| Literature DB >> 32993554 |
Anna Galle1, Malica De Melo2, Sally Griffin2, Nafissa Osman2,3, Kristien Roelens4, Olivier Degomme4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role of the male partner and wider family in maternal health, especially in case of emergencies, has been receiving increasing attention over the last decade. Qualitative research has highlighted that women depend on others to access high quality maternity care. Currently little is known about these factors in relation to maternal health in Mozambique.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32993554 PMCID: PMC7526108 DOI: 10.1186/s12884-020-03265-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ISSN: 1471-2393 Impact factor: 3.007
Stratified Sample Technique according to Haddad et al. (2004) for calculating the sample size [28]
| District | Stratum Size (N | Stratum Weight (W | Sample (n |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manhiça | 35,454 | 0.63 | 242 |
| Marracuene | 20,712 | 0.37 | 141 |
Fig. 1Knowledge content ANC by sex in percentage with confidence intervals for proportions
Fig. 2Knowledge danger signs by sex in percentage with confidence intervals for proportions
Decision making and financial support during pregnancy and delivery among participants experiencing a pregnancy in the last 5 years
| Sex | Men ( | Women ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | |
| Man | 66 | 26.09 | 149 | 47.91 |
| Parents-in-law | 1 | 0.40 | 3 | 0.96 |
| Other children | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 |
| Parents | 0 | 0.00 | 4 | 1.29 |
| Woman | 63 | 24.90 | 42 | 13.50 |
| Couple together | 116 | 45.85 | 94 | 30.23 |
| Siblings | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 |
| Others | 7 | 2.77 | 19 | 6.11 |
| Man | 128 | 50.59 | 249 | 80.06 |
| Parents-in-law | 3 | 1.19 | 3 | 0.96 |
| Other children | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 |
| Parents | 2 | 0.79 | 5 | 1.61 |
| Woman | 94 | 37.15 | 17 | 5.47 |
| Couple together | 26 | 10.28 | 30 | 9.65 |
| Siblings | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 |
| Nobody | 2 | 0.79 | 6 | 1.93 |
| Others | 1 | 0.40 | 1 | 0.32 |
| Man | 52 | 20.55 | 46 | 14.79 |
| Parents-in-law | 5 | 1.98 | 6 | 1.93 |
| Other children | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 |
| Parents | 2 | 0.79 | 7 | 2.25 |
| Woman | 57 | 22.53 | 128 | 41.16 |
| Couple together | 124 | 49.01 | 98 | 31.51 |
| Siblings | 1 | 0.40 | 1 | 0.32 |
| Others | 12 | 4.74 | 25 | 8.04 |
| Man | 117 | 46.25 | 199 | 63.99 |
| Parents-in-law | 3 | 1.19 | 9 | 2.89 |
| Other children | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 |
| Parents | 4 | 1.58 | 9 | 2.89 |
| Woman | 85 | 33.60 | 40 | 12.86 |
| Couple together | 39 | 15.42 | 46 | 14.79 |
| Siblings | 1 | 0.40 | 1 | 0.32 |
| Nobody | 8 | 3.16 | 10 | 3.22 |
| Others | 1 | 0.40 | 1 | 0.32 |
aMore than one response possible
Sociodemographic characteristics of the study participants
| Sex | Men | Women | X | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X2 = 22.26 (d.f. = 5) | ||||||
| No education | 35 | 10.09 | 73 | 17.06 | ||
| Primary school (at least 1 year but not finished) | 86 | 24.78 | 124 | 28.97 | ||
| Primary school (finished) | 107 | 30.84 | 101 | 23.60 | ||
| Secondary school (at least 1 year but not finished) | 81 | 23.34 | 104 | 24.40 | ||
| Secondary school (finished) | 22 | 6.34 | 22 | 5.14 | ||
| Higher education | 16 | 4.61 | 4 | 0.93 | ||
| X2 = 6.26 (d.f. = 4) | ||||||
| Single | 18 | 5.19 | 16 | 3.74 | ||
| Monogamous relationship/Married | 292 | 84.15 | 362 | 84.58 | ||
| Polygamous relationship/Married | 7 | 2.02 | 6 | 1.40 | ||
| Divorced/Separated | 29 | 8.36 | 35 | 8.18 | ||
| Widow | 1 | 0.29 | 9 | 2.10 | ||
| X2 = 6.74 (d.f. = 6) | ||||||
| Catholic | 34 | 9.80 | 37 | 8.64 | ||
| Islam | 8 | 2.31 | 10 | 2.34 | ||
| Zione | 85 | 24.50 | 129 | 30.14 | ||
| Protestant | 171 | 49.28 | 195 | 45.56 | ||
| Independent Christian church | 37 | 10.66 | 49 | 11.45 | ||
| No religion | 12 | 3.46 | 7 | 1.64 | ||
| Others | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.23 | ||
| 18–21 | 4 | 1.15 | 34 | 7.94 | X2 = 46.94 (d.f. = 3) | |
| > 21–25 | 34 | 9.80 | 75 | 17.52 | ||
| > 25–35 | 136 | 39.19 | 190 | 44.39 | ||
| > 35 | 173 | 49.86 | 129 | 30.14 | ||
