| Literature DB >> 33268407 |
Jackline Oluoch-Aridi1,2, Mary B Adam3, Francis Wafula4, Gilbert Kokwaro4.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify what women want in a delivery health facility and how they rank the attributes that influence the choice of a place of delivery.Entities:
Keywords: health economics; health policy; international health services; organisation of health services; quality in health care
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33268407 PMCID: PMC7713193 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038865
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Final list of attributes and attribute levels included for the DCE
| Attribute | Attribute level |
| Quality of clinical services at the health facility | Good quality services |
| Bad quality services | |
| Attitude of healthcare workers | Kind and supportive healthcare worker |
| Unkind and unsupportive healthcare worker | |
| Availability of medical equipment and supplies | Medical equipment and supplies available |
| Medical equipment and supplies not available | |
| Distance to the health facility | Health facility is close to residence |
| Health facility is far from residence | |
| Referral at the health facility | Referral services available at the health facility |
| Referral services unavailable at the health facility | |
| Cost of delivery service (Ksh) | 3000; 5000; 8000 |
DCE, discrete choice experiment; Ksh, Kenyan shilling.
Example of a scenario in a choice set card that was presented to the women
| The discrete choice experiment on attributes for place of delivery in rural subcounty in Kenya | |||
| Our objective is to conduct a DCE to explore the relative importance of attributes of place of delivery to Kenyan women living in Naivasha Sub-County to try and elucidate what women’s values and their preferences are when they are making choices on place of delivery. You will be provided with a script on a mobile phone and you will be asked to imagine that you are pregnant and you are given a choice between the two health facilities to deliver your baby. Which one would you prefer? Facility A or facility B? You also have the option of choosing none of the two health facilities as option C. There are no right or wrong answers. | |||
| Attribute | Health facility A | Health facility B | Option C |
| Quality of clinical care during delivery | Good quality | Bad quality | (None of the two health facilities—home delivery) |
| Attitude of healthcare workers | Kind and supportive attitude | Unkind attitude | |
| Cost of delivery services | Ksh3000 | Ksh5000 | |
| Availability of equipment and supplies | Equipment supplies not available | Equipment and supplies available | |
| Distance to health facility | Facility is close to home | Facility is far from home | |
| Availability of referral health services | Referral services available | Referral services unavailable | |
| Your choice (tick only one) | □ | □ | □ |
DCE, discrete choice experiment.
Sociodemographic characteristics of women in Naivasha Sub-County (n=466)
| Sociodemographic variables | Naivasha Sub-County |
| n (%) | |
| Age, n (mean (SD)) | 26 (5.1) |
| Marital status | |
| Single | 57 (12) |
| Married | 409 (88) |
| Education | |
| Primary school | 175 (38) |
| Secondary school | 221 (48) |
| University/tertiary | 66 (14) |
| Parity | |
| 1 | 151 (32) |
| ≥2 | 215 (68) |
| Head of household status | |
| Woman not HH | 381 (82) |
| Woman head of HH | 85 (18) |
| Head of household education | |
| Primary school | 100 (27) |
| Secondary school | 196 (53) |
| University/tertiary | 72 (20) |
| Woman’s influence on decision-making within HH | |
| Woman had no influence | 18 (5) |
| Woman had influence | 363 (95) |
| Main earner status | |
| Is not the main earner | 386 (83) |
| Is the main earner | 79 (17) |
| Residence (moves) | |
| Moved in 5 years | 226 (67) |
| Moved over 5 years | 112 (33) |
| Delivery health facility | |
| Public facility | 346 (74) |
| Private facility | 91 (19) |
| Home delivery | 29 (6) |
HH, household.
The base multinomial logit model for a DCE on preferences for place of delivery among women in a rural subcounty
| Attribute | Rural subcounty | ||
| β | Robust SE | 95% CI | |
| Attitude | 1.184*** | 0.037 | 1.11 to 1.25 |
| Medequip | 1.073*** | <0.035 | 1.01 to 1.13 |
| Qualclin | 0.826*** | 0.034 | 0.76 to 0.89 |
| Distance | 0.457*** | 0.031 | 0.39 to 0.52 |
| Referral | 0.266*** | 0.033 | 0.20 to 0.33 |
| Costs | 0.000018*** | 9.40e-06 | 2.55e-06 to 0.00033 |
| ASC | −0.849*** | 0.082 | −0.97 to 0.73 |
Attitude: attitude of healthcare workers. Distance: distance to health facility. Referral: referral service availability. Clean: cleanliness of the health facility.
