| Literature DB >> 29951393 |
Shayesteh Hajizadeh1, Fahimeh Ramezani Tehrani2, Masoumeh Simbar1, Farshad Farzadfar3.
Abstract
Background: LBW is an important factor that can affect infant mortality and represents an index of economic and social development. It is expected that an increase in the density of midwives attending family physician programs will lead to a decrease in LBW in health centers. This study aimed to compare the percentage of LBW infants before and after the implementation of the family physician program in health centers with and without an increase in midwives density.Entities:
Keywords: Delivery of health care; Iran; Kurdistan; Low birth weight; Outcome assessment
Year: 2017 PMID: 29951393 PMCID: PMC6014774 DOI: 10.14196/mjiri.31.92
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med J Islam Repub Iran ISSN: 1016-1430
Sampling frame in rural area of Kurdistan province in the survey of 2005 and 2013
| District | Health Center | Health house | Sample |
| Sanandaj | 9 | 16 | 50 |
| Kamyaran | 12 | 33 | 114 |
| Ghorveh | 11 | 22 | 98 |
| Marivan | 7 | 18 | 82 |
| Baneh | 9 | 19 | 90 |
| Saghez | 13 | 33 | 76 |
| Bijar | 10 | 20 | 102 |
| Divandareh | 6 | 15 | 56 |
| Total | 77 | 176 | 668 |
Frequencu distribution of the characteristics of the study population by Intervention in family physician program (2005: N=668, 2013: N=668)
| Variable | Category | Intervention (increase in the density of midwives)in family physician program | |||
| Year:2005 | Year:2013 | ||||
|
Yes |
NO |
Yes |
NO | ||
| Age | Under 18 years old | 20(71.4) | 8(28.6) | 8(66.7) | 4(33.3) |
| 18 to 35 years old | 470(81.3) | 108(18.7) | 447(80.4) | 109(19.6) | |
| Over 35 years old | 47(75.8) | 15(24.2) | 82(82) | 18(18) | |
| Job | Employed | 497(79.4) | 129(20.6) | 486(80.9) | 115(19.1) |
| Unemployed | 40(95.2) | 2(4.8) | 51(76.1) | 16(23.9) | |
| Education | Illiterate | 194(77.6) | 56(22.4) | 85(80.2) | 21(19.8) |
| Literate | 343(82.1) | 75(17.9) | 452(80.4) | 110(19.6) | |
| Parity |
High risk (> = 5) | 41(67.2) | 20(32.8) | 24(88.9) | 3(11.1) |
|
Low risk | 496(81.7) | 111(18.3) | 513(80) | 128(20) | |
| Smoking or drug abuse | Yes | 64(74.4) | 22(25.6) | 29(80.6) | 7(19.4) |
| No | 473(81.3) | 109(18.7) | 508(80.4) | 124(19.6) | |
| History of medical disease or high risk obstetrical condition | Yes | 86(81.1) | 20(18.9) | 70(85.4) | 12(14.6) |
| No | 451(80.2) | 111(19.8) | 467(79.7) | 119(20.3) | |
| Prenatal complication | Yes | 218(82.6%) | 46(17.4) | 190(79.2) | 50(20.8) |
| No | 319(79) | 85(21) | 347(81.1) | 81(18.9) | |
| LBW | Yes | 21(80.8%) | 5(19.2%) | 17(85%) | 3(15%) |
| No | 516(80.4%) | 126(19.6%) | 520(80.2%) | 128(19.8%) | |
| Cesarean section | Yes | 113(77.4) | 33(22.6) | 181(80.4) | 44(19.6) |
| No | 424(81.2) | 98(18.8) | 356(80.4) | 87(19.6) | |
Density of midwives, family physicians and Behvarzes in health centers in the survey of 2005 and 2013
| Variable | Options | Year of study | |
|
2005 |
2013 | ||
| Density of midwives | First quintile | 29(37.66) | 1(1.3) |
| Second quintile | 20 (25.97) | 11(14.29) | |
| Third quintile | 13(16.88) | 18(23.38) | |
| Fourth quintile | 10(12.99) | 21(27.27) | |
| Fifth quintile | 5(6.49) | 26(33.77) | |
| Density of family physicians | First quintile | 27(35.06) | 3(3.90) |
| Second quintile | 16(20.78) | 15(19.48) | |
| Third quintile | 13(16.88) | 18(23.38) | |
| Fourth quintile | 12(15.58) | 19(24.68) | |
| Fifth quintile | 9(11.69) | 22(28.57) | |
| Density of rural community health (Behvarz) workers | First quintile | 19 (24.68) | 11(14.29) |
| Second quintile | 19(24.68) | 12(15.58) | |
| Third quintile | 15(19.48) | 16(20.78) | |
| Fourth quintile | 14(18.8) | 17(22.08) | |
| Fifth quintile | 10(12.99) | 21(27.27) | |
Relationship between variables and LBW Infant in rural areas of Kurdistan (2005: N=668, 2013: N=668)
| Variable | LBW (Yes, No) | |
| Difference in difference model | ||
| OR (95% CI) | ||
| Interaction between intervention and time | 1 | 1.05 (0.16 – 6.6) p=0. 95 |
| 0 | ||
| Year | 2013 | 0.9 (0.2 – 4.6) p=0.9 |
| 2005 | ||
| Intervention (increase in the density of midwives) | yes | 1.23 (0.35 – 4.13) p=0.76 |
| No | ||
| Age | - | 0.99 (0.92 – 1.06) p=0.87 |
| Parity | - | 0.97 (0.71 – 1.34) p=0.9 |
| Education | Illiterate | 0.48 (0.22 – 1.07) p=0.07 |
| Literate | ||
| Job | Employed | 0.56 (0.12 – 2.6) p=0.46 |
| Unemployed | ||
| Smoking or drug abuse | Yes | 1.69 (0.65 – 4.37) p=0.27 |
| No | ||
| History of high risk medical or obstetric conditions | Yes | 1.93 (0.95 – 3.92) p=0.06 |
| No | ||
| Prenatal complications | Yes | 1.2 (0.91 – 3.12) p=0.10 |
| No | ||
| Cesarean section | Yes | 2.23 (1.16 – 4.29) p=0.01 |
| No | ||
| Standard prenatal care | Yes | 0.8 (0.39 – 1.62) p=0.45 |
| No | ||
| Continuity of prenatal care | Yes | 0.71 (0.31 – 1.62) p=0.42 |
| No | ||
| Density of family physicians | - | 3.9 (0.14 – 5.01) p=0.41 |
| Density of rural community health (Behvarz) workers | - | 0.71 (0.4 – 1.36) p=0.36 |
| Socio-economic status | - | 1.05 (0.94 – 1.19) p=0.39 |
| Logarithm of the rural population | - | 1.52 (0.54 – 4.26) p=0.42 |
| Sex ratio | - | 0.96 (0.87 – 1.06) p=0.46 |