| Literature DB >> 30005650 |
Ngan Do1, Huong Thi Giang Tran2, Alay Phonvisay3, Juhwan Oh4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic inequalities in access to maternal health care have received more attention as it challenges the sustainability of the ongoing achievement in reducing maternal mortality. By promoting access to maternal health care as one of the core targets of the Health Sector Reform, Lao People's Democratic Republic has reduced maternal mortality dramatically over the last decade. In spite of this improvement, little has been known about the secular trends in disparities of service utilization across different socioeconomic subgroups.Entities:
Keywords: Inequality; Lao People’s Democratic Republic; Maternal health services; Socioeconomic factors; Trends
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30005650 PMCID: PMC6045842 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-018-5811-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Description of the study sample
| Year | 2000 | 2012 |
|---|---|---|
| Number of women in the study sample | 1161 (100.00%) | 4444 (100.00%) |
| Number of women used antenatal services at least one time | 337 (29.05%) | 2309 (51.96%) |
| Number of women delivered with health professionals | 246 (21.23%) | 1705 (38.36%) |
| Ethnicity of household head | ||
| Lao | 510 (43.97%) | 1778 (40.02%) |
| Non-Lao | 651 (56.03%) | 2666 (59.98%) |
| Mother’s age | ||
| 15–19 | 138 (11.90%) | 580 (13.05%) |
| 20–29 | 625 (53.79%) | 2597 (58.44%) |
| 30–39 | 334 (28.79%) | 1087 (24.46%) |
| 40–49 | 64 (5.52%) | 180 (4.05%) |
| Mother’s education | ||
| None | 526 (45.27%) | 1363 (30.67%) |
| Primary | 451 (38.86%) | 1855 (41.74%) |
| Secondary and higher | 184 (15.87%) | 1226 (27.59%) |
| Access to media (radio, newspaper, TV) | ||
| Yes | 975 (84.01%) | 3364 (75.70%) |
| No | 186 (15.99%) | 1080 (24.30%) |
| Residential area | ||
| Urban | 218 (18.79%) | 890 (20.03%) |
| Rural | 943 (81.21%) | 3554 (79.97%) |
| HH wealth index quintile | ||
| Poorest quintile | 313 (26.98%) | 1367 (30.76%) |
| Second quintile | 247 (21.30%) | 1010 (22.73%) |
| Third quintile | 210 (18.10%) | 848 (19.08%) |
| Fourth quintile | 203 (17.50%) | 668 (15.03%) |
| Richest quintile | 187 (16.12%) | 551 (12.40%) |
The association between socio-demographic factors and maternal health service utilization in Lao PDR (2000, 2012)
| ANC | SBA | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | |
| HH head ethnic (ref. Lao) | ||||
| Non-Lao ethnic | 0.56c | 0.47–0.66 | 0.71c | 0.59–0.85 |
| Education (ref. no schooling) | ||||
| Primary | 2.32c | 1.97–2.74 | 1.40c | 1.12–1.70 |
| Secondary and higher | 4.58c | 3.70–5.68 | 3.71c | 2.96–4.65 |
| Residential Area (ref. urban) | ||||
| Rural | 0.36c | 0.29–0.43 | 0.29c | 0.24–0.35 |
| Wealth (ref. poorest quintile) | ||||
| Second quintile | 1.81c | 1.50–2.18 | 2.22c | 1.76–2.80 |
| Third quintile | 2.37c | 1.92–2.92 | 3.58c | 2.80–4.57 |
| Fourth quintile | 2.75c | 2.16–3.51 | 5.07c | 3.87–6.63 |
| Richest quintile | 3.41c | 2.53–4.59 | 8.21c | 5.99–11.27 |
| Age (ref. age group:15–19) | ||||
| 20–29 | 1.27b | 1.04–1.55 | 0.82 | 0.66–1.01 |
| 30–39 | 1.13 | 0.90–1.42 | 0.80* | 0.61-0.99 |
| 40–49 | 0.87 | 0.59–1.27 | 0.68 | 0.44–1.04 |
| Access to media (ref. ever access to media) | ||||
| Non media access | 0.51c | 0.43–0.62 | 0.70b | 0.56–0.88 |
| Province (ref. Vientiane Capital) | ||||
| Phongsaly | 0.32c | 0.19–0.56 | 0.35c | 0.20–0.61 |
| Luangnamtha | 1.45 | 0.84–2.51 | 0.89 | 0.52–1.52 |
| Oudomxay | 0.61a | 0.37-0.99 | 0.46b | 0.28–0.76 |
| Bokeo | 0.65 | 0.39–1.08 | 0.76 | 0.46–1.25 |
| Huaphanh | 0.53a | 0.33-0.87 | 0.58a | 0.36-0.94 |
| Luangprabang | 0.72 | 0.44–1.17 | 0.44b | 0.26–0.72 |
| Xayabury | 1.14 | 0.69–1.90 | 0.46b | 0.28–0.75 |
| Xiengkhuang | 0.69 | 0.42–1.16 | 0.57a | 0.35-0.87 |
| Vientiane province | 1.04 | 0.63–1.72 | 0.54a | 0.34-1.14 |
| Borikhamxay | 0.53a | 0.32-0.89 | 0.70 | 0.43–1.14 |
| Khammuane | 0.46b | 0.29–0.75 | 0.45b | 0.28–0.72 |
| Savannakhet | 0.57a | 0.36-0.90 | 0.54b | 0.35–0.83 |
| Saravane | 0.77 | 0.48–1.22 | 0.65 | 0.41–1.01 |
| Sekong | 0.63 | 0.38–1.01 | 0.41c | 0.25–0.67 |
| Champasak | 0.30c | 0.19–0.48 | 0.33c | 0.22–0.51 |
| Attapeu | 0.49b | 0.30–0.82 | 0.19c | 0.11–0.33 |
| Year (ref. year 2000) | ||||
| 2012 | 1.11c | 1.09–1.12 | 1.10c | 1.08–1.11 |
| Constant | 2.41e-88 | 7.8e-102-7.4e-75 | 4.05e-80 | 3.3e-95-4.96e-65 |
a: p-value<=0.05; b: p-value<=0.01; c: p-value<=0.001
Interaction terms between socio-economic characteristics and years of survey for maternal service utilization
| ANC | SBA | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | |
| Ethnicity of household head (ref. Lao) | ||||
| Non-Lao | 0.62b | 0.44–0.89 | 0.65a | 0.44-0.97 |
| Mother’s education (ref. no education) | ||||
| Primary | 1.15 | 0.76–1.75 | 1.21 | 0.75–1.95 |
| Secondary and higher | 0.68 | 0.40–1.15 | 1.09 | 0.64–1.86 |
| Residential area (ref. urban) | ||||
| Rural | 2.40c | 1.52–3.77 | 2.16b | 1.36–3.42 |
| HH wealth index quintile (ref. the poorest quintile) | ||||
| Second quintile | 0.89 | 0.51–1.53 | 0.79 | 0.40–1.53 |
| Third quintile | 0.99 | 0.57–1.7 | 1.27 | 0.64–2.49 |
| Fourth quintile | 1.28 | 0.73–2.26 | 1.23 | 0.63–2.38 |
| Richest quintile | 3.85c | 1.99–7.43 | 6.41c | 3.07–13.38 |
a: p-value<=0.05; b: p-value<=0.01; c: p-value<=0.001
Fig. 1Secular trend of antenatal service utilization 2000–2012
Fig. 2Secular trend of delivery with health professionals 2000–2012