| Separated/divorced/widow | 23 | 2.5 | 1.6–3.7 |
| Unmarried/single | 123 | 13.4 | 11.3–15.7 |
| Social support categories | |||
| Poor social support | 315 | 34.6 | 31.5–37.7 |
| Good social support | 596 | 65.4 | 62.3–68.4 |
| Number of children | |||
| 1 child | 41 | 6.5 | 4.8–8.7 |
| 2 children | 227 | 35.9 | 32.3–39.8 |
| 3 children | 148 | 23.4 | 20.3–26.9 |
| 4 to 5 children | 138 | 21.8 | 18.8–25.3 |
| ≥ 6 children | 77 | 12.2 | 9.8–15.0 |
| Wealth quintiles | |||
| Lowest | 168 | 20.3 | 17.7–23.2 |
| Second | 167 | 20.2 | 17.6–23.1 |
| Middle | 192 | 23.3 | 20.5–26.3 |
| Fourth | 150 | 18.2 | 15.7–20.9 |
| Highest | 148 | 17.9 | 15.4–20.7 |
| Adequacy of ANC utilization | |||
| Inadequate ANC | 563 | 61.5 | 58.3–64.6 |
| Adequate ANC | 352 | 38.5 | 35.4–41.6 |
Prevalence of the dimensions of quality of life (N = 922)
| Number | Percent | |
|---|---|---|
| Mobility | ||
| No problems | 880 | 95.4 |
| Some problems | 42 | 4.5 |
| Severe problems | 0 | 0 |
| Self-care | ||
| No problems | 912 | 98.9 |
| Some problems | 10 | 1.1 |
| Severe problems | 0 | 0 |
| Usual activities | ||
| No problems | 869 | 94.4 |
| Some problems | 49 | 5.3 |
| Severe problems | 2 | 0.2 |
| Pain or discomfort | ||
| No problems | 770 | 83.6 |
| Some problems | 140 | 15.2 |
| Severe problems | 11 | 1.2 |
| Anxiety or depression | ||
| No problems | 745 | 80.9 |
| Some problems | 152 | 16.5 |
| Severe problems | 24 | 2.6 |
Average health-related quality of life values by socio-economic and demographic characteristics (N = 922)
| Number | EQ-5D score (mean) | [95% CI] | Number | EQ-VAS score (mean) | [95% CI] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Residence | ||||||
| Rural | 705 | 0.928 | 0.916–0.940 | 704 | 69.1 | 67.6–70.6 |
| Urban | 214 | 0.903 | 0.878–0.928 | 210 | 71.2 | 68.8–73.5 |
| Age groups | ||||||
| 15–20 | 95 |
|
| 94 | 69.8 | 65.5–74.0 |
| 21–25 | 266 |
|
| 264 | 69.0 | 66.5–71.5 |
| 26–30 | 271 |
|
| 270 | 69.2 | 66.8–71.6 |
| 31–35 | 173 |
|
| 171 | 70.7 | 68.1–73.3 |
| 36–40 | 84 |
|
| 85 | 70.4 | 65.9–74.9 |
| > 40 | 29 |
|
| 29 | 67.9 | 61.4–74.4 |
| Education level | ||||||
| Some primary | 416 | 0.915 | 0.898–0.932 |
|
|
|
| Primary completed | 200 | 0.943 | 0.921–0.963 |
|
|
|
| Lower secondary or vocational | 111 | 0.918 | 0.888–0.947 |
|
|
|
| Upper secondary or university | 100 | 0.944 | 0.921–0.967 |
|
|
|
| Marital status | ||||||
| Married | 481 |
|
| 480 |
|
|
| Cohabitant | 290 |
|
| 290 |
|
|
| Separated/divorced/widow | 23 |
|
| 22 |
|
|
| Unmarried/single | 124 |
|
| 121 |
|
|
| Social support categories | ||||||
| Poor social support | 313 |
|
| 312 |
|
|
| Good social support | 595 |
|
| 592 |
|
|
