| Literature DB >> 31638927 |
Tensae Mekonnen1, Tinashe Dune2,3, Janette Perz2.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Sub-Saharan Africa has the highest rate of adolescent pregnancy in the world. While pregnancy during adolescence poses higher risks for the mother and the baby, the utilisation of maternity care to mitigate the effects is low. This review aimed to synthesise evidence on adolescent mothers' utilisation of maternity care in Sub-Saharan Africa and identify the key determinant factors that influence adolescent mothers' engagement with maternity care.Entities:
Keywords: Adolescents; Antenatal care; Maternal health care; Service utilisation; Skilled birth delivery; Sub-Saharan Africa; Teenage pregnancy
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31638927 PMCID: PMC6805384 DOI: 10.1186/s12884-019-2501-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ISSN: 1471-2393 Impact factor: 3.007
Summary of the inclusion/exclusion criteria and keywords
| Location | Sub-Saharan Africa | Out of Africa | Sub-Saharan Africa (Document text) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Language | Written in English | Other languages | Select for English only |
| Time | Any | None | N/A |
| Population | Literature which include teenagers | Literature which doesn’t focus on teenagers | Teenagers (Abstract) or adolescent (Abstract) or young age (Abstract) or youth (Abstract) |
| Phenomena/Target | Studies concerned with maternal health care utilisation by teenagers which includes; ANC, Skilled birth delivery and postnatal care | Not concerned with maternal health care utilisation by teenagers which includes ANC, skilled birth delivery and postnatal care | AND Antenatal (Title) OR ANC (Title) OR Matern* (Title) OR Skilled birth delivery (Title) OR Institutional delivery (Title) OR Skilled birth OR PNC (Title) OR Pregnancy care (Title) OR Prenatal care (Title) OR Pregnancy care |
| Study/literature type | Published primary research including qualitative, quantitative and mixed method designs | Published literature which don’t include qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods of data collection and analysis | N/A |
Fig. 1Article Selection Process
Characteristics of included studies
| No | Authors/Year | Country of study | Sample size | Type of care | Outcome measured | Study design/data collection method | Data Analysis | Theoretical Approach |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | [ | Ethiopia | 994 women aged between 14 and 19 | ANC | Factors influencing the utilisation of ANC | Survey/ Quantitative | Bivariate and multivariate analyses | N/A |
| 2 | [ | Kenya | 1675 women aged 15–24 | ANC | Relationship between timing of first (ANC) visit and type of delivery assistance | Survey/ Quantitative | Multivariate logistic regression | N/A |
| 3 | [ | Nigeria | 2434 married adolescents aged 15–19 | ANC, Delivery and PNC | Factors associated with maternity services | Survey/ Quantitative | Pearson chi-square test and binary logistic regression | N/A |
| 4 | [ | Mali | 1646 adolescent mothers age 15–19 | ANC, Delivery and PNC | Factors associated with the utilisation of maternal services | Survey/Quantitative | Bivariate and multivariate analyses | N/A |
| 5 | [ | Zimbabwe | 80 adolescent mothers aged 19 or younger | ANC | Factors influencing adolescents‘ non-utilisation of ANC services | Quantitative | Descriptive (Frequency and proportion | Health belief model |
| 6 | [ | Niger | 934 adolescent mothers aged 15–19 | ANC, Safe delivery and Immunization | Potential factors associated with the utilisation of MCH care services | Survey/Quantitative | Multivariate logistic regression models | N/A |
| 7 | [ | Malawi | 615 adolescents aged 10–19 years | ANC | Why antenatal care (ANC) programs for adolescents may need to be improved? | Quantitative | Chi-square test and binary logistic regression | N/A |
| 8 | [ | Tanzania | ANC | Factors influencing early and late ANC attendance | Quantitative | logistic regression models | N/A | |
| 9 | [ | Sub-Saharan Africa | Data from 20 countries (total of 74,559 births) | Safe delivery | Perceived size of newborn and caesarean section deliveries among teenagers | Quantitative and comparative study | Multiple logistic regression models | N/A |
| 10 | [ | Swaziland | Safe delivery and PNC | Quality of maternity care | Quantitative and qualitative | Content analysis | Donabedian’s (1988) model | |
| 11 | [ | South Africa | ANC | Communication in ANC | Qualitative | Tesch‘s method of data analysis (Creswell, 2008:186) | N/A | |
| 12 | [ | Zimbabwe | ANC and PMTCT | Gaps in service uptake | Quantitative and retrospective analysis | Multivariable binomial regression analysis | N/A | |
| 13 | [ | Nigeria | ANC, safe delivery and PNC | Prevalence of pregnancy Complications and interventions | Quantitative | Fisher’s exact test | N/A | |
