| Literature DB >> 30305159 |
Vernon Mochache1,2, Amyn Lakhani3, Hajara El-Busaidy4, Marleen Temmerman5,6,3, Peter Gichangi5,6,7.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study sought to describe factors associated with facility-based delivery among women of reproductive age in Kwale County, Kenya.Entities:
Keywords: Correlates; Digo; Facility-based delivery; Kenya; Kwale; Women of reproductive age
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30305159 PMCID: PMC6180567 DOI: 10.1186/s13104-018-3818-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Res Notes ISSN: 1756-0500
Demographic characteristics of household survey respondents (n = 745)
| Characteristic | N (%)/median (IQR) |
|---|---|
| Respondent’s age | 29 (23–37) |
| Husband/partner’s age | 39 (30–46) |
| Age at sexual debut | 18 (16–20) |
| Age at marriage/union | 20 (18–23) |
| Marital status | |
| Currently married | 426 (57%) |
| Currently living as if married | 142 (19%) |
| Currently not in a union | 177 (24%) |
| Ever attended school | 646 (87%) |
| Years of education | 8 (7–11) |
| Ever given birth | 632 (85%) |
| Total number of births | 4 (2–5) |
| Currently pregnant | 75 (10%) |
| Duration (months) of current pregnancy | 6 (4–7) |
Fig. 1Respondents place of delivery according to status of ANC attendance
Factors associated with facility-based delivery among women of reproductive age from the Digo community residing in Kwale, Kenya (restricting to only those who reported a previous birth, n = 632)
| Univariate | Multivariatea | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | P-value | OR (95% CI) | P-value | |
| Respondent’s age (years) | ||||
| < 30 | Reference | |||
| ≥ 30 | 0.8 (0.5–1.2) | 0.217 | ||
| Husband/partner’s age (years) | ||||
| < 40 | Reference | |||
| ≥ 40 | 0.5 (0.3–0.9) | 0.013 | 0.7 (0.4–1.3) | 0.262 |
| Age started living with husband/partner (years) | ||||
| < 20 | Reference | |||
| ≥ 20 | 1.1 (0.7–2.4) | 0.360 | ||
| School attendance (respondent) | ||||
| Never attended school | Reference | |||
| Ever attended school | 2.0 (1.2–3.2) | 0.004 | 1.9 (1.1–3.3) | 0.030 |
| Years of education (respondent) | ||||
| < 8 years | Reference | |||
| ≥ 8 years | 1.4 (1.0–2.1) | 0.072 | ||
| School attendance (husband/partner) | ||||
| Never attended school | Reference | |||
| Ever attended school | 1.3 (0.7–2.4) | 0.360 | ||
| ANC attendance | ||||
| Did not attend ANC | Reference | |||
| Attended ANC | 2.4 (0.7–8.7) | 0.175 | ||
| Ideal ANC attendanceb | ||||
| No | Reference | |||
| Yes | 2.3 (1.4–3.7) | 0.001 | 2.0 (1.0–3.8) | 0.040 |
| Marital status | ||||
| Not in a marital union | Reference | |||
| In a marital union | 1.4 (0.9–2.4) | 0.159 | ||
| Not living with marital partner | Reference | |||
| Living with marital partner | 1.3 (0.8–2.1) | 0.376 | ||
| Monogamous | Reference | |||
| Polygamous | 0.6 (0.3–0.9) | 0.024 | 0.7 (0.4–1.3) | 0.228 |
| Pregnancy intention | ||||
| Didn’t want to get pregnant | Reference | |||
| Wanted to get pregnant | 1.5 (1.0–2.2) | 0.040 | 1.5 (0.9–2.6) | 0.106 |
| Gainfully employed past 12 months | ||||
| No | Reference | |||
| Yes | 0.6 (0.4–1.2) | 0.138 | ||
aAdjusted for husband/partner’s age, education (both respondent’s and husband/partner’s), ideal ANC attendance, being in a polygamous relationship and pregnancy intention
bConstitutes having attended ≥ 4 ANC visits, having received information on pregnancy danger signs, having received ≥ 3 tetanus toxoid vaccinations, having received anti-malarial, anti-helminthic and hematinic supplementation