| X2 = 365.23 (d.f. = 10) | ||||||
| Public sector (exc. Agriculture) | 27 | 7.78 | 8 | 1.87 | ||
| Private sector (exc. Agriculture) | 135 | 38.90 | 22 | 5.14 | ||
| Own business | 102 | 29.39 | 70 | 16.36 | ||
| Agriculture (commercialized) | 8 | 2.31 | 14 | 3.27 | ||
| Agriculture (own usage) | 10 | 2.88 | 113 | 26.40 | ||
| Housekeeper | 8 | 2.31 | 14 | 3.27 | ||
| Student | 1 | 0.29 | 6 | 1.40 | ||
| Seasonal worker | 18 | 5.19 | 2 | 0.47 | ||
| Unemployed | 9 | 2.59 | 7 | 1.64 | ||
| Homemaker/housewife | 0 | 0 | 159 | 37.15 | ||
| Others | 29 | 8.36 | 13 | 3.04 | ||
Levels of significance:. = p < 0.1; * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01
Inter rater reliability by percentage of agreement and Cohen’s Kappa among couples
| Percentage Agreement | Cohen’s Kappa | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | K | ||
| Male presence at ANC | 107 | 65.24 | 0.242 | 0.0017 |
| Person who takes final decisions concerning ANC | 60 | 36.58 | 0.095 | 0.0414 |
| Person who financial support for ANC comes from (transport and other costs) | 84 | 51.21 | 0.105 | 0.0085 |
| Person who takes final decision about place of birth | 64 | 39.02 | 0.124 | 0.0072 |
| Person who makes savings during pregnancy for the delivery | 65 | 39.63 | 0.037 | 0.43 |
Predictors of knowledge of danger signs of men with their coefficients of the binomial regression model
| Variables | Poor knowledge of danger signs (0 or 1) | Some Knowledge (2 or more) | Beta coefficient | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| % (n) | % (n) | |||
| No | 31.58(6) | 68.42(13) | REF | REF |
| Primary Level | 39.02(80) | 60.98(125) | −0.32 | 0.57 |
| Secondary Level | 43.75(7) | 56.25(9) | −0.31 | 0.68 |
| Higher | 23.08(3) | 76.92(10) | −0.24 | 0.29 |
| 18–21 | 33.33(3) | 66.67(6) | REF | REF |
| 21–25 | 44.44(12) | 55.56(15) | −1.02 | 0.23 |
| 25–35 | 38.94(44) | 61.06(69) | −0.55 | 0.48 |
| > 35 | 35.58(37) | 64.42(67) | −0.63 | 0.43 |
| Single | 37.14(13) | 62.86(22) | REF | REF |
| In relationship | 38.07(83) | 61.93(135) | −0.13 | 0.76 |
| Hospital | 37.92(91) | 62.08(149) | REF | REF |
| At home | 38.46(5) | 61.54(8) | 0.06 | 0.92 |
| 0 ANCs | 37.50(3) | 62.50(5) | REF | REF |
| < 4 ANCs | 28.57(10) | 71.43(25) | 0.24 | 0.78 |
| > =4 ANCs | 29.36(32) | 70.64(77) | 0.13 | 0.87 |
| Don’t know | 50.50(51) | 49.50(50) | −0.58 | 0.47 |
| No | 53.09(43) | 46.91(38) | REF | REF |
| Yes | 30.81(53) | 69.19(119) | 0.73 | 0.01 |
| No | 43.23(67) | 56.77(88) | REF | REF |
| Yes | 29.59(29) | 70.41(69) | 0.32 | 0.29 |
| 0–2 | 32.35(11) | 67.65(23) | REF | REF |
| 3–5 | 38.51(62) | 61.49(99) | −0.30 | 0.49 |
| > 5 | 39.66(23) | 60.34(35) | − 0.39 | 0.43 |
Levels of significance:. = p < 0.1; * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01
Predictors of knowledge of danger signs of women with their coefficients of the binomial regression model
| Variables | Poor knowledge of danger signs (0 or 1) | Some Knowledge (2 or more) | Beta coefficient | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| % (n) | % (n) | |||
| No | 31.43(11) | 68.57(24) | REF | REF |
| Primary Level | 28.46(72) | 71.54(181) | −0.07 | 0.86 |
| Secondary Level | 30.00(6) | 70.00(14) | −0.27 | 0.65 |
| Higher | 66.66(2) | 33.33(1) | −1.07 | 0.46 |
| 18–21 | 29.55(13) | 70.45(31) | REF | REF |
| 21–25 | 29.51(18) | 70.49(43) | 0.01 | 0.99 |
| 25–35 | 29.61(45) | 70.39(107) | 0.02 | 0.98 |
| > 35 | 27.78(15) | 72.22(39) | 0.24 | 0.62 |
| Not in relationship | 28.89(13) | 71.11(32) | REF | REF |
| In relationship | 29.32(78) | 70.68(188) | −0.14 | 0.73 |
| Hospital | 29.35(86) | 70.65(207) | REF | REF |
| At home | 27.78(5) | 72.22(13) | 0.32 | 0.59 |
| 0 ANCs | 53.85(7) | 46.15(66 | REF | REF |
| < 4 ANCs | 32.08(17) | 67.92(36) | 0.87 | 0.18 |
| > =4 ANCs. | 28.38(63) | 71.62(159) | 1.03 | 0.08 |
| Don’t know* | 17.39(4) | 82.61(19) | 1.73 | 0.03 |
| No | 40.00(30) | 60.00(45) | REF | REF |
| Yes* | 25.85(61) | 74.15(175) | 0.68 | 0.03 |
| No | 31.82(70) | 68.18(150) | REF | REF |
| Yes | 23.08(21) | 76.92(70) | 0.33 | 0.32 |
| 0–2 | 17.07(7) | 82.93(34) | REF | REF |
| 3–5. | 30.57(59) | 69.43(134) | −0.88 | 0.06 |
| > 5. | 32.47(25) | 67.53(52) | −0.95 | 0.06 |
Levels of significance:. = p < 0.1; * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01