| 14 | [ | Kenya | 898 female adolescents between 15 and 19 years | ANC, skilled birth attendance and PNC | Factors that impact maternity care utilisation | Survey/ Quantitative | Bivariate and multivariate analyses | N/A |
| 15 | [ | Sudan | 459 | ANC and safe delivery | Risk of anaemia, operative delivery, and perinatal complications | Quantitative | Chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test | N/A |
| 16 | [ | Kenya | 278 adolescent mothers aged 19 and younger | ANC | Factors affecting utilisation of ANC | Survey/ Quantitative | Bivariate and multivariate analyses | N/A |
| 17 | [ | South Africa | 383 | ANC | Factors that influence ANC uptake | Quantitative and qualitative | Bivariate and multivariate analyses | N/A |
| 18 | [ | Malawi | 2160 adolescent married women aged 15–19 | ANC and PNC | Factors that influence ANC and PNC | Survey/ Quantitative | Bivariate and multivariate analyses | N/A |
| 19 | [ | Sub-Saharan Africa | Data from 21 DHS countries were pooled | ANC and Delivery | Association between maternal age ANC and delivery care | Survey/Quantitative | Bivariate and multivariate analyses | N/A |
| 20 | [ | Tanzania | Adolescents aged 15–20 years | ANC and RH service | Barriers to SRH care | Qualitative/focus group | Thematic analysis | Phenomenology |
| 21 | [ | Kenya | 393 adolescents aged 15–19 | ANC, skilled birth attendance and PNC | Factors that influence ANC and PNC. | Quantitative | Multilevel logit models | N/A |
| 22 | [ | Uganda | ANC | Factors affecting utilisation of teenager friendly ANC | Qualitative | Thematic analysis | N/A | |
| 23 | [ | Developing countries | ANC, safe delivery and immunisation. | Utilisation of ANC, delivery and PNC | Survey/Quantitative | Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression | N/A | |
| 24 | [ | Kenya | 301 adolescent mothers aged 15–19 years | ANC, safe delivery and PNC | Maternity care utilisation | Survey/Quantitative | Bivariate and multivariate analyses | N/A |
| 25 | [ | Central and west Africa | Adults aged 20–49 and Adolescent aged 10–19 | ANC | HIV testing in ANC | Survey/Quantitative | Bivariate and multivariate analyses | N/A |
| 26 | [ | South Africa | 18 adolescent,15–19 yrs | ANC and PNC | Maternity care perception | Qualitative | Grounded theory | |
| 27 | [ | Kenya | 13–19 years | ANC | Factors influencing utilisation of antenatal care service among teenagers | Survey/Quantitative | chi square test and logistic regression | N/A |
Quality assessment for included studies
| Component | Item | Quality criteria description | Banke-Thomas, 2016 | Magadi, 2007 | Brabin, 1998 | Magadi, 2002 | Reynolds, 2006 | Ebeigbe, 2007 | Magadi | Elhassan | Chaibva, l,2009 | Alemayhue, 2010 | Birungi, 2011 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objectives | 1 | State specific objectives, including any pre-specified hypotheses | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Methods | |||||||||||||
| Study design | 2 | Present key elements of study design early in the paper | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Setting | 3 | Describe the setting, locations, and relevant dates, including periods of recruitment, exposure, follow-up, and data collection | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Participants | 4 | Give the eligibility criteria, and the sources and methods of selection of participants | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Variables | 5 | Clearly define all outcomes, exposures, predictors, potential confounders, and effect modifiers. | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Data sources/ measurement | 6 | For each variable of interest, give sources of data and details of methods of assessment (measurement). | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Bias | 7 | Describe any efforts to address potential sources of bias | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| Study size | 8 | Explain how the study size was arrived at | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| Quantitative variables | 9 | Explain how quantitative variables were handled in the analyses. If applicable, describe which groupings were chosen and why | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Statistical methods | 10 | Describe all statistical methods, including those used to control for confounding | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 11 | Explain how missing data were addressed | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| Results | |||||||||||||
| Participants | 12 | Report numbers of participants and study and response rate | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |
