| Literature DB >> 29936656 |
Abstract
Objectives Providing counseling on danger signs of pregnancy complications as part of visits for antenatal care (ANC) can raise expecting women's awareness so that if danger signs occur they can seek assistance in time. The study examines the level of agreement in counseling on danger signs between observation of the provider during the ANC visit and the client's report in the exit interview, and the association of this agreement with the client's level of knowledge on danger signs. Methods The analysis used data from service provision and assessment (SPA) surveys in Haiti, Malawi, and Senegal. Agreement between the observation and client's report was measured by Cohen's kappa and percent agreement. Regressions were performed on the number of danger signs the client knew, with the level of agreement on the counseling on danger signs as the main independent variable. Results The study found little agreement between the observation of counseling and the client's report that the counseling occurred, despite the fact that the exit interview with the client was performed immediately following the ANC visit with the provider. The level of positive agreement between observation and client's report was 17% in Haiti, 33% in Malawi, and 23% in Senegal. Clients' overall knowledge of danger signs was low; in all three countries the mean number of danger signs known was 1.5 or less. The regression analysis found that, in order to show a significant increase in knowledge of danger signs, it was important for the client to report that it took place. Conclusions Ideally, there should be 100% positive agreement that counseling occurred. To achieve this level requires raising both the level of counseling on danger signs of pregnancy complications and its quality. While challenges exist, providing counseling that is more client-centered and focuses on the client's needs could improve quality and thus could increase the client's knowledge of danger signs.Entities:
Keywords: Antenatal care; Client exit interview; Counseling; Knowledge of danger signs; Pregnancy complications; Provider observation
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29936656 PMCID: PMC6208654 DOI: 10.1007/s10995-018-2563-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Matern Child Health J ISSN: 1092-7875
Number of facilities and ANC observations included in the SPA surveys analyzed in this study
| Haiti 2013 | Malawi 2013–2014 | Senegal 2014 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of facilities included in the SPA | 905 | 977 | 363 |
| Number of ANC consultations observed | 1,620 | 2,068 | 1,211 |
Percentage of observed counseling on danger signs of pregnancy complications and the percentage of clients that reporting receiving the counseling with reported percent agreement and kappa statistics
| Provider observed | Client reported | Percent agreement | Kappa | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | CI | % | CI | % | ||
| Haiti | 51.0 | (47.3, 54.6) | 30.3 | (26.8, 33.8) | 52.3 | 0.053 |
| Malawi | 54.0 | (49.3, 58.7) | 51.3 | (47.5, 55.1) | 60.1 | 0.200 |
| Senegal | 38.0 | (33.6, 42.3) | 51.3 | [(46.8, 55.9) | 56.4 | 0.134 |
Fig. 1Agreement between the observation of counseling on danger signs and the client’s report in the exit interview. Note both agree, no: both the observation and client’s report agree; prov no, cl yes: provider was not observed to give the counseling but the client reports receiving the counseling; prov yes, cl no: the provider was observed to give the counseling but the client did not report receiving it; both agree, yes: positive agreement that the counseling did occur
Fig. 2Counseling from provider and client knowledge of specific danger signs in Haiti, Malawi, and Senegal
Fig. 3The number of danger signs reported by the client in the exit interview after the ANC visit
Fig. 4Mean number of danger signs reported by the client by the counseling variables. Note both agree, no: both the observation and client’s report agree; prov no, cl yes: provider was not observed to give the counseling but the client reports receiving the counseling; prov yes, cl no: the provider was observed to give the counseling but the client did not report receiving it; both agree, yes: positive agreement that the counseling did occur
Regression of the number of danger signs that could occur during pregnancy that the client knows with reported incidence risk ratios
| Haiti | Malawi | Senegal | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Client type | 1st Pregnancy | All clients | 1st Pregnancy | All clients | 1st Pregnancy | All clients | ||||||
| Counseled on any of the danger signs (ref.=no) | ||||||||||||
| Yes | 1.1 | 1.1 |
|
|
|
| ||||||
| Agreement on counseling on danger signs (ref.= bothnoa) | ||||||||||||
| Prov no, cl yesb |
|
|
|
| 1.1 | 1.0 | ||||||
| Prov yes, cl noc | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 | ||||||
| Bothyesd |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
| Duration of consultation | ||||||||||||
| Average in mins | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
|
|
| Client’s age (ref.: < 20) | ||||||||||||
| 20–29 |
|
|
|
| 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| 30–35 |
|
|
|
| 1.5 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| 36+ and don’t know | 1.2 | 1.3 |
|
| 0.8 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Client’s education (ref.: none) | ||||||||||||
| Primary | 1.0 | 1.1 |
| 1.2 | 1.8 | 1.7 |
| 1.2 | 1.4 | 1.4 |
|
|
| Secondary + | 1.2 | 1.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Number of previous ANC visits (ref.: first visit) | ||||||||||||
| 2 | 1.1 | 1.3 |
|
| 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| 3 | 1.1 | 1.2 |
|
| 1.1 | 1.2 |
|
|
|
|
| 1.1 |
| 4 or more | 1.2 | 1.1 |
|
| 1.4 | 1.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Client’s first pregnancy (ref.: no) | ||||||||||||
| Yes | 1.0 | 1.0 |
|
|
|
| ||||||
| Provider years of education (ref.: < 16) | ||||||||||||
| 16–18 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.9 |
|
| 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.8 |
| 0.9 | 1.0 |
| 19+ | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.9 |
|
| 0.8 |
| 0.7 |
| 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Provider training in ANC counseling (ref.: no) | ||||||||||||
| Yes | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 1.1 |
| 1.4 |
|
|
| Provider number of items supervised (ref.: none) | ||||||||||||
| 1–5 | 1.3 | 1.3 |
|
| 1.0 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| 6 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Region (ref.: North) | ||||||||||||
| Center | 0.8 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.9 | ||||
| South | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| 0.7* |
|
| ||||
| West | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 | ||||||||
| Dakar | 1.8 | 1.7 |
|
| ||||||||
| Thiès | 1.4 | 1.1 |
|
| ||||||||
| Central | 1.1 | 1.1 |
|
| ||||||||
| East | 1.6 | 1.5 |
|
| ||||||||
| South | 1.2 | 1.1 |
|
| ||||||||
| Observations | 531 | 531 | 1,603 | 1,603 | 489 | 489 | 2,025 | 2,025 | 256 | 256 | 1,206 | 1,206 |
aBoth no: both the observation and client’s report agree
bProv no, cl yes: provider was not observed to give the counseling but the client reports receiving the counseling
cProv yes, cl no: the provider was observed to give the counseling but the client did not report receiving it
dBoth yes: positive agreement that the counseling did occur
All models control for provider category, facility managing authority, facility type and location, which were all not significant in the models. Significance: *p < 0.05, ** p < 0.001, *** p < 0.001