*Significance at the 90% level; **Significance at the 95% level; ***Significance at the 99% level.
ASC, alternative specific constant; DCE, discrete choice experiment; Medequip, medical equipment and drugs; Qualclin, quality of the clinical delivery services.
The mixed multinomial logit model showing means and SDs to explain preference heterogeneity in choices made by women in rural setting
| Attribute | Mean coefficient values | SD | ||
| β | Robust SE | β | Robust SE | |
| Attitude | 1.972*** | 0.123 | 1.582*** | 0.108 |
| Medequip | 1.764*** | 0.076 | 0.778*** | 0.702 |
| Qualclin | 1.316*** | 0.106 | 1.577*** | 0.126 |
| Distance | 0.759*** | 0.052 | 0.374*** | 0.091 |
| Referral services | 0.436*** | 0.054 | 0.535*** | 0.085 |
| ASC | 0.289* | 0.327 | 3.202*** | 0.179 |
| Cost | −10.089*** | 0.302 | 0.112* | 0.239 |
| Observations (n) | 22 368 | |||
| Wald χ2 | 2173.84 | |||
| Prob>χ2 | 0.0000 | |||
| Log likelihood | −4400.9 | |||
Attitude: attitude of healthcare workers. Distance: distance to the health facilities.
*Significance at the 90% level; **Significance at the 95% level; ***Significance at the 99% level.
ASC, alternative specific constant; Medequip, medical equipment and drugs; Qualclin, quality of clinical services.
The mixed multinomial logit model showing interactions between sociodemographic variables and attributes to explain preference heterogeneity in choices made by women in a rural subcounty
| Attribute | With secondary education (ref)† | With age category 2‡ (ref) | With married (ref) | With main earner (ref) | ||||
| βa | RSE | βa | RSE | βa | RSE | βa | RSE | |
| Interactions (mean parameters) | ||||||||
| Attitude | 0.118 | 0.143 | 0.205 | 0.141 | 0.218 | 0.187 | −0.198 | 0.184 |
| Medequip | −0.124 | 0.09 | −0.131 | 0.092 | −0.419** | 0.144 | 0.172 | 0.125 |
| Qualclin | 0.355** | 0.141 | 0.279** | 0.131 | −0.352 | 0.226 | 0.092 | 0.191 |
| Distance | −0.109 | 0.077 | −0.176** | 0.08 | 0.199* | 0.116 | −0.206** | 0.103 |
| Referral | 0.007 | 0.082** | 0.027 | 0.083 | 0.109 | 0.121 | −0.300** | 0.114 |
| Cost (Ksh)b | 0.00008 | 0.00002 | −0.00003 | 0.00002 | −0.00002 | 0.00003 | −0.00006** | 0.00003 |
| Interactions (SDs) | ||||||||
| Attitude × covariate | −0.347 | 0.225 | 0.549*** | 0.167 | 0.886*** | 0.137 | −0.817*** | 0.244 |
| Medequip × covariate | −0.483*** | 0.090 | −0.416*** | 0.116 | 0.398*** | 0.125 | 0.153 | 0.185 |
| Qualclin × covariate | 0.996*** | 0.220 | 0.920*** | 0.122 | 0.680*** | 0.131 | −0.232 | 0.158 |
| Distance × covariate | −0.093* | 0.093 | −0.026 | 0.086 | −0.133 | 0.099 | 0.018 | 0.142 |
| Referral × covariate | −0.379*** | 0.102 | 0.317** | 0.131 | 0.382*** | 0.085 | 0.379*** | 0.118 |
| Cost × covariate | 0.0000297 | 0.00004 | 5.31e-06 | −0.00002 | 0.00002 | 0.00002 | 0.00002 | 0.00003 |
| Respondents (n) | 466 | 466 | 466 | 466 | 466 | 466 | 466 | 466 |
| Observations (n) | 22 272 | 22 368 | 22 368 | 22 320 | ||||
| Log likelihood | −4493.82 | −4458.93 | −4473.60 | −4472.99 | ||||
| Prob>χ2 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | ||||
| Likelihood ratio χ2 | 1462.9 | 2298.4 | 1052.7 | 909.6 | ||||
*Significance at the 90% level; **Significance at the 95% level; ***Significance at the 99% level.
†The level of education had two dummy variables so we present the referent category (secondary) compared with women with tertiary education. We have included the full results showing the primary education in online supplemental appendix 4.
‡The age was also categorised into three age categories; we only present the results for the second age category (a2) here. The rest are included in this table and in online supplemental appendix 4.
Ksh, Kenyan shilling; RSE, robust standard error.