| Descriptive data | 13 | Give characteristics of study participants (eg demographic, clinical, social) and information on exposures and potential confounders | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| Main results | 14 | Give unadjusted estimates and, if applicable, confounder-adjusted estimates and their precision (eg, 95% confidence interval). Make clear which confounders were adjusted for and why they were included | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Discussion | |||||||||||||
| Key Results | 15 | Summarise key results with reference to study objectives | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | |
| Limitations | 16 | Discuss limitations of the study, taking into account sources of potential bias or imprecision. Discuss both direction and magnitude of any potential bias | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | ||
| Interpretation | 17 | Give a cautious overall interpretation of results considering objectives, limitations, multiplicity of analyses, results from similar studies, and other relevant evidence | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| Quality score | 32 | 26 | 24 | 16 | 31 | 17 | 27 | 17 | 23 | 23 | 24 | ||
| % Quality score | 94 | 77 | 70 | 47 | 91 | 50 | 79 | 50 | 67 | 67 | 70 | ||
| Component | item | Quality criteria description | Ochako, 2011 | Gross, 2012 | Rai, 2012 | Rai l, 2013 | Singh, 2006 | Rai, 2014 | Worku, 2016 | Banke-Thomas.2017 | Helleringer, 2017 | Musarandega, 2017 | Ronen, 2017 |
| Objectives | 1 | State specific objectives, including any pre-specified hypotheses | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Methods | |||||||||||||
| Study design | 2 | Present key elements of study design early in the paper | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Setting | 3 | Describe the setting, locations, and relevant dates, including periods of recruitment, exposure, follow-up, and data collection | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Participants | 4 | Give the eligibility criteria, and the sources and methods of selection of participants | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Variables | 5 | Clearly define all outcomes, exposures, predictors, potential confounders, and effect modifiers. | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| Data sources/ measurement | 6 | For each variable of interest, give sources of data and details of methods of assessment (measurement). | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| Bias | 7 | Describe any efforts to address potential sources of bias | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Study size | 8 | Explain how the study size was arrived at | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Quantitative variables | 9 | Explain how quantitative variables were handled in the analyses. If applicable, describe which groupings were chosen and why | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | |
| Statistical methods | 10 | Describe all statistical methods, including those used to control for confounding | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 11 | Explain how missing data were addressed | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
| Results | |||||||||||||
| Participants | 12 | Report numbers of participants and study and response rate | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Descriptive data | 13 | Give characteristics of study participants (eg demographic, clinical, social) and information on exposures and potential confounders | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| Main results | 14 | Give unadjusted estimates and, if applicable, confounder-adjusted estimates and their precision (eg, 95% confidence interval). Make clear which confounders were adjusted for and why they were included | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Discussion | |||||||||||||
| Key results | 15 | Summarise key results with reference to study objectives | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Limitations | 16 | Discuss limitations of the study, taking into account sources of potential bias or imprecision. Discuss both direction and magnitude of any potential bias | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Interpretation | 17 | Give a cautious overall interpretation of results considering objectives, limitations, multiplicity of analyses, results from similar studies, and other relevant evidence | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
|
| 25 | 19 | 26 | 24 | 24 | 24 | 27 | 29 | 21 | 23 | 19 | ||
| % Quality score | 73 | 55 | 76 | 70 | 70 | 70 | 79 | 85 | 61 | 67 | 55 | ||
Fig. 2ANC attendance during pregnancy by adolescent mothers in Sub Saharan Africa (ANC1+)
Fig. 3Four or more ANC visits during pregnancy by adolescent mothers in Sub-Saharan Africa
Fig. 4Proportion of adolescent women who accessed skilled care during delivery in Sub-Saharan Africa
Fig. 5Postnatal care utilisation by adolescent mothers in Sub-Saharan Africa
Fig. 6A socioecological analysis of factors influencing adolescent mothers’ engagement with maternity care in Sub-Saharan Africa