| Number of children | ||||||
| 1 | 41 |
|
| 41 | 76.1 | 70.5–81.7 |
| 2 | 228 |
|
| 225 | 68.3 | 65.8–70.8 |
| 3 | 146 |
|
| 146 | 71.8 | 68.6–75.1 |
| 4 to 5 | 137 |
|
| 137 | 68.6 | 65.6–71.6 |
| ≥ 6 | 77 |
|
| 77 | 69.3 | 64.3–74.2 |
| Wealth quintiles | ||||||
| Lowest | 166 | 0.893 | 0.858–0.927 | 167 |
|
|
| Second | 167 | 0.928 | 0.903–0.952 | 167 |
|
|
| Middle | 191 | 0.939 | 0.919–0.959 | 190 |
|
|
| Fourth | 150 | 0.912 | 0.887–0.936 | 148 |
|
|
| Highest | 148 | 0.937 | 0.910–0.963 | 146 |
|
|
| Child’s age | ||||||
| ≤ 2 month | 128 | 0.926 | 0.901–0.951 | 126 | 71.5 | 67.5–75.6 |
| 3–4 month | 185 | 0.941 | 0.923–0.960 | 185 | 69.8 | 66.9–72.6 |
| 5–6 month | 145 | 0.908 | 0.875–0.942 | 147 | 69.9 | 67.2–72.6 |
| 7–8 month | 132 | 0.897 | 0.864–0.931 | 129 | 70.1 | 66.7–73.5 |
| 9–10 month | 139 | 0.914 | 0.884–0.945 | 137 | 67.6 | 64.1–71.1 |
| 11–12 month | 126 | 0.931 | 0.905–0.957 | 126 | 68.8 | 65.2–72.4 |
| > 12 month | 60 | 0.944 | 0.903–0.984 | 61 | 70.1 | 65.3–74.8 |
| ANC utilization | ||||||
| Inadequate ANC | 561 | 0.917 | 0.902–0.931 |
|
|
|
| Adequate ANC | 351 | 0.932 | 0.917–0.948 |
|
|
|
Statistically differences in bivariate analyses are indicated in italics
Association between health-related quality of life and antenatal care utilization: regression analysis using the EQ-5D and EQ-VAS
| Model 1 (EQ-5D as the outcome) | Model 2 (EQ-VAS as the outcome) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coef. |
| [95% C. I.] | Coef. |
| [95% C. I.] | |
| Social support (ref = Poor social support) | ||||||
| Good social support | 0.062 | 0.000 | 0.033; 0.091 | 9.222 | 0.000 | 6.264; 12.180 |
| Wealth quintiles (ref = Lowest) | ||||||
| Second | 0.024 | 0.287 | −0.020; 0.069 | 4.124 | 0.081 | −0.516; 8.766 |
| Middle | 0.047 | 0.016 | 0.009; 0.086 | 5.807 | 0.005 | 1.781; 9.834 |
| Fourth | 0.005 | 0.813 | −0.038; 0.049 | 4.399 | 0.063 | −0.239; 9.038 |
| Highest | 0.059 | 0.013 | 0.012; 0.107 | 9.200 | 0.000 | 4.615; 13.785 |
| Place of residence (ref = Rural) | ||||||
| Urban | −0.044 | 0.008 | −0.077; − 0.011 | |||
| Educational level (ref = Some primary) | ||||||
| Primary completed | −4.260 | 0.012 | −7.583; −0.936 | |||
| Lower secondary or vocational | −0.266 | 0.895 | −4.216; 3.684 | |||
| Upper secondary or university | 2.205 | 0.292 | −1.901; 6.312 | |||
| Marital status (ref = Married) | ||||||
| Cohabitant | −4.164 | 0.006 | −7.150; −1.178 | |||
| Separated | −5.757 | 0.263 | −15.848; 4.334 | |||
| Unmarried/single | −7.585 | 0.001 | −12.069; −3.101 | |||
| ANC utilization (ref = Inadequate ANC attendance) | ||||||
| Adequate ANC | 3.551 | 0.008 | 0.924; 6.179 | |||
Notes: Using robust standard errors